Football The blatant hold on the safety play in SB...

KChiefer · 10:02 AM

The rusher literally got piggyback bear-hugged. Why wasn't it called?

Now, I get that even if they had called it, the play would have resulted in a safety anyways, but it was obvious that they intended to hold to allow the punter to use as much time as possible. They have rules to prevent teams from taking a penalty in order to save time, shouldn't there be a rule to prevent teams from playing illegally to kill more time?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/0ap20...-play-it-smart

**Iowanian** · 02-04-2013, 09:55 AM

I was more gassed by the Baltimore player taking a swing at the ref after the melee in the first half, no flag and no ejection.

**mikeyis4dcats.** · 02-04-2013, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowanian

I was more gassed by the Baltimore player taking a swing at the ref after the melee in the first half, no flag and no ejection.

yeah, the kid from Washburn University. Lucky he wasn't ejected.

Rasputin · 02-04-2013, 09:58 AM

The results of the game would have been the same.

**mdchiefsfan** · 02-04-2013, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowanian

I was more gassed by the Baltimore player taking a swing at the ref after the melee in the first half, no flag and no ejection.

Yea I was shocked at that. Cary Williams got really lucky there.

**Rausch** · 02-04-2013, 09:59 AM

So now we think the NFL has some input?...

Rasputin · 02-04-2013, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC Tattoo

The results of the game would have been the same.

Is that a haiku?

**DaFace** · 02-04-2013, 09:59 AM

I agree that, normally, that should have been called. However, the refs in that game were clearly trying to let the players play and get out of the way, which I like. There were other similar no-calls earlier in the game, so I'm OK with that one not being called.

(And I was rooting for the 9ers for the record.)

King_Chief_Fan · 02-04-2013, 10:00 AM

Not sure what the point to your question is?
It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the play or game.

**mdchiefsfan** · 02-04-2013, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFace

I agree that, normally, that should have been called. However, the refs in that game were clearly trying to let the players play and get out of the way, which I like. There were other similar no-calls earlier in the game, so I'm OK with that one not being called.

(And I was rooting for the 9ers for the record.)

Yup. That is one of the great things about playoffs and Super Bowl. The hits are a bit harder and players are allowed to play.

-King- · 02-04-2013, 10:05 AM

Didn't matter AT ALL. A holding call would have resulted in a safety. Hell, John could have told his players to tackle all of the 49ers players and it wouldn't have changed anything. Really smart players probably held as much as they could that play.

htismaqe · 02-04-2013, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

Didn't matter AT ALL. A holding call would have resulted in a safety. Hell, John could have told his players to tackle all of the 49ers players and it wouldn't have changed anything. Really smart players probably held as much as they could that play.

This.

DJ's left nut · 02-04-2013, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFace

I agree that, normally, that should have been called. However, the refs in that game were clearly trying to let the players play and get out of the way, which I like. There were other similar no-calls earlier in the game, so I'm OK with that one not being called.

(And I was rooting for the 9ers for the record.)

Well until the end there, when they decided not to do that anymore and extended the Ravens drive on 3rd down with an incredibly weak PI call which led to what was ultimately a game winning FG.

The 49ers earned their loss by playing like garbage for a half and then allowing a kickoff TD, but the zebras absolutely played a role in that game for the last 2 drives and that's a damn shame.

KChiefer · 02-04-2013, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

Not sure what the point to your question is?
It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the play or game.

No it wouldn't have changed the outcome, but a penalty is a penalty, no?

And when you're playing illegally in order to gain an advantage more valuable than the penalty that you'd take, there are rules that try to make doing that no longer a viable option.

So what I'm saying is there should be a rule that if you get called for a hold(or some other penalty) while leading inside of 2 minutes, you take the penalty, don't lose a down however all time is put back on the clock prior to that play happening. Teams shouldn't be allowed to hold in order to burn more time off the clock.

MagicHef · 02-04-2013, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

Didn't matter AT ALL. A holding call would have resulted in a safety. Hell, John could have told his players to tackle all of the 49ers players and it wouldn't have changed anything. Really smart players probably held as much as they could that play.

It would have resulted in more time on the clock, I believe. Which was, after all, the point of the play.

02-04-2013, 09:54 AM
KChiefer Fantastic Planeteer Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Champaign, IL Casino cash: $10006721	The blatant hold on the safety play in SB... The rusher literally got piggyback bear-hugged. Why wasn't it called? Now, I get that even if they had called it, the play would have resulted in a safety anyways, but it was obvious that they intended to hold to allow the punter to use as much time as possible. They have rules to prevent teams from taking a penalty in order to save time, shouldn't there be a rule to prevent teams from playing illegally to kill more time? http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/0ap20...-play-it-smart Last edited by KChiefer; 02-04-2013 at 10:02 AM..
Posts: 4,943

02-04-2013, 09:55 AM	#2
Iowanian Supporter Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Utopia Casino cash: $1818454	I was more gassed by the Baltimore player taking a swing at the ref after the melee in the first half, no flag and no ejection.
Posts: 62,924

02-04-2013, 09:58 AM	#4
Rasputin Tip of the hat LIV Champs Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: ks Casino cash: $235421	The results of the game would have been the same.
Posts: 56,907

02-04-2013, 09:59 AM	#8
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $-1653101	I agree that, normally, that should have been called. However, the refs in that game were clearly trying to let the players play and get out of the way, which I like. There were other similar no-calls earlier in the game, so I'm OK with that one not being called. (And I was rooting for the 9ers for the record.)
Posts: 53,118

02-04-2013, 10:00 AM	#9
King_Chief_Fan Praise Him Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: none ya Casino cash: $4755486	Not sure what the point to your question is? It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the play or game. __________________ No Jesus No Peace Know Jesus Know Peace Ephesians 2:8-10 English Standard Version (ESV) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Posts: 12,362

02-04-2013, 10:05 AM	#11
-King- ▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓ Join Date: Jan 2009 Casino cash: $-1194257	Didn't matter AT ALL. A holding call would have resulted in a safety. Hell, John could have told his players to tackle all of the 49ers players and it wouldn't have changed anything. Really smart players probably held as much as they could that play. __________________ 🏁
Posts: 65,457