Skip to main content

View Diary: Uh, the RAVENS won the Super Bowl (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Love the holding penalty in the endzone. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, Hubbard Squash, wwjjd

    The one that wasn't called.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 06:47:17 AM PST

    •  Holding would have been a regular season call (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hubbard Squash

      First half of the season at that. Never in the post season.

      In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

      by boriscleto on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 06:55:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  agreed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kbman

        they let both teams play and get away with a little contact.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 08:06:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If this had been a refereeing crew (0+ / 0-)

        that was accustomed to working together, rather than a cherry picked assemblage of  refs thrown together and working as a unit with one another for the first time ever this game would have been vastly different... starting with the Ravens' defensive back who shoved a ref, which, by rule, should have resulted in a 15 yard personal foul and and immediate ejection from the game...no foul was called and the player was not ejected. Given how Kapernick was playing in the second half, he would have found the 4th stringer who would have had to replace him..early and often...

        The 3rd down attempt at the end of the game was defensive holding; the 4th down attempt was PI; neither was called.

        The 4th down play where the Ravens took the safety should have been blown dead with 9 seconds on the clock when the Baltimore player grabbed the defender around the waist from behind and spun him around to allow the punter to  run more time off the clock

        Still the niners did too much damage to themselves; the fact that they were even in a position to win the game at the end was incredible... they had 3 trips inside the 20; two of which were 1st and goal from inside the 10 and got a total of 3 points from them; the failed 2 point conversion (bad read; thought the rollout would protect from the blitz and there was no blitz... same bad read as the 3rd down play at the end)...

        In a tangentially related note... Flacco gets the last laugh at the people who thought he was an idiot for  turning down 16 million earlier this year...

        Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

        by awesumtenor on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:02:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You have an interesting understanding of the rules (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RealWorld SD, sewaneepat

          and their enforcement. You also have selective memory regarding the game.

          First off, the scuffle that included the ref shoving incident was initiated by angry 49ers who were reacting to Ed Reed's interception. The game was slipping away from them and they started fighting. The Ravens had no reason to start a fight, things were going great for them at that point. The player should not have pushed the ref, no question, but NFL refereeing is not and has never been zero-tolerance, judgement is involved. If the refs saw enough extenuating circumstances it makes sense for the player to not be ejected from the game. Otherwise, it rewards the aggressors in the fight.

          Second, you are trying to judge the passing plays at the end of the game in isolation. The game was called very loosely from the start. On a long pass in the first quarter, Culliver made illegal contact with Torrey Smith three different times, including as the ball was arriving. If the game were being called at all tightly the Ravens should have been given a 1st and goal from about the 4 yard line. Instead they had to punt. There were other plays as well where the pass coverage was technically interference and holding, but no flags were thrown. The same is true regarding the 5 yards rule for contact with a receiver. There were plays in the game where contact was definitely allowed beyond five yards. It wasn't as noticeable as the play at the end because there wasn't a bold visual marker for the 5 yards limit. For the refs to have flagged either play would have required them to suddenly start calling the game differently in the final two minutes. That would have been inappropriate and highly unfair.

          Third, where in the world did you come up with this idea?

          The 4th down play where the Ravens took the safety should have been blown dead with 9 seconds on the clock when the Baltimore player grabbed the defender around the waist from behind and spun him around to allow the punter to  run more time off the clock
          There is nothing in the rulebook about stopping a play over a holding penalty. The only penalties that cause a play to stop prematurely are offensive illegal motion penalties and false starts. Holding on that play made a lot of sense because the penalty for holding in the endzone is ... a safety. There was no need to call the penalty because the result would have been exactly the same, and everyone on the field knew that. The Ravens would have been smart to tackle every single defender on that play to give Koch more time to run around.

          There was also a critical 3rd down play of the Ravens from the 5 yard line where Flacco was hit out-of-bounds after he had thrown the ball. The hit was borderline illegal, but when the defender threw him to the ground he should definitely have been charged with unnecessary roughness. The Ravens should have had a 1st and goal from the 3 instead of having to settle for a field goal. Just because the plays that upset you were at the end of the game doesn't make them any less consequential to the final score than the ones you've chosen to ignore.

          Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

          by kbman on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:27:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, and BTW - in case you hadn't noticed, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RealWorld SD

            Crabtree initiated the contact with Jimmy Smith on the 4th down play. He ran straight at him and engaged him, he also pushed off in the endzone. The only possible pass interference call would have been offensive PI for the push-off. They could have flagged Smith for illegal contact after 5 yards, but given that Crabtree engaged him and was equally a part of the physical contact, the no-call was appropriate.

            In fact, as I watch the play again, from the way that Crabtree engaged Smith, he appeared at first to be run-blocking. Of course Jim Harbaugh exploded and claimed that it was holding. He was the most biased man on the field and is prone to explosions. He wasn't nearly as concerned when his linebacker was all over Roddy White at the end of the Falcons game.

            Here is the video. Check it out.

            Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

            by kbman on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:51:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  you forgot (0+ / 0-)

          all the cheap hits using their helmets that were not called on the 49ers.  Just trying to keep you balanced here..

        •  I just reviewed the ref being shoved (0+ / 0-)

          here

          If you watch closely at the 34 second mark at Cary Williams, Ravens #29 on the ground, you will see him being kicked in the back by Bruce Miller, #49 of the 49ers. He jumped up to retaliate and hit the ref instead of Miller who quickly hid behind the ref as Williams continued to try to get to him. Because Williams was righteously infuriated and intended no aggression against the ref, it makes sense that he was allowed to continue.  And as I mentioned before, ejecting him would have improperly rewarded the aggressors in the melee.

          Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

          by kbman on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:54:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Doesn't matter if (0+ / 0-)

            he knew it was the ref or not...  contacting an official is 15 yards and an ejection.

            There is no such thing as righteous infuriation as an extenuating circumstance to make a PF justified... how many times have we seen someone do something to an opposing player and when that player retaliates, only the retaliator gets flagged...

            Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

            by awesumtenor on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:25:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, you are wrong on this (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vcmvo2

              I checked the rulebook. It is covered under Unsportsmanlike Conduct ...

              Rule 12, Section 3, Article 1 - Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

              There are two sections which can apply to this.
              item g.) It is unsportsmanlike conduct to unnecessarily contact an official,

              also there is this note:

              "Under no condition is an official to allow a player to shove, push, or strike him in an offensive, disrespectful, or unsportsmanlike manner. Any such action must be reported to the Commissioner."

              Then later,

              "Any violation of (g) above may result in disqualification and also will include discipline by the Commissioner. An official must see the entire action for a player to be disqualified."

              It does not say that any violation MUST result in disqualification. The referees have discretion based on the circumstances. In this instance, Williams was attempting to get at Bruce Miller who had just cleat-stomped him in the back. This, right after he had just been torpedoed from the other direction  by Alex Boone who dove into the pile leading with his helmet. The ref knew the he wasn't the target of Williams' anger, and to have ejected him over this would have quite unfairly rewarded the aggressors.

              Anyone who has watched a significant amount of football knows and understands that refs get jostled fairly regularly in the process of breaking up fights. These incidences are very rarely flagged. ANY aggression intended towards the refs is covered by the special note above and is a demand-ejection. This did not meet that criteria.

              Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

              by kbman on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:28:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  you mean (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sewaneepat

      On the throw that wasn't catchable??? Yeah right.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site