Lost amid the Warner debacle...

[moklerman]

I'm just as consumed as everyone else is by how badly Warner played yesterday, but up until it was CLEAR that Warner was unravelling I was ready to blast the officials for their "efforts".

The three early drops didn't set a good tone but I was sure that that would be overcome. An unnatural football act? PI on Fitz? Hell, even though it worked in the Card's favor, the non-td to Holt was a bad call too. There was too much else to focus on after that but I'm sure the calls didn't get much better. Oh, the last play of the game was something too. How long does a team get to ponder a decision? The Rams clearly accepted the penalty then 10 minutes later were allowed to change their mind. Something about that doesn't seem right. Maybe they should start doing that on the coin toss. "Heads". [flips coin, comes up tails] "Oh, okay we want "tails" instead."

I'm hoping Karma comes through and the Cards surprize Atlanta next week. That had to be one of the most gut wrenching losses ever.

 

[BullheadCardFan]

There was also a play in the first half that Denny challenged when Holt I believe caught a ball going out of bounds ... the official said after the review that he had control of the ball, but that wasn't the problem ... he only got one foot in bounds .. his second foot was over the line by at least an inch and a half and the officials missed it ...

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Compound the fact that at the end of tha game, the Referee actually signaled that the Rams declined the penalty. Once Rackers and the FG team got on the field, the referee allowed the Rams to change their action on the penalty? How can the referee let them choose to accept the penalty, after they already decided to decline it?

 

[sr7706]

Compound the fact that at the end of tha game, the Referee actually signaled that the Rams declined the penalty. Once Rackers and the FG team got on the field, the referee allowed the Rams to change their action on the penalty? How can the referee let them choose to accept the penalty, after they already decided to decline it?

Who cares.... had nothing to do with the outcome..nothing.

 

[AzCards21]

I'm not even going to go the ref route on this one. It's Warner.

 

[moklerman]

challenged when Holt I believe caught a ball going out of bounds

I remember that play now, but it was Bruce. I thought that he was out of bounds as wel. As did the announcers on t.v.

Who cares.... had nothing to do with the outcome..nothing.

No, but it is the point of this thread. I said the officiating was awful, not that the officiating cost the Card's the game.

 

[gusmahler]

Compound the fact that at the end of tha game, the Referee actually signaled that the Rams declined the penalty. Once Rackers and the FG team got on the field, the referee allowed the Rams to change their action on the penalty? How can the referee let them choose to accept the penalty, after they already decided to decline it?

What I don't understand is that several articles posted on this board state that we first brought Rackers out, then the Rams accepted the penalty. But those articles fail to mention that the Rams declined the penalty first.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Same 'ol whining about the refs as in years past... This team hasn't eanred the right to whine about bad calls.
How 'bout we play like a professional team for a few quarters? Maybe even put 2 wins together back to back...
If you think the refs are keeping us from W's, I've got some beautiful ocean front property here in Phoenix for ya!

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Same 'ol whining about the refs as in years past... This team hasn't eanred the right to whine about bad calls.
How 'bout we play like a professional team for a few quarters? Maybe even put 2 wins together back to back...
If you think the refs are keeping us from W's, I've got some beautiful ocean front property here in Phoenix for ya!

It is not about whining. This thread isn't blaming the refs for losing. (Warner is getting most of the blame) The fact that I kept looking at my brother and shaking my head at the refs decisions. There were several mistakes made by the refs this game.

 

[jenna2891]

What I don't understand is that several articles posted on this board state that we first brought Rackers out, then the Rams accepted the penalty. But those articles fail to mention that the Rams declined the penalty first.

that pissed me off to no end. i have such blind faith in rackers that i was already to go crazy when he made the 70+ field goal. i'm sorry, i don't care how little used the penalty is, you shouldn't get to "change your mind" just because you didn't know the result of declining the penalty.

 

[CaptTurbo]

Lost amid this debacle is the defense. They played well in the last two games. Well enough to win if we had an offense.

Can you believe they got that fumble when they needed it. That was sweet!

 

[Billy Flynt]

It didn't lose the game for us (we did plenty to do that) but the officiating was horrid. They made some ridiculous calls on both sides - Fitz's PI and the completion on Bruce's sideline pass being the worst.

The thing I really still don't understand is the end of the game. Someone at the bar I watched the game at said that he thought the offsides was intentional by the Cardinals - if so, then that was stoopid!

 

[MrY]

Lost also amid the debacle is the complete undressing of the G-men by the Seahags. Our loss doesn't look quite as horrific now. yeah, yeah still an L, I know

 

[Big T]

This whining and blaming the refs for this debacle is a joke.
That last play of the game, the refs made the right call.
If anything, as vacu-brain Bill Maas said at the time, "I seems like Denny doesn't know what the rule is".
The rule very clearly states that a game cannot end on a penalty by the defensive team, IF THEY ARE BEHIND. If that occurs there is then one more untimed play added so as to not end on the defensive penalty.
The reason for that is that otherwise, theoretically, if a team was behind, they could just continue to go offsides, or whatever, and just indefinitely continue the game.
Also, take into consideration this little gem: Why should, as is this case, the Cards get a chance to win the game, that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten, unless THEY were the ones the penalty was on?
All appearance are that some of the coaches evidently weren't exactly up to speed on the whole deal.
I also serously doubt that anyone here, knows exactly what was transpiring out on the field. Again, from appearances of what was going on out on the field, there must have been some problems with the interpretation of the rules.
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that all the Rams had to do was refuse the penalty, and then, just as they did, take a knee and game over, one the free play.
Evidently there must have been some discussion between coaches and refs as to understanding all that.

(personally I would have loved to see Rackers try the 75 yd field goal and try for the record books, but the rule really isn't all that complicated, if you actually know what it is.)

 

[dreamcastrocks]

This whining and blaming the refs for this debacle is a joke.
That last play of the game, the refs made the right call.
If anything, as vacu-brain Bill Maas said at the time, "I seems like Denny doesn't know what the rule is".
The rule very clearly states that a game cannot end on a penalty by the defensive team, IF THEY ARE BEHIND. If that occurs there is then one more untimed play added so as to not end on the defensive penalty.
The reason for that is that otherwise, theoretically, if a team was behind, they could just continue to go offsides, or whatever, and just indefinitely continue the game.
Also, take into consideration this little gem: Why should, as is this case, the Cards get a chance to win the game, that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten, unless THEY were the ones the penalty was on?
All appearance are that some of the coaches evidently weren't exactly up to speed on the whole deal.
I also serously doubt that anyone here, knows exactly what was transpiring out on the field. Again, from appearances of what was going on out on the field, there must have been some problems with the interpretation of the rules.
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that all the Rams had to do was refuse the penalty, and then, just as they did, take a knee and game over, one the free play.
Evidently there must have been some discussion between coaches and refs as to understanding all that.

(personally I would have loved to see Rackers try the 75 yd field goal and try for the record books, but the rule really isn't all that complicated, if you actually know what it is.)

I can agree with you and we really do not know what happened on the field. We do however know what the referee said over his mic to the crowd and the television audience. He changed the way that the penalty was enforced.

 

[daves]

This whining and blaming the refs for this debacle is a joke.
That last play of the game, the refs made the right call.
If anything, as vacu-brain Bill Maas said at the time, "I seems like Denny doesn't know what the rule is".
The rule very clearly states that a game cannot end on a penalty by the defensive team, IF THEY ARE BEHIND. If that occurs there is then one more untimed play added so as to not end on the defensive penalty.

Apparently neither you nor Bill Maas understands the issue at hand.

The reason Denny CORRECTLY believed that, after the Rams DECLINED the penalty, the Cardinals would get an untimed play, is that NFL rules state that following the legal FAIR CATCH of any kick, the receiving team may choose to run a regular scrimmge play OR they may free kick the ball from the the yardline where the catch was made (without a tee).

That's why Green, obviously fully aware of the rules (moreso than some observers and his counterparts on the Rams sideline), instructed the punt returner to call for a fair catch, rather than attempting to return the punt. Obviously the Rams weren't aware of the rule beforehand - i was expecting the punter to deliberately kick the ball out of bounds, or squib it to prevent a fair catch. I was amazed when they allowed the fiar catch to be made, realizing that it would give Rackers a long-shot opportunity at an un-defended field goal attempt.

Unfortunately, the offsides infraction against the Cardinals, and the refs' as-yet unexplained decision to allow the Rams to change their minds after the fact, allowed the Rams to accept the penalty and run a play on fourth down to end the game.

...dave

 

[HeavyB3]

Ok, officiating was bad... What about the offsetting 15 yard penalties on the rams incomplete touchdown pass... Was it just my imagination or did Holt shove a ref out of his way. He should have been ejected.

 

[8ndkorner]

I'm just as consumed as everyone else is by how badly Warner played yesterday, but up until it was CLEAR that Warner was unravelling I was ready to blast the officials for their "efforts".

The three early drops didn't set a good tone but I was sure that that would be overcome. An unnatural football act? PI on Fitz? Hell, even though it worked in the Card's favor, the non-td to Holt was a bad call too. There was too much else to focus on after that but I'm sure the calls didn't get much better. Oh, the last play of the game was something too. How long does a team get to ponder a decision? The Rams clearly accepted the penalty then 10 minutes later were allowed to change their mind. Something about that doesn't seem right. Maybe they should start doing that on the coin toss. "Heads". [flips coin, comes up tails] "Oh, okay we want "tails" instead."

I'm hoping Karma comes through and the Cards surprize Atlanta next week. That had to be one of the most gut wrenching losses ever.

Man hope all you want but Atlanta took a beating today. They're going to be really tough at home next game and we will be starting the rookie. Do you think they will try to take advantage of it with that D?

 

[CaptTurbo]

Man hope all you want but Atlanta took a beating today. They're going to be really tough at home next game and we will be starting the rookie. Do you think they will try to take advantage of it with that D?

A few years ago i went back all the way to 87. The percentage of cards wins against teams that lost the previous week was something like a half a percent. We NEVER beat teams on the road nor after a loss.

On the road after a loss might even be 0% would be interesting to find out.

But Leinart will change all that.