Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by SayOw, Nov 25, 2012.
Maybe the team should change it's name to the Tin Men, since they seem to play with no heart.
Literate people. Illiterates just look at Instagram.
Wouldnt that make Norv the Scarecrow? If he only had a brain...
I don’t do either one and I could care less about them so where does that put me in the hierarchy of everything?
^^^ You're with the rest of us, on the verge of Geezerdom...
You guys have a thread on this and not one mention that they only got 28 yards?
They got stopped, the game was over, and the refs gifted them an extra yard and a first down.
His knee is clearly down short of the 35 and the ball is barely in front of where the knee hits. Its the definition of indisputable visual evidence.....that spot was utter bull ****.
I thought it was 28 & 1/2 yards, but the initial call was first down Balt. by the refs. The replay on the big screen actually showed where our defense stopped him short of the marker.
Then there was the review which seemed to last for 5 minutes.
Then the head ref made his ruling, which gave the Chargers the ball and a first down.
Then, it looked like Baltimort challenged the spot, and the chains were sent out for a measurement. The spot was very generous indeed. The refs reversed it back to first down for the black birds. The rest is pointless, we lost to the refs and the opposing team again.
I guess none of you slackers care that the block in the back of Weddle by Bolden that sprung Rice was fargin illegal and no flag was thrown by the Zebras again because it was "JUST a fargin Chargers player"? This crap stinks to high heaven and I am ashamed of this fargin thread. Screw the re-spot of the ball - it should have been 15 yards back from the spot of the foul!
Weddle said, after the game:
“I saw the replay. He got me in the backside. I was getting ready to tackle (Rice) when he got me in the back. Obviously, if you get hit like that, it's a block in the back, but they didn't call it.”
IMHO, it was worse than that - it SHOULD have been a clear violation of the "Players in a Defenseless Posture" rule - see NFL Rule Book 2012, Article 7, (a), 8 - A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side.
Now look at that play again.
Oh yeah, and screw Hank Bauer for saying it was a legal hit on the radio. Guess that made it "all OK" in kiddy-land.
^^^ Maybe Hank needed that paycheck to help to defray the cost of his Black Friday shopping excursion at Macy's...
Yeah that's true about it should have been a penalty as well and that makes it even worse I agree, and Weddle would have made the tackle most likely if not for the illegal block. Peter King wrote it should have been a penalty as well
....but sometimes penalties are missed. I even understand how they got the spot wrong initially. The replay however is indisputable, no way they can look at that and then spot the ball where they did.
I never saw or heard any ref signal first down SD, and there was no challenges issued by either team....it was under 2 minutes and they are not allowed. Here is a blurry screen, but even this lame quality is enought to show it. You see the chalk, so his knee is down a bit before the 35. For the ball to be at the 34 with his knee in that spot he would have to be lying flat on the ground....he is a short man. He is clearly not lying flat when his knee is down. The ball should be at most a foot past the 35 yard line.
Yeah., I suspected the spot was bogus., but really, at that point I didn't even care.......I was so F'n blown away that he had got that close to begin with.
Really it doesn't matter if they got 5 yards or 28.9 yards...they needed 29.
I am perfectly happy letting them get that close.
I am pretty mad they were allowed an illegal crackback block, a non-call personal foul to boot, and a phantom yard to enable the conversion.
Here is my bottom line as far as that "play" was concerned - every crew of zebras have made up their mind the Chargers are somehow "not worthy", so through selective enforcement of the rules - and more often *failure* to enforce the rules and little crap like questionable spots and "judgement calls" they will make damn sure of it.
Please don't interpret this as somehow wanting to defend Norval or AJ Smith - I wanted them gone last year... Now more than ever. A change of ownership wouldn't kill me either at this point. But damnit watching the Zebras do their thing week after week fargin sux a root.
Our season is now on 4th and 29, only difference is we will probably get picked off.
Add in that we can likely rule out Weddle for the game against Cincy (since it's highly unlikely he passes the requisite tests for the concussion he got on that crackback block from Boldin - which come Tuesday or Wednesday, bank on it, he'll be fined for), and it's all the more frustrating.
Then again, try things over on my forums where there are Ravens fans trying to argue that because of the context of 4th and 29 this should be considered up there with the top plays of the year. And yet, when I (and a number of others - many of which aren't Chargers fans) contend that if we're going to consider context then consider the whole context - that there was an uncalled personal foul that directly led to Rice getting the requisite yardage, that everyone save our four downed linemen were in prevent and Rice was afforded the opportunity to get up to full speed before he met any defender (something rarely afforded to a RB), and the controversy surrounding the spot and the clusterpharunk that followed with the zebras not being able to get their stories straight - it's hardly that, these Ravens fans are getting completely bent out of shape, calling us "haters", and saying we're trying to overlook Rice's "unique football attributes" (when what I said was that under similar circumstances any number of RB's could have made that same play including, but not limited to, Peterson, Charles, Sproles, McCoy, Foster, Martin, Richardson, Forte, and probably even Reggie Bush).
I don't know fellas--3 guys had already missed. I'd say this is more on the Chargers than the refs.
4th and 29 with a lot of injuries. I'd say we're entering rebuilding mode right now.
Yeah, the block in the back is more and more obvious every time I look at that play.. terrible call for a league who has been so strict on player safety..
But still we over pursed Ray Rice, we had 3 defenders over pursue him. Why couldn't they contain?
In the mid 2000's updating your My Space page??? LOL
In the future, the football will have a chip in it synchronized with the game clock
with a gps sensor that locates the ball within a centimeter of when a player is called
down or the play is stopped. Video review will be almost instantaneous and the game
will have less human errors attributed to the few actual human refs on the field.
By then, I of course, will surely be dead and bloated...plus the Chargers will be playing
in the New Wembley Stadium.
Until that day comes, this kind of shite will continue to happen on a weekly basis.
Unless I'm interpreting it wrong, it wasn't an illegal crackback block. From the NFL rulebook:
Article 2: Illegal Crackback Block. It is an Illegal Crackback Block if a defensive player is contacted below the waist within an area five yards on either side of the line of scrimmage, including within close-line play, by an offensive player who is moving toward the position from which the ball was snapped, and: (1) The offensive player was aligned on the line of scrimmage more than two yards outside an offensive tackle (flexed) when the ball was snapped; or (2) The offensive player was in a backfield position when the ball was snapped and moved to a position more than two yards outside an offensive tackle. Note 1: If there is a broken play, significantly changing the original direction, the crackback block is legal. When the change in direction is the result of a designed play (reverse), the restriction remains in effect.
Now, according to Rule 12, Section 1, Article 3(b),
Penalty: For illegal use of hands by the offense: Loss of 10 yards.
(b) Blocks an opponent (from behind) in the back above the opponent’s waist, or uses his hands or arms to push an opponent from behind in a manner that affects his movement, except in close-line play.
This should have been applied, and the loss would have been from the line of scrimmage.
It's an illegal blindside block. The CBA does a weird job of illustrating exactly what constitutes an illegal blindside block other than to refer the reader to that Section 8 under defenseless player.
However, Joshua Gordon was cited, and fined, this season by the league for an almost identical play against the Ravens' own Ed Reed (arguably he hit Reed more from the "side" than Boldin struck Weddle). Evidently all that's required to constitute an illegal blindside block is that the player making the block be blocking in the direction of his own team's endline (i.e. the goal zone they're playing away from) and that he block the player from behind or the side.
It's honestly a sketchy rule, as how exactly are they suggesting the player should block the defender? To wait until they can square up on the defender from in front of them and them block them upfield or to just not make a block because the can't do so without blindsiding the defender, even if it means your runner getting creamed? It's the sort of block that when the game's on the line, you want your player throwing if yours is the team running the ball. It's a fine that you as a player have no qualms about paying if it resulted in your team coming out with the 'W'. It is, however, under the letter of the law, illegal and should have been flagged... and will be fined.
Here's the Gordon block on Reed, for which he was fined $20K by the league:
You tell me if that isn't damn near identical to what Boldin did to Weddle.
it is where the ball is when his knee hit the ground.
I called it a clip in the game day thread and I believe LBC is correct as far as the blindside now being called illegal. In truth though that play should never have gotten that far. The only thing I know for sure is that if it can happen it probably will to the Chargers.
^^^ I wonder if the space-bound Mayans have instant replay... What if the Aliens don't allow next season to happen?
There won't be anymore 4th and 29's to worry about!
^^^ Maybe if they played by Mayan rules:
The sacred Ball Court was the site of a brutal Mayan sport. The field, approximately the size of a football field, is bordered by two imposing walls 26 feet tall. Seven combatants on each team tried to get a small rubber ball to go through a small stone hoop 23 feet above the ground supposedly without using their hands or feet to touch the ball. Virtually all descriptions of the native Mexican ballgames stress that hands were not allowed to touch the ball. Yet two 8th century Maya sculptures and several Peten Maya vases show players with their hands on the ball. It is believed that the losers of this game were often sacraficed to the Gods. These Mayan games predate the olympics by about 500 years!
Legends say that the the winning captain would present his head to the losing captain, who then decapitates him. While this may seem a strange reward, the Mayans believed this to be the ultimate honor. The winning captain getting a direct ticket to heaven instead of going through the 13 steps that the Mayan's believed they had to go through in order to reach heaven...
Well, it almost sounds like Charger football...
Rivers does lose his head a lot, but isn't winning so much. Sounds like we got that one backwards too
There is one other team plays like this happen to and that's the Detroit Lions.
Separate names with a comma.