Jump to content

RedRamage

Moderators
  • Content Count

    22,675
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RedRamage


  1. 17 hours ago, sabretooth said:

    So what bizaare confluence of events will occur this week to cause another gut-wrenching loss?

    How long as it been since some obscure, odd rule has been discovered by the Lions?  I'm thinking something like as time is winding down Detroit commits some penalty with the Vikings needing to go 70 yards, but then: "...by rule, the Vikings are allowed to accept the penalty or they can attempt a 50 yard FG, which they have elected to do." 


  2. Responding to a number of things here:

    Why don't the Lions complain? I wish they would more, but I can't fault the players too much.  A complaining player is just going to lose money, potentially be labeled a whiner and not see any real change.  Maybe if I higher profile player complained, but do we have any "high profile" players right now?  Stafford?  -- What it needs is a consistent, lock step vocal complaint from the coach, the front office, and the owner.  But even then there are more than enough people who will label the Lions and just complainers... "Get over it... you lost... if you just scored one or two more TDs instead of FGs isn't a non-issue... just get over it, play better."

    They should threaten to pull advertising! I think it would certainly be a tactic that could be used.  I wonder how effective it would be now (more on that later) but it's something that can be done.  Yes, the Lions and FoMoCo are different entities, but they share connections and one could certainly be leveraged to help the other if it makes sense.  I mean, it's not a coincidence that the stadium sponsor is Ford, or that Stafford does Ford Truck commercials.  There are connections between the two.

    Would pulling advertising work? To quote Motown Bombers: This isn't 1990 anymore.  I do think the NFL would bat an eye, but probably not a whole lot more.  I certainly think that the NFL wouldn't want to lose Ford, nor would they want the public image issue of an owner pulling ads because of unhappiness.  But, at the same time it certainly wouldn't cause major issues with finances, and in part they could stand on principle: "We regret that Martha Ford feels this way, but we simply can't bend to the wishes of every owner after a loss.  And we certainly can't be blackmailed into favoring one franchise over another with threats of lost financial transactions.  To go down that road opens the NFL up to questions of favoritism based on money."

    Add to all of this that the Lions just aren't a premium franchise.  Very, very few people are coming to the NFL because of the Lions (unless they live in Michigan).  They just don't have as much weight to throw around.  Perhaps the best path to take would be to "partner" with other NFL franchises that are complaining about calls.  Get three or four of you working together might make enough noise.  Make an effort to call out really poor calls in all games... not just the ones involving your team.  Especially call out poor calls in which your team was the beneficiary, for example the one where the Lion (forget the player) basically ripped off the kick receivers head by the facemask and no flag was thrown.

    That's just my two cents.


  3. 10 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

    NOTHING TO SEE HERE, I GUESS

    Image result for Packer hand in Hockenson's face

    Thank you for posting that.  I remember seeing that and though it looked like a face mask at the time, but never saw a good shot or replay of it.

    Looking at that picture and it's pretty clear that he's got Hock's facemask clearly in his grip.  So I think this is pretty clearly a missed penalty.

    So you have:
    No call on facemask against Hock (potentially costing 4 points)
    Bad personal foul call on Walker (costing ??? too hard to know for sure)
    Reception/Fumble changed to incomplete pass (possibly costing 4 points)
    Phantom Hands to face on Flowers (leading to 7 pts for GB)
    No call on clear PI (costing at least 3 pts, possibly 7)
    Phantom Hands to Face on Flowers and no-facemask call on GB player (costing Detroit slight chance at a come bad drive)

    I think you can EASILY say there was a 5-10 point swing in the game due to bad officiating.

    For the record, I hate to blame the refs... I really don't like it.  It's a cop out in many situations and I know there are bad calls or non-call all game long.  But these are 5 pretty clear (I consider the Reception/Fumble as borderline) bad calls that went against the Lions, 2 of which you can directly assign points to, one more you can probably assign pts to, and one that you might be able to assign pts to.

    There's no way a person CAN'T feel that the refs stole this one from the Lions.

     


  4. https://www.milb.com/connecticut/forms/connecticut-team-name-vote

    The Connecticut Tigers have moved to Norwich and are getting a new name.  Follow the link above to vote for one of five options:

    Norwich Golden Roses
    Norwich Mill Mules
    Norwich Narwhals
    Norwich Salty Dogs
    Norwich Sea Unicorns

    To make sure I don't sway your vote, I'm not going to tell you what I picked.   That would be wrong.

    On a completely different topic, look at this funny video:
     

     


  5. 2 minutes ago, mike06181 said:

    My question to that td was if he had control to the ground and up. It was like the ebron non td in indy this season

     

    I think he does.  The ball definitely wobbled around, but it never touches the ground and he never went out of the EZ (side or back) before he clearly had it controlled.  There's no question it was a catch.

    I supposed you could argue that he didn't have control UNTIL he was in the EZ, and therefore he couldn't be considered down as he wasn't a "runner" yet.  You can't be tackled until you complete the catch after all... and honestly, this wouldn't surprise me one bit if this was the reasoning.  That sounds very much like the NFL.


  6. 8 minutes ago, DTroppens said:

    Is he being touched in this play? I honestly don't remember if the defender pushed him to the ground or if he dove to the ground, caught it and maybe his momentum took him in before being touched. I'll have to find the replay.

    He was definitely touched.

    EDIT: For some reason the direct link isn't working.  Go here: https://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2019101400/2019/REG6/lions@packers?icampaign=scoreStrip-globalNav-2019101400
     

    Scroll down to the highlight "Rodgers tosses first fourth-quarter...."


  7. 4 minutes ago, holygoat said:

    I think I was the only one here who called this one out in the game thread.

    I don't think anyone said anything about this in the moment, either. I called it out in the game thread, but none of the announcers said anything.

    This is one of those "bad calls" that I don't think would have had a serious impact on the outcome.  With three chances to push it in... with the Lions defense generally not stopping short yardage situations last night... it would have probably just delayed the score by a few plays.

    But again, this is an obvious call that was wrong.  Even on replay (all scoring plays need to be reviewed) they got the call wrong.

    If this was the only bad call I wouldn't complain... well, I might still but only so far as saying: "Stupid Refs."  I wouldn't say that this call "robbed" the Lions.


  8. 5 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

    Actually, that picture is incorrect. The NFL has since released an updated picture showing their version of events, with a new enhanced goal line that you couldn't see last night on that touchdown call.

    Ya know... looking at it again, it's pretty clear that in the original picture what looks like the goal line is really just glare from that bank of lights at the top of the picture.  I apologize for posting that.


  9. https://www.profootballweekly.com/2019/10/15/another-nfl-officiating-controversy-mars-green-bay-packers-win-vs-lions-on-monday-night-football/amzk6hq/


    ....
    On both Flowers penalties, it appears his outstretched arms only engage Packers LT David Bakhtiari’s shoulder pads.

    Earlier in the fourth quarter, the officials missed Lions WR Marvin Jones clearly being interfered with on a long incompletion, and turned a Kerryon Johnson fumble on third-and-2 that should’ve resulted in a Lions first down into an incompletion, leading to a 54-yard Matt Prater field goal that kept the Packers within striking distance.

    The calls helped the Packers overcome their own self-inflicted errors — including a pair of dropped touchdowns — on a night they began without Davante Adams (turf toe) and lost fellow starting WR Geronimo Allison to a possible brain injury on a helmet-to-helmet hit that was incorrectly called unnecessary roughness.

    So the surprisingly competent Lions were robbed by the unsurprisingly incompetent officials.
    ....


  10. 1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

    This is bull****. The Lions shouldn't have to go into a game needing to score 20-30 more points to overcome bad officiating. No one is complaining about the 12 men on the field call. After taking a 13-0 lead, they still scored 9 more points. Fact of the matter is Green Bay on at least two occasions was given an extra chance. Perhaps if the Lions were given extra chances on offense, they would have scored TDs instead of FGs.

    Quoted for truth.


  11. 1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

    So what's the cure? Replay any penalty? We could just replay every play as it happens. Make for a very boring game. But at least they would have a chance to get it right. The way things are now is an attitude of "we're right and you're wrong and don't you dare call us out on our mistakes or it will cost you thousands of dollars"

    I dunno what the cure is.  What I think would be the cure would be to have reply change the call on the field when it's obvious that the call was made wrong.  But I don't think all fans would agree with me.

    I do think at the very least replay should be decided centrally and it should be decided consistently.  Right now PI replays seems to need to find a mugging to be overturned.  I would change that at the very least. 


  12. 57 minutes ago, DTroppens said:

    The obvious comment said 1,000,000,000,000 times a season but I'll say it again....

    Complaining about the officiating doesn't make sense. It's something no one can change.
    <<snippage>>
    The Lions had so many chances to take a firm grasp of this game in the first half, which could've resulted in a three-possession lead, and didn't. From their own team's perspective that has to be the focus on why they lost - at least if I was a coach or a player, that's what I'd focus on.

     

    But I'm not a coach or a player... I'm a fan, so honestly focusing on any part of the game doesn't make sense because I can't change any of it.  Yet I'm still a fan and I'm going to comment on many parts of the game.

    Did the Lions settle for FG too often? Yes, absolutely, definitely 100%.  Part of that is the Packers just also being a good team.  Part of that is the Lions not executing well.  100% yes.  An Elite team punches in at least one more TD if not two or three.  The Lions are not elite yet.

    Did the Lions make mistakes? Yes, absolutely, definitely 100% yes.  I thought there were way too many runs up the gut that went for nothing at all.  There were dropped passes.  There were missed assignments, and yes, there were 12 men on the field (of course, for the record, the Packers once at 13 men on the field, in formation, but were allowed to call a TO and therefore did not get flagged for it).

    Now, did the refs lose the game for the Lions? Probably, yes. Obviously we can't know for sure, but I think the first phantom hands to the face was a gut punch. Instead of a 4th and forever punt situation the Packers got new life late in the game.  Yes, the Lions still needed to execute and get a stop, but remember, the Packers are also a good team and weren't going to just roll over.  The Lions did what they needed to do and it could have had a HUGE impact on the outcome.  The no-PI call could have put the Lions in FG position at least.  The second phantom hands call robbed the Lions of time to make come back.

    Does complaining about the refs do a thing to change the outcome? You are 100% right there.. NO.  But neither does complaining about the Lions not executing or questionable play calling either.

    What do I want the Lions to focus on? EVERYTHING!  For Patricia and company to focus the players on executing better, to do more film work, to devise better plays and figure out better play calling.  Yes to all of that.  That's 100% where they should focus.  But doing this doesn't mean that the Front Office and/or Ownership can't raise a bloody stink about this as well.  Will it change the outcome of the last game? No... but neither will executing better on the field in the future.

    The hope is that the Lions get better and get to the point where horrible blown calls don't sink them on the field.  That would be ideal.  But along side that I hope that enough ruckus is raised that the NFL improves the reffing on the field so that if we end up in another game were we do just enough to probably win that it isn't pulled away from the team.


  13. 19 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

    You'll never win if you don't try. I don't agree with you at all, Chris. I think the officials may have given us a makeup call. I guess we'll never know but I would have liked to seen a challenge flag thrown.

    Aren't the challenges decided centrally though?  I could perhaps see the local umps doing a makeup, IF they thought they screwed up and I don't know that they thought they did.  But I don't believe a central location would have done a makeup call.


  14. 16 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

    This morning I heard some folks complaining that Patricia didn't call the flag to review pass interference.  I think it's clear the NFL isn't going to overturn a pass interference call unless it's basically the same thing that happened to the Saints.  I just wonder if that's what was in Patricia's mind at the time or not.

    I agree.  I think overturning a non-PI call is going to have to be a case where the receiver was all but mugged by the defender.  I don't fault Patricia for not challenging that.  He wasn't going to win and it would just be a lost TO.


  15. 6 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

    What about the sack right before the TD though?  

    That's kinda my point... The Lions did enough (probably) to win if the calls are made correctly.  Yeah, it's entirely possible that if the Pack was forced to punt the Lions go three and out and the Pack scores a TD on next possession and still has enough time for a FG to win it.  It's possible... but it's certainly less likely than if they are gifted a fresh set of downs by the refs.

    Remove the bad calls and I think the Lions would have done enough to win.

    I would have felt better if they had scored another TD or two rather than settling for FGs, but they still should have (probably) gotten the win even with settling for 5 FGs.


  16. 11 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

    They'll come out and say the calls were wrong. But, oh, BTW? Sorry about that. 

    When you score field goals instead of touchdowns, you put yourself in position that allows the referees to cost you a game.

    Very true, but that doesn't change the fact that the FGs would (probably) have been enough to win without the bad calls.


  17. https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2019/10/15/20915261/detroit-lions-green-bay-packers-referee-explanation-hands-to-face-trey-flowers

    Question: On the helmet-to-helmet contact with Tracy Walker, it appeared he was going for the ball. Does the defensive back have the right to go for the ball? Does that offset any incidental helmet-to-helmet contract?

    Blakeman: “That’s a good question, but the reality is, it is strict liability for a defensive player. In this case, he may be going for the ball and not intending to hit the helmet, but when there’s helmet contact, it is a foul in that situations.”

    Question: Even if he had come up with the interception, that doesn’t change the ruling in any way?

    Blakeman: “Even if he did impact the helmet and then intercepted the ball, it would still have been a foul.”


    So the Lions need to just let the defender's helmet hit there's whenever there is a pass thrown and should automatically get a penalty right?  It's the defenders job to know where the offensive player is, and avoid him always, all the time.  Any helmet to helmet contact is the defender's fault.

    Question: On the two hands-to-the-face penalties on Detroit defensive end Trey Flowers. I don’t know if you were the one who actually threw the flag there, but when discussing with the crew, what did you guys see on those calls?

    Blakeman: “The umpire threw both of them. The last one was really the only one I’ve discussed with him. Basically, it’s for illegal use of the hands, hands-to-the-face foul. To be a foul, we basically need some forceful contact that’s prolonged to the head and neck area of the defender. So in his mind he had pinned him back, it was prolonged, and that’s what created the foul.”

    Question: “You said head or neck area?”

    Blakeman: “Head or neck area, yes.”


    Now I know that this isn't the official NFL statement... this is just the post game with the officials, but man... not even a: "We may have got that one wrong."

×
×
  • Create New...