PDA

View Full Version : So sick of hearing about Welker's drop...(pats fans should read)



FresnoGiant
02-07-2012, 02:46 PM
I know we are all tired of hearing how "lucky" we are to have won. Here's why that play was not THE play to decide the Pats fate, IMO.

While I agree that play could have changed the outcome, it was only one of many such plays that also could have changed the game. It is just intensified because of the timing and situation.

There were at least three no-calls that would have benefitted the Giants. Two defensive PI calls were missed, and that Chung hit on Nicks (while I think it was an outstanding defensive play) was called more times than not during the season for roughing a defenseless receiver. All three of these probably cost the Giants points. Two resulted in punts, and one a FG. Also the holding call that nullified Jacobs' first down run on 3rd down DEFINATELY killed a scoring oportunity, even though the Giants would have easily converted without the hold.

The point is that had one or all of these plays gone in the Giants' favor, it could have easily been a blowout by the time the Welker play happened, and it would have been meaningless. On the flip-side, had New England recovered a couple or all of our fumbles, it could have been lopsided going the other way.

So while it may seem (to NE fans) this one play determined the Super Bowl, the reality is that it was one of a dozen or so plays that could have also changed the game.

Yeah, we got lucky on some plays, but others went in the Pats' favor. The G-Men outplayed the Pats AGAIN; plain and simple.

Kruunch
02-07-2012, 02:48 PM
We won, they lost and the rest is yada yada yada.

Kruunch
02-07-2012, 02:48 PM
We won, they lost and the rest is yada yada yada.

jhamburg
02-07-2012, 02:49 PM
The Chung hit is never a penalty. He didn't lead with his helmet.

FresnoGiant
02-07-2012, 02:54 PM
The Chung hit is never a penalty. He didn't lead with his helmet.

Leading with the helmet is different than a hit on a "defensless receiver". And it is often a penalty. I happen to disagree with it most of the time, and thought this play was clean as well. However, the refs do tend to flag those hits since he had not had a chance to catch the ball and protect himself. Sadly, that's what the league has evolved into.

jhamburg
02-07-2012, 02:56 PM
The Chung hit is never a penalty. He didn't lead with his helmet.

Leading with the helmet is different than a hit on a "defensless receiver". And it is often a penalty. I happen to disagree with it most of the time, and thought this play was clean as well. However, the refs do tend to flag those hits since he had not had a chance to catch the ball and protect himself. Sadly, that's what the league has evolved into.

No, that's the rule, you can't lead with a helmet into a defenseless receiver. Obviously you can still hit the guy, it's not flag football (yet). If there are no heads, necks, or helmets involved, it isn't a penalty on a defenseless receiver.

FresnoGiant
02-07-2012, 03:03 PM
The Chung hit is never a penalty. He didn't lead with his helmet.

Leading with the helmet is different than a hit on a "defensless receiver". And it is often a penalty. I happen to disagree with it most of the time, and thought this play was clean as well. However, the refs do tend to flag those hits since he had not had a chance to catch the ball and protect himself. Sadly, that's what the league has evolved into.

No, that's the rule, you can't lead with a helmet into a defenseless receiver. Obviously you can still hit the guy, it's not flag football (yet). If there are no heads, necks, or helmets involved, it isn't a penalty on a defenseless receiver.

NFL attempts to clarify the defenseless player rules
Posted by Michael David Smith on December 27, 2011, 3:31 PM EST

Getty ImagesAfter a personal foul penalty on Monday night led to a high-profile media tiff, the NFL has stepped in to attempt to clarify what, exactly, the term “defenseless player” means.

The personal foul was called on Falcons linebacker Curtis Lofton, and it left ESPN commentator Jon Gruden harshly criticizing the officiating crew, asking what Lofton was supposed to do to play defense while avoiding contact with a defenseless receiver. Gruden’s criticism had former NFL head of officiating and current FOX analyst Mike Pereira steamed.

“Nobody likes the rule but that was helmet to helmet contact and the NFL wants that called regardless of what Gruden says,” Pereira wrote in a series of Twitter messages ripping Gruden. “People ask me what was he supposed to do. He was supposed to hit him with his shoulder in the chest area or below. Most are doing that. He announced hitting a defenseless player. He was defenseless and u can hit him in the head or neck area with your helmet, shoulder, forearm.”

Today the NFL’s communications department attempted to clear things up, with e-mails to the media and Twitter messages pointing to the exact wording of the rules regarding defenseless players.

The relevant portion of the rule is:

“It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are: [. . .]
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
[. . .]

Again, I'm not saying I like the rule. Just that it has been called, and could have been there as well.

CDN_G-FAN
02-07-2012, 03:03 PM
lucky is when you kick a game winning field goal, pull it right, it hits a bird and falls between the uprights.</P>


a guy dropping a pass he should have caught is called "not being clutch when it matters".</P>


he's paid to make that exact play, in that exact situation.</P>


and he didn't.</P>

Providence
02-07-2012, 03:04 PM
I wonder if the bogus holding call on Boothe is considered lucky by Patsie fans too?

jhamburg
02-07-2012, 03:06 PM
The Chung hit is never a penalty. He didn't lead with his helmet.

Leading with the helmet is different than a hit on a "defensless receiver". And it is often a penalty. I happen to disagree with it most of the time, and thought this play was clean as well. However, the refs do tend to flag those hits since he had not had a chance to catch the ball and protect himself. Sadly, that's what the league has evolved into.

No, that's the rule, you can't lead with a helmet into a defenseless receiver. Obviously you can still hit the guy, it's not flag football (yet). If there are no heads, necks, or helmets involved, it isn't a penalty on a defenseless receiver.

NFL attempts to clarify the defenseless player rules
Posted by Michael David Smith on December 27, 2011, 3:31 PM EST

Getty ImagesAfter a personal foul penalty on Monday night led to a high-profile media tiff, the NFL has stepped in to attempt to clarify what, exactly, the term “defenseless player” means.

The personal foul was called on Falcons linebacker Curtis Lofton, and it left ESPN commentator Jon Gruden harshly criticizing the officiating crew, asking what Lofton was supposed to do to play defense while avoiding contact with a defenseless receiver. Gruden’s criticism had former NFL head of officiating and current FOX analyst Mike Pereira steamed.

“Nobody likes the rule but that was helmet to helmet contact and the NFL wants that called regardless of what Gruden says,” Pereira wrote in a series of Twitter messages ripping Gruden. “People ask me what was he supposed to do. He was supposed to hit him with his shoulder in the chest area or below. Most are doing that. He announced hitting a defenseless player. He was defenseless and u can hit him in the head or neck area with your helmet, shoulder, forearm.”

Today the NFL’s communications department attempted to clear things up, with e-mails to the media and Twitter messages pointing to the exact wording of the rules regarding defenseless players.

The relevant portion of the rule is:

“It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are: [. . .]
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
[. . .]

Again, I'm not saying I like the rule. Just that it has been called, and could have been there as well.

I noticed you cut off the part of the rule that says exactly what I'm saying:

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.”

No head, no foul.

CLR
02-07-2012, 03:10 PM
There were also A LOT OF no calls for holding against the Pats. A LOT OF THEM.

I had a Pats hit me with the welker drop about how lucky we were that he dropped it.

I pointed out that Mr super qb who is considered the greatest thing since sliced bread made a poor throw, How Eli who took critisism all yr for daring to put himself in the same class as Mr super hero QB MADE A perfect throw when it was needed!
He didn't have much to say about it. :-)

JJC7301
02-07-2012, 03:19 PM
The Chung hit is never a penalty. He didn't lead with his helmet. Leading with the helmet is different than a hit on a "defensless receiver". And it is often a penalty. I happen to disagree with it most of the time, and thought this play was clean as well. However, the refs do tend to flag those hits since he had not had a chance to catch the ball and protect himself. Sadly, that's what the league has evolved into.</P>


I was watching the game again last night and was wondering the same exact thing. Not that Chung did anything dirty, but just that Nicks was "defenseless" according to the rules. To be honest, I like that rule anyway -- I'm sick of seeing these guys get concussions.</P>

JJC7301
02-07-2012, 03:21 PM
There were also A LOT OF no calls for holding against the Pats. A LOT OF THEM. I had a Pats hit me with the welker drop about how lucky we were that he dropped it. I pointed out that Mr super qb who is considered the greatest thing since sliced bread made a poor throw, How Eli who took critisism all yr for daring to put himself in the same class as Mr super hero QB MADE A perfect throw when it was needed! He didn't have much to say about it. :-)</P>


I think most Pat fans have been cool, but every defeat is going to bring out the schumks. The ones that are not being cool, though? Just tell them that they sound like Ravens fans, complaining about "luck" and how the "better team" lost.</P>

FresnoGiant
02-07-2012, 03:41 PM
The Chung hit is never a penalty. He didn't lead with his helmet.

Leading with the helmet is different than a hit on a "defensless receiver". And it is often a penalty. I happen to disagree with it most of the time, and thought this play was clean as well. However, the refs do tend to flag those hits since he had not had a chance to catch the ball and protect himself. Sadly, that's what the league has evolved into.

No, that's the rule, you can't lead with a helmet into a defenseless receiver. Obviously you can still hit the guy, it's not flag football (yet). If there are no heads, necks, or helmets involved, it isn't a penalty on a defenseless receiver.

NFL attempts to clarify the defenseless player rules
Posted by Michael David Smith on December 27, 2011, 3:31 PM EST

Getty ImagesAfter a personal foul penalty on Monday night led to a high-profile media tiff, the NFL has stepped in to attempt to clarify what, exactly, the term “defenseless player” means.

The personal foul was called on Falcons linebacker Curtis Lofton, and it left ESPN commentator Jon Gruden harshly criticizing the officiating crew, asking what Lofton was supposed to do to play defense while avoiding contact with a defenseless receiver. Gruden’s criticism had former NFL head of officiating and current FOX analyst Mike Pereira steamed.

“Nobody likes the rule but that was helmet to helmet contact and the NFL wants that called regardless of what Gruden says,” Pereira wrote in a series of Twitter messages ripping Gruden. “People ask me what was he supposed to do. He was supposed to hit him with his shoulder in the chest area or below. Most are doing that. He announced hitting a defenseless player. He was defenseless and u can hit him in the head or neck area with your helmet, shoulder, forearm.”

Today the NFL’s communications department attempted to clear things up, with e-mails to the media and Twitter messages pointing to the exact wording of the rules regarding defenseless players.

The relevant portion of the rule is:

“It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are: [. . .]
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
[. . .]

Again, I'm not saying I like the rule. Just that it has been called, and could have been there as well.

I noticed you cut off the part of the rule that says exactly what I'm saying:

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.”

No head, no foul.

You are interpreting it wrong. The rule is not "all-or-nothing". Any part of it is grounds for a penalty. Do I have to call Mike Pereira to set you straight? Just kidding.
Anyway, I'm tired of defending my point. Even if it was not a penalty by rule, that hit has been flagged MANY times this season and could have been again on Sunday. I was at the game, and the Patriot fan next to me even said "here comes a flag".
Sorry to keep arguing with you, but I've seen that call made too many times. Helmet-first or not.

Markroman
02-07-2012, 04:12 PM
The reality is...unlike the last SB...the Giants outplayed the Pats by a wide margin.

The Pats had two back to back possessions and were shutdown the rest of the way.

Penalties kept the game close. The Giants could have easily been up 16-3 in the 2nd and the game would have been over.

Tony Bruno
02-07-2012, 04:44 PM
We were the better team in 2007-08 SB, we were the better team this year in the reg season and we were the better team last Sunday... #endastory

miked1958
02-07-2012, 04:58 PM
I know we are all tired of hearing how "lucky" we are to have won. Here's why that play was not THE play to decide the Pats fate, IMO. While I agree that play could have changed the outcome, it was only one of many such plays that also could have changed the game. It is just intensified because of the timing and situation. There were at least three no-calls that would have benefitted the Giants. Two defensive PI calls were missed, and that Chung hit on Nicks (while I think it was an outstanding defensive play) was called more times than not during the season for roughing a defenseless receiver. All three of these probably cost the Giants points. Two resulted in punts, and one a FG. Also the holding call that nullified Jacobs' first down run on 3rd down DEFINATELY killed a scoring oportunity, even though the Giants would have easily converted without the hold. The point is that had one or all of these plays gone in the Giants' favor, it could have easily been a blowout by the time the Welker play happened, and it would have been meaningless. On the flip-side, had New England recovered a couple or all of our fumbles, it could have been lopsided going the other way. So while it may seem (to NE fans) this one play determined the Super Bowl, the reality is that it was one of a dozen or so plays that could have also changed the game. Yeah, we got lucky on some plays, but others went in the Pats' favor. The G-Men outplayed the Pats AGAIN; plain and simple.</P>


Very well thought out Post. Agree on all counts. I saw the PIs that were not called. One where the guy had Nicks around the waste and was on his back as he knocked away the ball. Another over the middle where a Pats Corner was on MM back well before ball got there. And the Holding was just horrible. Wilfork grabbed our guy and went to ground in an ACT and drew the flag. When he got up he winked at our guy like, I got you on that one. Thats a first down in NE territory. We prob get points there. </P>

BJacobs aka The Problem
02-07-2012, 05:25 PM
Got heckled by a pats fan today saying the Giants shouldn't had even been in the playoffs with their 9-7 record. Still wouldn't shut up when I pointed out that the Giants had beaten the 2 best teams in the NFL to make it to the SB and beat the best that the AFC had to offer.

He quickly quieted down though when I pointed out that the Patriots beat only 1 team this season with a winning record. And the combined w/l of the teams that the patriots beat were 68-92.

Voldamort
02-07-2012, 05:30 PM
it's over we won

Markroman
02-07-2012, 06:17 PM
What is sad is Welker has saved Brady bacon for years and now he is getting thrown under the bus.

Welker is the key to the Pats offense with no Welker, they are done.

buffyblue
02-07-2012, 06:28 PM
We won they lost and that is what counts. I am very happy that he didn’t catch that ball. I am also very happy that Ahmad Bradshaw went in for a touchdown and not went down on the one and had to rely on field goal.

Regardless of the fact that we were the betting underdog I felt the way we matched up that we were the better team and were going to win by 14 points. New England Patriots came out with a brilliant defensive scheme and played a heck of a game. Tom Brady played his heart out and that makes this win that much sweeter.

I think the referrees made a lot of non calls both ways. We were held a lot but we were also holding a lot too so I have no issues with that. The only non call issues that I had with was the PI against New England Patriots that should have been called.

MaCkTiC
02-07-2012, 07:41 PM
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2012/02/07/sports/web_photos/butterfingers153657--300x450.jpg

Firenugget
02-07-2012, 07:53 PM
Well....If Manningham caught that deep pass down the middle, the game isn't that close anyways most likely. If Manningham gave himself a bigger cushion on the right side he would have caught it in bounds and again, probably ends up not being that close in the end.

The Welker thing is just the media finding stupid crap to talk about and frankly making him some kind of scapegoat, which is pretty pathetic. He's a damn good WR even without considering his size.