The Fuck It Im Pissed Thread

[thelightningwill]

having one game in 23 days is a must for this team. We need everyone back for the game after the bye. I MEAN EVERYONE BACK.

If we can get a win against Miami, we will be all right.

Get back, Faded Blues.

[Ragnoff]

The are 2 interesting thought running through this thread and others, 1st, that it was CLEARLY a fumble.

Noone disputes the charger player rips the ball away, but the question is when. The ball cn be twisting while NOT YET lost. (Think of a situation like half and for the Chargers last night where a defenders hands are also on the ball that a receiver catches. There is usually movement of the ball during the tussle, yet the fact the ball moves does not automatically negate catch. In fact, the tie usually goes to the receiver.) Fumbles seem to work the same way, until the ball is clearly been separated from the ball carrier, the ballcarrier is presumed to have precedence.

B0rSl7qIcAAH-J8.jpg

This is actually slightly after Caldwell is "Down" as he was down before the elbow touched (the forearm touched first) and in this shot the elbow has already touched the ground. Notice the ball is still held between the forearm, the bicep and the chest. The palm of the hand is still on the ball. Is he moments away from losing control and losing possession? Sure, but at the moment he was down (just before this) the defender has started to shift the ball but has not yet managed to pull it out of the Calswell's grasp.

Another contention is, even if the Seattle player had gotten the ball out a half 2nd earlier and thus it had been a fumble that automatically would have been attend a 14 point swing. The next time the Chargers have the ball this deep, it takes 4 passing plays, 3 incompletes, for them to score a touchdown. At this point BO has a negative total between his rushing and receiving, so it seems reasonable to think that the Chargers would do the same thing they do when they next get down to this area, which is try to throw. Incomplete passes and successful passes to the end zone burn very little time off the clock.

Denver's next drive would, presumably, start from about the same area as this drive did. Denver scored in 2 1/2 minutes, and that was after intentionally wasting the minute before the two-minute warning because they did not want San Diego to have too much time in the case they did not succeed. Obviously if they received the ball at about the two-minute warning instead they would not need to waste that time. In addition, they finished that drive with 34 seconds to spare and 2 timeouts remaining. Even if San Diego had wanted to try and ineffective run to waste some time before attempting to get the touchdown they could have only burned off a handful of seconds each play. We hear a lot about momentum, but many teams find momentum when they need a score before the end of the half, so I think that the presumption that there is no way Denver scores in their ensuing drive should the charger player actually succeeded in causing the fumble (which he did not) is questionable at best.

As far as the Uncalled Gates pushoff, the ticket tachy calls that negated the Denver touchdown by Hillman and negated the interception, those were coin flips. One went each way. I have heard several people on here declare that the refs saw the interception and then chose to throw the flag, but there is no video evidence supporting that. For those who say the flag was thrown only after the interception, if you watch the game clock interception is happening with 13:42 remaining in the 4th quarter, and the flag appears in the screenshot at 13:41 the ref had to make the decision there was a penalty, grab the flag, and throw the flag in time for it to enter the picture by 13:41. Simple human reaction time and physics says there is no way this can be a decision made after it is clear that the ball has been intercepted!

I was watching game thread on both this and another very popular charger site, and while the commercial was going on and the review was happening about half of the charger fans on both site were posting that the call was going to get reversed. It was only after the ex-official gave his opinion (remember he is an X official and just a commentator at this point) that it became "obvious that it was a conspiracy" when the on-field ruling of a fumble was reversed.

I am not saying no calls were missed, nor am I saying not judgment calls that could have legitimately gone either way, but it is natural for everyone to see things from their own perception. After a full day of working themselves up over it, some people are so certain they saw what they did not see or that there was only one way to interpret what they did see that they have changed their perception of the events that happened. This is one of the reason why eyewitness testimony, no matter how effective it is in the courtroom, is generally distrusted by police officers trying to figure out what actually happened in any given situation. Of course nobody knows for certain what could have happened had the , this calls on the fumble, the Gates pushoff for the interception called back by holding gone the other way. Broncos team seems to be very effective at moving the ball and spent most of the 4th quarter trying to preserve the lead and run out the clock rather than aggressively attack, so the claims that this was an automatic win if the calls had gone the other way for the Chargers is, at best, supposition.

Ragnoff

[kets]

"until the ball is clearly been separated from the ball carrier,"

I think this part is wrong. It needs to be on the way out, which it clearly was.

[Ragnoff]

Well, some movement does NOT constitute loss of possession (the rule book states "loss of possession" not movement preceding loss of possession). The quote from the head of officials is:

“Slight movement does not constitute a loss of possession — that’s in the rulebook. Loss of control means the ball being pulled loose,” Blandino said.

The full quote and a more complete ruling is Here: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...os-non-fumble/

[SFW]

If the roles were reversed Broncos fans would be up in arms over the call. Of course, in Broncos fans eyes it was the right call and in the eyes of the Chargers they were cheated.

The biggest issue I have is that it was called a fumble on the field which means the refs would need overwhelming evidence to overturn it. The call is obviously extremely disputed as Carey on the broadcast also thought it was a fumble. So for it to be so disputable but still overturned seems odd. But as has been pointed out several times (to include on ESPN today) Peyton Manning has received preferred treatment throughout his career.

The better team won yesterday, but they were also helped by poor and somewhat odd officiating.

[Boltx]

On Weddle's INT...was the flag thrown before or after he intercepted it?

[Wheels]

The defensive holding on Weddle's int was atrocious. You can see the line of scrimmage so you can tell pretty easily where the 5 yards would be from that line. He was within the 5 yards but it was called defensive holding. What a joke.

[Ragnoff]

Holding can be called within 5 yards, grabbing the jersey or putting your arm around the receiver and pulling are not permitted within 5 yards, or anywhere really. You can try to jam the receiver, but not hold them.

From the rule book: (http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/useofhands)

"A defensive player is allowed to maintain continuous and unbroken contact within the five-yard zone until a point when the receiver is even with the defender. The defensive player cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an eligible receiver in a manner that restricts movement as the play develops."

I agree that is not always called, but it is a legit call as the charger both encircled and then grabbed (briefly) the jersey, and did so in clear view of the closest ref. the choice to throw the flag happened at about the same time as Weddle first touched the ball for the flag to be in the frame of the camera within a second of the int.

[Mister Hoarse]

I think Ragnoff makes some interesting points in this thread.
I say that as an unbiased observer who did not see any of the game due to working that night. So I do not have any visual evidence or non evidence clouding my own perceptions of the plays in question. Flame away, but I welcome an opposing view with a solid argument.


VIDEO LOADING
WE'RE SORRY, BUT THIS VIDEO IS NOT AVAILABLE.
WATCH MORE VIDEOS

[Wheels]

Holding can be called within 5 yards, grabbing the jersey or putting your arm around the receiver and pulling are not permitted within 5 yards, or anywhere really. You can try to jam the receiver, but not hold them.

From the rule book: (http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/useofhands)

"A defensive player is allowed to maintain continuous and unbroken contact within the five-yard zone until a point when the receiver is even with the defender. The defensive player cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an eligible receiver in a manner that restricts movement as the play develops."

I agree that is not always called, but it is a legit call as the charger both encircled and then grabbed (briefly) the jersey, and did so in clear view of the closest ref. the choice to throw the flag happened at about the same time as Weddle first touched the ball for the flag to be in the frame of the camera within a second of the int.

Uh no, that is incidental and within the 5 yards. You'd be livid if it nullified a bronco's goalline interception. Not saying the Bonco's aren't the better team at this point, but you got some home cooking, every review or big call broke your way. Here's a vine of the play.

https://sports.vice.com/article/eric-weddles-would-be-interception-was-nasty

[sandiego17]

https://sports.vice.com/article/eric...tion-was-nasty

Awful call, but Donkey's always get those. So does Manning. Combination is strong.

[Panama]

Every time someone posts to this thread, 'Go to the first new post' links to the top of the thread. Why is that?