Treehugger Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I still think it's a crock of shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I'm glad he explained it, was at a bar watching the game and couldn't hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorillaNJ Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 That is a bullshit explanation. It will be interesting to see if this explanation effects catches, normally if the player does not maintain control of the ball it is incomplete, this guy basically just said that is no longer the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 That is a bullshit explanation. It will be interesting to see if this explanation effects catches, normally if the player does not maintain control of the ball it is incomplete, this guy basically just said that is no longer the case. Exactly. It wasn't just "moving a bit with contact" either it was coming loose. That used to be called a fumble. He basically said it has to have no contact with the player to be a fumble now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lughead Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Exactly. It wasn't just "moving a bit with contact" either it was coming loose. That used to be called a fumble. He basically said it has to have no contact with the player to be a fumble now. and the ball was moving around but he says lets take the words moving around out of the replay.... WHY ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarence the Blue Puppet Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I smell BULLSHIT!!!! And why is Rich Eisen kissing this guys ass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mws44 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 That is a bullshit explanation. It will be interesting to see if this explanation effects catches, normally if the player does not maintain control of the ball it is incomplete, this guy basically just said that is no longer the case. Absolutely that is bullshit because in the Bears game that night the refs ruled that a catch along the sideline was no good because it was moving. They just rephrase it to say he was "bobbling" it. I didn't even think it was a question that the guy caught the ball, but the ref saw a bobble. Bunch of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Who cares? This only means the scored would have been 41-17... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Absolutely that is bullshit because in the Bears game that night the refs ruled that a catch along the sideline was no good because it was moving. They just rephrase it to say he was "bobbling" it. I didn't even think it was a question that the guy caught the ball, but the ref saw a bobble. Bunch of crap. There are different rules between a ball carrier maintaining possession and a receiver making a catch. I don't agree with the rules 100%, but I believe, as did my unbiased friend watching the game with me, that it was the correct call. It didn't make much of a difference in the outcome anyway. But Hochuli's explanation that the ball was pinned against the guy's chest when his knee hit the ground was accurate. You must differentiate between that kind of possession, where in essence the Saints player is a ball carrier that has already established possession, than a receiver attempting to make a catch and establish possession. The only difference was going to be that the Giants would go into the lockerroom down 27-17, with the Giants yet to demonstrate they can protect Eli or stop the Saints offense from marching up and down the field on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share Posted October 23, 2009 It would make a difference because it goes to show the level of inconsistency displayed by the officials all game. 'Fumble', 'Pass Interference', 'Holding' and 'Horsecollar' penalties were all all dubiously called to our disadvantage. Three times the officials cost us a TD. That's 21 points worth of difference, not to mention the difference it caused to our momentum. If that play got called a touchback as I believe it should have been then we had would have had the ball on the 20 with about two minutes on the clock. If we went on to score before halftime out of Eli's best offense - no huddle) it's 27 - 24 and the momentum's in our favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 It would make a difference because it goes to show the level of inconsistency displayed by the officials all game. 'Fumble', 'Pass Interference', 'Holding' and 'Horsecollar' penalties were all all dubiously called to our disadvantage. Three times the officials cost us a TD. That's 21 points worth of difference, not to mention the difference it caused to our momentum. If that play got called a touchback as I believe it should have been then we had would have had the ball on the 20 with about two minutes on the clock. If we went on to score before halftime out of Eli's best offense - no huddle) it's 27 - 24 and the momentum's in our favour. here we go again. almost a week later following a 21 point loss, and the blame shifts to officiating. the dog agrees that officiating has been suspect in the league, but it is suspect across the board. the giants lost because the saints beat them. done. are the saints the better team? as of right now yes, long term, maybe not. but they are playing at a high level and consistently. they won the game because they played better and beat the giants on the field in all aspects of the game. let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 It would make a difference because it goes to show the level of inconsistency displayed by the officials all game. 'Fumble', 'Pass Interference', 'Holding' and 'Horsecollar' penalties were all all dubiously called to our disadvantage. Three times the officials cost us a TD. That's 21 points worth of difference, not to mention the difference it caused to our momentum. If that play got called a touchback as I believe it should have been then we had would have had the ball on the 20 with about two minutes on the clock. If we went on to score before halftime out of Eli's best offense - no huddle) it's 27 - 24 and the momentum's in our favour. Actually Tree, we would have gotten the ball on the 20 yard line with only 18 seconds left in the half. Check ESPN play by play. Eli wouldn't have had time to get us down the field, and I'm pretty certain at that point they would've downed it. It was a close call, and by no means was it clear that the ball carrier for the Saints did not display possession at the point his knee hit the ground. The most I could say about it is that it was inconclusive evidence, insufficient to overturn the call on the field. If the situation was reversed and the referee ruled that a Giants player had fumbled in that exact manner, we'd all be going ape shit over that not being a fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share Posted October 23, 2009 here we go again. almost a week later following a 21 point loss, and the blame shifts to officiating. the dog agrees that officiating has been suspect in the league, but it is suspect across the board. the giants lost because the saints beat them. done. are the saints the better team? as of right now yes, long term, maybe not. but they are playing at a high level and consistently. they won the game because they played better and beat the giants on the field in all aspects of the game. let it go. I've maintained throughout that I don't think we would have won, Brees was just too good at exposing our depleted secondary, but the Refs prevented this game from being a contest. It would have been a much closer affair, and a much better game. The Saints are very good (I was particularly impressed by their pass coverage), but not as good as that score indicates. And I'll discuss issues from any and all Giants games on this Giants message board at my leisure. If you don't like it feel free to fuck off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share Posted October 23, 2009 Actually Tree, we would have gotten the ball on the 20 yard line with only 18 seconds left in the half. Check ESPN play by play. Eli wouldn't have had time to get us down the field, and I'm pretty certain at that point they would've downed it. You're right. It's still -7 points to NO though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I've maintained throughout that I don't think we would have won, Brees was just too good at exposing our depleted secondary, but the Refs prevented this game from being a contest. It would have been a much closer affair, and a much better game. The Saints are very good (I was particularly impressed by their pass coverage), but not as good as that score indicates. And I'll discuss issues from any and all Giants games on this Giants message board at my leisure. If you don't like it feel free to fuck off. contest or no contest, a loss is a loss...to elude that officiating was a difference maker here is not legitimate. the saints tore through the giants defense...the dog isn't sure the officials or the personnel in the secondary would have made a difference that game. again, the giants could prove to be the best team in the end, but without excuse, they were shredded by a better team right now... the dog doesn't care what you want to discuss, but won't heistate to respond when the excuses start flowing. the great referee/NFL conspiracy against the giants has circulated these boards dating back about 8 years now...one time the dog would love to see a giant loss that wasn't pinned on officiating or injury... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazedDogs Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 There are different rules between a ball carrier maintaining possession and a receiver making a catch. I don't agree with the rules 100%, but I believe, as did my unbiased friend watching the game with me, that it was the correct call. It didn't make much of a difference in the outcome anyway. But Hochuli's explanation that the ball was pinned against the guy's chest when his knee hit the ground was accurate. You must differentiate between that kind of possession, where in essence the Saints player is a ball carrier that has already established possession, than a receiver attempting to make a catch and establish possession. I sort of felt the same way as you about the call...except NEVER have I ever seen a replay interpreted that way. Its always been called where if the ball is moving as the player is going to the ground, its considered to be the start point of the loose ball. And if the goal is to keep gray areas out of officiating, the play has to be called that way. Hochuli's call, in and of itself I don't have much issue with - it was very close - but the explanation is bullshit, and if it sets precedent, it just made every ref's job a little harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 anyone who watched that game with their eyes knows it was never a contest. if our D can't force a punt until the 3rd Q, we are doomed. that said, ed holugi should get a room with the mclennan, the ump who can't see 2 guys off the base. they both suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueInCanada Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Yeah the call wouldnt of made to much of a difference, we still would of lost. In my mind I still think the call was correct and it wasn't a fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share Posted October 23, 2009 21 point (+14 to them, -7 to us) were directly influenced by questionable calls from the refs. To say the officiating wasn't a legitimate factor in the outcome is ludicrous. The margin was 21 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakeMeSomeFoodHo Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 anyone who watched that game with their eyes knows it was never a contest. if our D can't force a punt until the 3rd Q, we are doomed. that said, ed holugi should get a room with the mclennan, the ump who can't see 2 guys off the base. they both suck. the umps have been terrible this entire season...the worst Ive ever seen...with that said, mcclellan's bad calls didnt do anything to change the outcome of that game...the yankees just beat the shit out of them that game in every facet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 the umps have been terrible this entire season...the worst Ive ever seen...with that said, mcclellan's bad calls didnt do anything to change the outcome of that game... doesn't matter- those 2 calls- the posada off the base call and the tag up call were 2 of the worst calls in regards to positioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakeMeSomeFoodHo Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 doesn't matter- those 2 calls- the posada off the base call and the tag up call were 2 of the worst calls in regards to positioning. I agree, they were hiroble calls...so was the call at second with swisher(he should have never been at thrid base in the first place). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I agree, they were hiroble calls...so was the call at second with swisher(he should have never been at thrid base in the first place). that whole crew sucks- laz diaz has made some of the worst calls i can remember. i don't know how they grade so high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 If we hadn't fumbled, that could have been a major turning point in the game. We just had a successful goal line stand. Manning fumbled, no excuses--but IMO the ball was coming loose as he was going down, and if it had been called that way, the score at halftime would have been more manageable. But it was real close, and wouldn't have happened if Manning held on to the ball. The calls that pissed me were the PI call on Webster (which was a huge play on that drive), and the hold on O'Hara, which pulled points off of the board. Those I thought were inexcuseable. That being said, NO was definitely the team that performed better last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 21 point (+14 to them, -7 to us) were directly influenced by questionable calls from the refs. To say the officiating wasn't a legitimate factor in the outcome is ludicrous. The margin was 21 points. fine. despite the fact that the giant defense was made to look similar in ability to the local Pop Warner team, and despite the fact that the offense was clearly off and unable to keep pace, and despite the fact that they allowed 48 points, 34 in one half...etc...the dog will concede your point: every giant loss in the history of the NFL is directly the result of poor officiating and injuries. without those two factors, as most evidenced by this past week, the giants would have yet to lose a game in their storied franchise. the dog does think it is a shame that no other NFL team has had to overcome poor officiating and some injuries before...what a pity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now