ChiefsPlanet
Page 3 of 6 12 3 456
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Football Whitlock has a great idea (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=215814)

notorious 10-08-2009 01:22 PM
I like Colin Cowherd's take on this stuff: If you see it call it, but don't call something that didn't happen.


Give the benefit of the doubt to the players unless it is obvious.


The refs are way to aggressive on calls, IMO.

blaise 10-08-2009 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151690)
As far as I know, the announcers only ever said "helmet-to-helmet."

That is probably why the letter was issued - the Chiefs' inquiry to the NFL also probably said the same thing. Maybe that's the words the ref actually used, which would be wrong. I still think it was a proper personal foul even if he got the wording wrong.

When the NFL makes a new rule, they train the officials by going over videos of when to apply the penalty. They don't concentrate on the wording. I'm sure the ref thought the play looked like plays the league taught him were penalties now.
That's really a baseless assumption

orange 10-08-2009 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaise (Post 6151707)
That's really a baseless assumption
Why is it baseless?

"Not a helmet to helmet hit" is the only detail Teicher mentions. Why is it baseless to conclude that's what the inquiry was about?

CHIEFS58 10-08-2009 01:27 PM
Whitlock cant play any card BUT the race card. He sure as hell can play the "knowledge about anything" card.

Hes as useless as Paris Hilton explaining physics.

CHIEFS58 10-08-2009 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHIEFS58 (Post 6151721)
Whitlock cant play any card BUT the race card. He sure as hell can play the "knowledge about anything" card.

Hes as useless as Paris Hilton explaining physics.
Cant play.

my bad.

notorious 10-08-2009 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHIEFS58 (Post 6151721)

Hes as useless as Paris Hilton explaining physics.

Paris isn't good at explaining physics, she is better at applying physics:


When "it" comes up, she must go down.....

blaise 10-08-2009 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151717)
Why is it baseless?

"Not a helmet to helmet hit" is the only detail Teicher mentions. Why is it baseless to conclude that's what the inquiry was about?
It's baseless because you have no idea if the letter from the NFL was clarifying the language or simply saying the call was wrong period, and should not have been made. You're saying words like "probably" based on nothing. Therefore it's baseless.

Chiefnj2 10-08-2009 01:32 PM
The Ngata call was okay - hands to the head.

The call against Suggs was a joke. It was incidental contact.

orange 10-08-2009 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaise (Post 6151734)
It's baseless because you have no idea if the letter from the NFL was clarifying the language or simply saying the call was wrong period, and should not have been made. You're saying words like "probably" based on nothing. Therefore it's baseless.
Okay. So where does this whole "apology" nonsense come from then?

Nothing.

Therefore it's baseless.

Chiefnj2 10-08-2009 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaise (Post 6151734)
It's baseless because you have no idea if the letter from the NFL was clarifying the language or simply saying the call was wrong period, and should not have been made. You're saying words like "probably" based on nothing. Therefore it's baseless.
They wouldn't have issued an apology if they were clarifying the language.

SDChiefs 10-08-2009 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151418)
9.
Why can't there be a 5-yard running-into-the-Brady call and a 15-yard roughing-the-Brady call?

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/1...are-NFL-Truths
This. Plus its funny too.

BigMeatballDave 10-08-2009 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefnj2 (Post 6151761)
They wouldn't have issued an apology if they were clarifying the language.
This. Oh, and Orange is an idiot and wrong...

orange 10-08-2009 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefnj2 (Post 6151761)
They wouldn't have issued an apology if they were clarifying the language.
They DIDN'T issue an apology.

Where the hell do you get that?

Quote me someone NOT named GoChiefs.

SDChiefs 10-08-2009 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A.Chieffan (Post 6151551)
Have the ****ing commercials while the ref is reviewing it. I dont need to see a ****ing zebra looking in a camera for ****ing 2 minutes while the annoucers try to fill in dead air the entire ****ing time. knock those commercials out baby
Hell yes. Rep

kysirsoze 10-08-2009 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151657)
Because the NFL rulebook says I'm right.


Rule Change No. 3: Unnecessary roughness has been expanded to include shots to a defenseless receiver's head.
The amendment states, a penalty will be called "If the initial force of the contact by a defender's helmet, forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless receiver who is catching or attempting to catch a pass."

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/archiv...ate=03-31-2009
He hit him in the chest with his shoulder. It was a bad call. They sent a letter saying the unnecessary roughness call was a mistake. I just can't imagine what you would need to convince you. At this point you MUST just be trolling.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:00 PM.
Page 3 of 6 12 3 456
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.