Packer Game Day Thread [Packers 7-9]

[pacopete4]

Some totally baffling calls by the refs today. As much as we love to grind on umps over their strikezone, NFL referees do a pretty terrible job as well. And don't get me started on spotting the ball.

 

Spotting the ball is one thing but they just hand out first downs nowadays. Anywhere close to the line and the ref immediately signals the chains to be moving.

[young guns]

The overturning of the 4th down stop on Elliott, which might be a bit overlooked because it didn't cost us the gsme fortunately, was beyond awful as well.

 

First of all, it didn't appear conclusive on the Elliot reach that he reached the 19 which is what he needed for the 1st.

 

Even excusing that, here's the more important part: A 'reach' like that for a spot is not the same damn thing as breaking the plane of the goalline. The runner has to maintain that spot or have his forward progress stopped by the opposition at that point. Elliot reaches out for a moment, and then on his own accord, presumably to avoid fumbling, pulls the ball back, thus giving up his right to that spot.

 

And yet even with the benefit of replay he is awarded the most favorable possible spot.

 

Absolutely inexplicable overturn and the officials should be embarrassed having apparently not understood the rule.

I agree. I was yelling at the tv "he pulled it back!?". Its a good thing those calls didnt cost us the game but they could have easily.

[homer]

You'd think they could do some GPS thing inside the ball that would place it exactly where it needs to be.

[MrTPlush]

You'd think they could do some GPS thing inside the ball that would place it exactly where it needs to be.

 

I've thought of that for years, literally years. It almost makes too much sense.

[brwrsfan]

You'd think they could do some GPS thing inside the ball that would place it exactly where it needs to be.

 

I've thought of that for years, literally years. It almost makes too much sense.

 

I'm sure they could but I don't think it's really that simple. First, where do you put it? I guess you'd have to put it on both tips of the ball. Second, They'd also need to be virtually weightless - uneven weight will change he flight of the ball, adding weight makes it harder to throw, etc.

 

Even if they somehow did it, how do you quickly figure out where to spot it? Seems like it would take forever, and still not be very easy...what about plays with second or third efforts in short yardage?

 

I agree that spotting of the ball is awful but I just don't know how they can feasibly do some sort of GPS - but there are certainly people smarter than me, maybe they'll figure something out some day.

 

I also agree that Elliot play is dead wrong. Unless he holds the ball there until the whistle is blown or he's pulled back, he didn't deserve that spot, he pulls it back willingly on his own. That's pretty blatantly giving up the spot in any situation that isn't the goal line. This is extreme but would it really be any differebt than a guy who has the first down but on his own falls backwards (and is then touched) or falls out of bounds?? It's the exact same thing to me, player moves the ball back without force able contact in that direction, they get the worse spot.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Since it's been made a challengeable play, I think spotting the ball has become much improved at the NFL level - and they have camera technology to thank for that. I remember as a kid watching the chain gang have to come out 12-15 times per game to "measure" what were questionable spots to begin with...you could see on the tv replay the ball was spotted a yard further or short of where it was supposed to be. At least now coaches have a way to challenge crucial spots during the course of games.

 

Yes, there are still problems with spotting the ball - but I don't see the point of putting a GPS on it. That doesn't correct issues with forward progress, or with plays where they are looking for where a knee/shin/elbow hits the ground right as the ball is approaching a line to gain/goal line. To me, that's going to lead to more delays in a game that already takes almost 4 hours to complete even though there's roughly only 20 minutes of solid action during a 60 minute clock.

[igor67]

GPS would actually far less accurate then what they do right now. It would have to be some other type of technology, but GPS only gets you accurate to a couple of feet.

[young guns]

I think before we go with gps in the ball we would have to start with sensors along the goal line first. Something that can detect when the ball goes over the line with some sort of indicator somewhere, possibly similar to the red light around the backboard in basketball, where if you are trying to determine knee down situations you can clearly tell exactly when the ball crosses as well as the did it cross situations. Once we get something like that established and working well for a few years then i dont think ot would be too much of a leap to expand to using something like that to spot the ball.

 

Then its just a matter of figuring out how to do it without screwing with the ball too much and implementing a quick, like near instantaneous, relay system. Then you could have stuff like sensors in the knee pads and other areas where youre down by contact that can detemine when a players on the ground, possibly combined with some sort of glove that can tell when a ball starts to come out and we can get down and fumble calls right and immediately. Though some of that is either decades away or just wishful thinking lol.

[bani1717]

The overturning of the 4th down stop on Elliott, which might be a bit overlooked because it didn't cost us the gsme fortunately, was beyond awful as well.

 

First of all, it didn't appear conclusive on the Elliot reach that he reached the 19 which is what he needed for the 1st.

 

Even excusing that, here's the more important part: A 'reach' like that for a spot is not the same damn thing as breaking the plane of the goalline. The runner has to maintain that spot or have his forward progress stopped by the opposition at that point. Elliot reaches out for a moment, and then on his own accord, presumably to avoid fumbling, pulls the ball back, thus giving up his right to that spot.

 

And yet even with the benefit of replay he is awarded the most favorable possible spot.

 

Absolutely inexplicable overturn and the officials should be embarrassed having apparently not understood the rule.

I agree. I was yelling at the tv "he pulled it back!?". Its a good thing those calls didnt cost us the game but they could have easily.

 

I agree that on a play like that, the runner should not be given the benefit of the better spot when he pulls the ball back voluntarily, but I assumed that the rule was enforced correctly given that he had already been contacted and was therefore given his farthest spot after contact. Also, I don't think Pereira chimed in about it. With that said, even if the rule was enforced correctly, it's still an issue in my mind, just a rules issue as opposed to an officiating error.

 

The other potential issue on a play like that is knowing when exactly the whistle blew and whether it was due to forward progress being stopped or being down by contact. I can't remember if a body part touched the ground before the whistle on that play or not. If the ruling on the field was that his forward progress was stopped, then it seems like that play shouldn't be reviewable unless you also can hear the whistle in the replay, because without that whistle then you're asking the official to judge when forward progress was stopped all over again.

[OnTheBlack]

The overturning of the 4th down stop on Elliott, which might be a bit overlooked because it didn't cost us the gsme fortunately, was beyond awful as well.

 

First of all, it didn't appear conclusive on the Elliot reach that he reached the 19 which is what he needed for the 1st.

 

Even excusing that, here's the more important part: A 'reach' like that for a spot is not the same damn thing as breaking the plane of the goalline. The runner has to maintain that spot or have his forward progress stopped by the opposition at that point. Elliot reaches out for a moment, and then on his own accord, presumably to avoid fumbling, pulls the ball back, thus giving up his right to that spot.

 

And yet even with the benefit of replay he is awarded the most favorable possible spot.

 

Absolutely inexplicable overturn and the officials should be embarrassed having apparently not understood the rule.

I agree. I was yelling at the tv "he pulled it back!?". Its a good thing those calls didnt cost us the game but they could have easily.

 

I don't think the fact that he pulled it back matters. I believe it's supposed to be awarded at the furthest position before you're ruled down or your forward momentum was stopped. He was on the pile, trying to dive over it when he reached the ball out. That should be a 1st down....IF you can conclusively rule that the refs were wrong and that he actually reached the yard to gain there(it was the 19th I believe). The refs ruled him short, the replays IMO didn't show conclusively he got the 19. You certainly can't see anything other than when you use the overhead angle and that didn't appear to be directly over the top. It looked like the overhead cam was from behind him a bit. So not conclusive. At least IMO.

[brewcrewdue80]

You'd think they could do some GPS thing inside the ball that would place it exactly where it needs to be.

 

I've thought of that for years, literally years. It almost makes too much sense.

 

I'm sure they could but I don't think it's really that simple. First, where do you put it? I guess you'd have to put it on both tips of the ball. Second, They'd also need to be virtually weightless - uneven weight will change he flight of the ball, adding weight makes it harder to throw, etc.

 

Even if they somehow did it, how do you quickly figure out where to spot it? Seems like it would take forever, and still not be very easy...what about plays with second or third efforts in short yardage?

 

I agree that spotting of the ball is awful but I just don't know how they can feasibly do some sort of GPS - but there are certainly people smarter than me, maybe they'll figure something out some day.

 

I also agree that Elliot play is dead wrong. Unless he holds the ball there until the whistle is blown or he's pulled back, he didn't deserve that spot, he pulls it back willingly on his own. That's pretty blatantly giving up the spot in any situation that isn't the goal line. This is extreme but would it really be any differebt than a guy who has the first down but on his own falls backwards (and is then touched) or falls out of bounds?? It's the exact same thing to me, player moves the ball back without force able contact in that direction, they get the worse spot.

 

I am fine with Refs placement for Elliot's Forward progress. He's obviously in the grasps of tacklers and stretching is his forward progress. I wouldn't agree with the placement if he still had his feet under him and backed up(not due to tackling) and then tried to regain more yards.

 

As to the GPS idea, how can that work? If Elliot is say down and stretches the ball any further, how is the GPS knowing at what point he was down? How does the GPS know when the whistle is blown and stopping that play? If it's a receiver who catches a ball falling down, but then gets back up because he wasn't downed by contact. Well, If that GPS ball marks where it feels the players body was down, it's wrong because the play was still ongoing.

 

Really good start to the season, to be 4-1, I feel is ahead of normal and comes with the rash of injuries. Having wins over Seattle and now Dallas are big in the Playoff seeding if it comes to that.

Also, Division Lead alone! Detroit final game of season, you wonder, should the division be locked at that point, are you resting Rodgers and others for Playoffs. I know, getting ahead of myself, but they are 12-2 in last 14games with Atlanta being responsible for those 2 losses. Minnesota is a wreck offensively and Detroit gets to deal with a hurt Stafford. Expect to run away with division.

[Baldkin]

I am fine with Refs placement for Elliot's Forward progress. He's obviously in the grasps of tacklers and stretching is his forward progress. I wouldn't agree with the placement if he still had his feet under him and backed up(not due to tackling) and then tried to regain more yards.

 

 

It cannot be the correct call. He pulled the ball back. It's no different than if a guy gave up yardage trying to avoid a tackle by running backwards. He was either down before he stretched or he pulled it back and didn't get the first down.

 

There's absolutely no way that he was whistled down at the exact moment that the ball was fully extended.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I don't think the fact that he pulled it back matters. I believe it's supposed to be awarded at the furthest position before you're ruled down or your forward momentum was stopped.

 

I believe it's the position you've reached when you're ruled down, period, when it comes to forward progress. Reaching for a first down when you're in the grasp is fine, provided either the ball remains in the same spot or the ball carrier is contacted in such a way that forces the ball back when a player is ruled down. In Elliott's case over the weekend, he reached over the line to gain but then also voluntarily pulled the ball back behind it before the play was blown dead and he was ruled down by forward progress. To me it should be ruled the same as when a receiver catches the ball on a comeback route past a 1st down marker, get's immediately contacted by a defender that knocks him behind the line to gain but not down, and then gets stopped short of the 1st down while he's still running by another defender - for that situation, the ball is spotted where the player is finally ruled down.

 

Regardless, it's too bad a GB defender couldn't have just taken the ball away from Elliott when he reached it out.

[brewcrewdue80]

I am fine with Refs placement for Elliot's Forward progress. He's obviously in the grasps of tacklers and stretching is his forward progress. I wouldn't agree with the placement if he still had his feet under him and backed up(not due to tackling) and then tried to regain more yards.

 

 

It cannot be the correct call. He pulled the ball back. It's no different than if a guy gave up yardage trying to avoid a tackle by running backwards. He was either down before he stretched or he pulled it back and didn't get the first down.

 

There's absolutely no way that he was whistled down at the exact moment that the ball was fully extended.

 

 

about 9min mark. He's being tackled stretching out with ball is Forward progress, pulling the ball back doesn't change that. How many times have receivers been in the grasp of a tackle, stretched the ball out and were given that as forward progress? It happens every game.

I do know there's that video out of the line marker being moved, but if I recall generally on measurements, the chain link that is on the like the 5yard or even yard interval before the first down marker is held when running to measure, and the extension to ball would be accurate. The refs aren't eyeballing across the field, it's where the chain ends during that measurement. Just uninformed fans.

[Baldkin]

I am fine with Refs placement for Elliot's Forward progress. He's obviously in the grasps of tacklers and stretching is his forward progress. I wouldn't agree with the placement if he still had his feet under him and backed up(not due to tackling) and then tried to regain more yards.

 

 

It cannot be the correct call. He pulled the ball back. It's no different than if a guy gave up yardage trying to avoid a tackle by running backwards. He was either down before he stretched or he pulled it back and didn't get the first down.

 

There's absolutely no way that he was whistled down at the exact moment that the ball was fully extended.

 

 

about 9min mark. He's being tackled stretching out with ball is Forward progress, pulling the ball back doesn't change that. How many times have receivers been in the grasp of a tackle, stretched the ball out and were given that as forward progress? It happens every game.

I do know there's that video out of the line marker being moved, but if I recall generally on measurements, the chain link that is on the like the 5yard or even yard interval before the first down marker is held when running to measure, and the extension to ball would be accurate. The refs aren't eyeballing across the field, it's where the chain ends during that measurement. Just uninformed fans.

 

Yes, pulling the ball back does change that, the same way that running backwards changes forward progress.

 

Receivers may stretch the ball out, but overwhelmingly they are already down or being tackled when they are doing so, OR they are doing it to cross the goal line (the play is over the instant the ball crosses the plane)

 

http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/

 

The Forward Progress of a runner or airborne receiver is the point at which his advance toward his opponent’s goal ends and is the spot at which the ball is declared dead by rule, irrespective of the runner or receiver being pushed or carried backward by an opponent.

 

He was not being pushed or carried backward by an opponent.

 

Also, I won't even get into the issues of using an overhead camera with a questionable angle to determine if he crossed the line to go. Parallax was definitely in play there.

[pitchleague]

Sigh, now I will be even more depressed today.

[lcbj68c]

Hundley doesn't look ready to play. That's got to be on McCarthy.

[stalton]

Hundley looks better than when he started, but we probably can't keep relying on the defense getting turnovers.

[young guns]

And this is why the challenge system is horrible.

[stoutdude04]

Broken collarbone...ouch.

[LouisEly]

The offensive line now is McCray, Patrick, Linsley, Evans, John. Rodgers would probably have been hurt by the end of the game anyway.

[PeaveyFury]

Fully on the Tony Romo train, assuming we can scrape together enough bodies to play the other positions as well.

 

Stuff like Rodgers' injury is unavoidable, but my God, can we start re-evaluating our prevention/strength/conditioning/everything? I have never, ever seen a team with such massive problems like we've seen this year.

[pacopete4]

It’ll be very interesting to see who they bring in. Very interesting.

[jerichoholicninja]

Who exactly can they bring in that would be any better than Hundley? Romo, I guess. Kaepernick is only good on a team that can run the ball, no way would he work in Green Bay where he would actually have to rely on his arm to be successful. Same thing with RG3. Unless Tony wants out of the booth, this is Brett's team...again.

[PeaveyFury]

Other than starting experience (which does have SOME value), Kaepernick doesn't bring enough to the table that would be different than just going with Hundley, IMO. Romo seems like the type of QB who could be good enough to get you to the playoffs.