The Town of Odyssey

This was actually the first call like this I've agreed with. By the current rules that wasn't a catch. The problem being they keep getting the rules wrong so meh.

Knight Fisher wrote:By the current rules that wasn't a catch.

I get this is where people are trying to come from, I dispute it though; and that's the issue. If the rule was that no matter where the play occurred you have to become a runner, and so by the letter of the rule technically the correct call was made, however ridiculous it is, fine. Then the debate is over how stupid the rule is, which is great, not whether the stupid rule was enforced correctly or not, which is bad for the sport. But again, that's not actually the heart of the matter here. According to everything I've ever known about football, there is no such thing as becoming a runner in the endzone. It's simply not something that happens. Therefore having that as the reason for the call being made how it was is not possible. That's all there is to it. You can't cite something that doesn't exist as the basis for your position. I really wish they had just said the ball coming out and the foot coming down happened so close together the reason it was incomplete was he didn't touch down with possession. There would still be debate about it, I would still be fervently rebutting it, but at least it would be a valid decision.

There is no doubt clarification of what constitutes a catch is coming this off season. The controversies have made a mockery of the sport.

JAX for tonight I guess. >_>

Jaguars

GB
ATL
BAL
CAR
CHI
OAK
NYJ
DAL
PHI
KC
SEA
CIN
NE

Jacksonville.

Tennessee!

Edit: To conserve time, I'd decided to fade away from picking games... peace out.

JAX

DEN
OAK
IND
HOU
PHI
CAR
MIA
BAL
KC
MIN
SEA
CIN (this is where I kind of expected the first loss >_>)
NE

Jacksonville

Da Bears
STL vs BAL
CAR vs WAS
DAL vs MIA
OAK vs DET
NYJ vs HOU
IND vs ATL
TB vs PHI
KC vs SD
GB vs MIN
SF vs SEA
CIN vs ARI
BUF vs NE

GB
DET
DAL
MIN
CIN
NO
TEN
NYG
NYJ
TB
JAC
KC
AZ
SEA
DEN
CLE

DET
CAR
GB

CAR
CHI

NYG @ WAS
MIN @ ATL
STL @ CIN
NO @ HOU
TB @ IND
MIA @ NYJ
SD @ JAX
OAK @ TEN
BUF @ KC
ARI @ SF
PIT @ SEA
NE @ DEN
BAL @ CLE (such a rare and exciting occasion to go for Cleveland!)

NYG @ WAS
MIN @ ATL
STL @ CIN
NO @ HOU
TB @ IND
MIA @ NYJ
SD @ JAX
OAK @ TEN
BUF @ KC
ARI @ SF
PIT @ SEA
NE @ DEN
BAL @ CLE

GB for tomorrow night for whom it may concern.

Packers

BUF
CHI
CIN
MIA
MIN
NYG
AZ
ATL
JAC
KC
DEN
CAR
NE
PIT
WAS

Lions.

I was prepared to come here today and have to give a Rant on the end of the Packer game, but an incredible change of events changed that. Now instead of blasting the interference nocall I have to defend the allegedly controversial facemask call.

It was the right call. Was it questionable? Absolutely. But was it wrong? No. It's true that this wasn't a conventional facemask, where it gets grabbed and pulled around, but there was contact with the mask, and the thing is that's all that needs to happen for the flag to come out. You don't need to yank on the mask to get flagged, you just need to grab it for a second. There was a definite hooking, albeit extremely brief, but that was enough.

What is somehow getting entirely overlooked in all this 'controversy' is the aforementioned nocall on the blatant pass interference that took place the previous play. The defender straight up clothslined the guy out of the way to go for the ball, how that wasn't called I will never know, but justice was ultimately served on the following facemask call. So they miss one controversially and call one controversially, take your pick and one of the two was definitely a penalty, so it's no harm no foul. And in fact the Lions got the better end of the situation! An interference call would have given the Packers way more than 15 yards, putting them already in field goal range to win the game with just a kick. The facemask just moved them up a bit to try the long pass, which the Lions could have had a chance to intercept or knock down. So actually the Lions were fortunate, not robbed by, how everything transpired.

I was kind of hoping Detroit could pull out a win (even though it goes against my pick) but yeah, that lack of call on interference wasn't fair at all, so it evened out.

On the facemask... No. It was in no way the correct call. Contact is completely legal. You just can't twist it. Sources: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... d-by-lions http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... ask-ruling

That said in real time it definitely looked like a facemask. My actual problem is that it was called by the official behind the play. Whereas the one with actual angle didn't. There is absolutely no reason these types of play shouldn't be reviewable.

Contact is legal if you just bump it without moving the head. You can touch it, but you can't grasp it. There appears to be a definite hook here, and the head was certainly pulled in the process of the tackle. Whether that was actually a result of the snag or not is unclear, but in the context of the play that's going to be called every time. So while we can debate whether it was literally a facemask or not, my point was more that it was in no way incorrect to flag it as such. It's a judgement call.

Which, to your other remark, is exactly the reason they'll never open these to review. Review needs irrefutable visual evidence to overturn a call on the field, and if it's a judgement call it's impossible to have that because the initial judgement will always overrule.
Now, I am all for reviewing black and white penalties on the other hand, such as whether a hit was actually helmet to helmet or not. I've been calling for that for years.