NFL championship games thread 1-29-23
- Thread starter BullheadCardFan
- Start date
Was it a late hit or not? Did the defender have a chance to pull up?
SissyBoyFloyd
Pawnee, Skidi Clan
Did the Bengals OL let them down again? Something seemed to stymie the Bengals passing game. Besides starting so many drives backed up to their own goal line, something kept them from completing drives all game long. Is it their OL that still needs improving during this coming draft, just like folloiwing last years Super Bowl.
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
Both games had zebra impact. The late hit while Brock Purdy was injured didn't get flagged (ball was thrown when he got hit) and the late hit above on Burrow wasn't called.
I mean Zebras have to be consistent at least in a game, this is something we as Cards know that we often don't get. There were some ballant holdings by Eagles O-line and none was called, but on the 49ers it was. Same was for the Beangles. KC could hold, Beangles often got called for.
Look I'm still not saying that it was rigged, but I see that some might make that argument since both game had a really bitter taste with so many inconsistancies and so a bad outcome.
And I also hate the make up calls, that come late in the game when the Refs see they screwed up a team, but at least they try to get it even than. But most of the times the game is out of hand (49ers game and also the calls never came) but Bengles didn't get them either.
So overall yes you can call this fouls, but as ref you have to call them on both teams and be consistent with your callings. It can't be that one team is allowed to hold and the other not. Else you get the same results like with the legion of boom, where they start to hold on every down. Or the game gets so out of hand, that the players start to try to injure the opponent 49ers game.
It wasn't good and DC and HC should have gotten in the face of theire players, but I can understand them, that was the first time they got the Cardinals treatment XD.
Beangles had that treatment a long time, they knew it, tried to overcome it, weren't good enough. But from my point of view, not the better team won, but the one that hadn't to play against the Refs. I stopped watching soccer and many other sports for similar reasons. Nothing against single calls that go wrong, but I dislike when a team has to play against the ref. I hated our SB appearence for that as well, we played against the Steelers and a big chunk of the game against the refs as well, and we didn't come through because that is really hard and you need to be decicly better not just a little bit better.
Overall at the moment, I'm not hyped for the Superbowl and maybe it is the first SB in ovver 26 years that I will watch while I play something on my pc ...
I mean Zebras have to be consistent at least in a game, this is something we as Cards know that we often don't get. There were some ballant holdings by Eagles O-line and none was called, but on the 49ers it was. Same was for the Beangles. KC could hold, Beangles often got called for.
Look I'm still not saying that it was rigged, but I see that some might make that argument since both game had a really bitter taste with so many inconsistancies and so a bad outcome.
And I also hate the make up calls, that come late in the game when the Refs see they screwed up a team, but at least they try to get it even than. But most of the times the game is out of hand (49ers game and also the calls never came) but Bengles didn't get them either.
So overall yes you can call this fouls, but as ref you have to call them on both teams and be consistent with your callings. It can't be that one team is allowed to hold and the other not. Else you get the same results like with the legion of boom, where they start to hold on every down. Or the game gets so out of hand, that the players start to try to injure the opponent 49ers game.
It wasn't good and DC and HC should have gotten in the face of theire players, but I can understand them, that was the first time they got the Cardinals treatment XD.
Beangles had that treatment a long time, they knew it, tried to overcome it, weren't good enough. But from my point of view, not the better team won, but the one that hadn't to play against the Refs. I stopped watching soccer and many other sports for similar reasons. Nothing against single calls that go wrong, but I dislike when a team has to play against the ref. I hated our SB appearence for that as well, we played against the Steelers and a big chunk of the game against the refs as well, and we didn't come through because that is really hard and you need to be decicly better not just a little bit better.
Overall at the moment, I'm not hyped for the Superbowl and maybe it is the first SB in ovver 26 years that I will watch while I play something on my pc ...
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
MaoTosiFanClub
The problem
Gonna be an interesting SF offseason
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,666
- Reaction score
- 38,959
The local fallout seems to be everyone is furious that Shanahan didn't challenge the play in the first drive but the 49ers are saying they never got a replay that showed it. Apparently they are NOT allowed to get the network feed, they can only see the replays in the stadium that's also on some closed network they get. I assume the network feed would give them some advantage, ability to hear plays or something that's why they can't get it. So while we're all going what is he waiting for the ball is clearly on the ground, they never saw it. I still say just the reaction of Smith made it obvious they were hurrying up because they knew he didn't catch it.
As mentioned Purdy has a serious elbow injury, can't throw for months. PFT and other sites are now calling for the NFL to resurrect the emergency QB rule. They used to allow teams to suit a 3rd QB who could only play if the first 2 were hurt, if the 3rd QB played, it meant the first 2 were not allowed to come back in. Over time the league changed it to just adding one active spot and most teams use a non QB to get an extra ST player. But the NFL was VERY embarassed to have a team in the NFC title game actually having to resort to a RB and a WR taking snaps at QB so they're probably going to change that rule next season. I have no idea who would have played, my understand is Trey Lance was on IR and not allowed to play even if healthy?
Sounds like Trent Williams is retiring, they think that's probably why he snapped at the end and threw that dude down and punched someone else, he was hoping to win a SB and then retire.
As mentioned Purdy has a serious elbow injury, can't throw for months. PFT and other sites are now calling for the NFL to resurrect the emergency QB rule. They used to allow teams to suit a 3rd QB who could only play if the first 2 were hurt, if the 3rd QB played, it meant the first 2 were not allowed to come back in. Over time the league changed it to just adding one active spot and most teams use a non QB to get an extra ST player. But the NFL was VERY embarassed to have a team in the NFC title game actually having to resort to a RB and a WR taking snaps at QB so they're probably going to change that rule next season. I have no idea who would have played, my understand is Trey Lance was on IR and not allowed to play even if healthy?
Sounds like Trent Williams is retiring, they think that's probably why he snapped at the end and threw that dude down and punched someone else, he was hoping to win a SB and then retire.
Well, the NFL is kind of unwatchable now….
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,666
- Reaction score
- 38,959
Yahoo says it's a "complete tear" that has to have surgery. Normally a basedball pitcher injury not that common in football. In baseball they do a complete reconstruction, "Tommy John" surgery but the 49ers are hoping that won't be needed for Purdy.
Local speculation is already they'll try and get Tom Brady for next year.
RON_IN_OC
https://www.ronevansrealty.com
I get it was early in the game, but it was a 4th down catch in scoring position...receiver gets up and gets the team to the line, because he knows he didn't catch it clean. Can't make the excuse about burning a timeout...cuz you didn't burn any the entire 1st half (maybe even the entire game), even when your 4th string QB was getting delay penalty after delay penalty. This was almost an epic fail of Kliff proportions at coaching.
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,666
- Reaction score
- 38,959
oh I agree but that's apparently the reason they didn't have a replay that showed them that. FWIW, the FOX guys said the same thing we didn't see it until we were going to commercial, after the TD and got that replay.
I saw it on FOX but it was the combination of hey that's not a catch and the way smith acted that tipped me.
NFC title game you got an entire team watching from the bench someone has to see Smith and think there's a reason he is telling them to hurry up and snap it.
GatorAZ
feed hopkins
The only angles of replay coaches in the booth see (then signal down to the HC) are the ones the viewers see on tv in real time. The angle that had the ball moving was shown like 5 minutes later. Even the SF players didn’t look like they were all that contrary to the call. That was just bad luck or a slow job by the FOX production crew.
RON_IN_OC
https://www.ronevansrealty.com
I understand, but you've got 3 timeouts and a WR rushing his entire team to the line. Use a TO! He didn't call one the entire 1st half, so he can't use that as an excuse...and not having a quick enough view is the perfect time to call one, especially in the 1st half. Worst case scenario they rule the catch was good, but your defense got a chance to regroup.
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
GatorAZ
feed hopkins
Teams rush to the line all the time after unclear plays like that whether it’s the right wrong call. I do think, hypothetically, had Smith actually caught it and Shanahan challenged it blindly and lost, we’re probably not giving him any slack for it.
phillycard
ASFN Addict
No, the batteries were for JD Drew. I can't stand when people get this story wrong.
phillycard
ASFN Addict
I still generalize when I shouldn't. LOL. I think it's a way of expressing dislike for a fan base without having to qualify it. I typically despise eagles fans and think they're THE worst. Some of them are scum of the earth, yes. But, that being said, I know for a fact they are some of the most knowledgeable, passionate and die-hard fans of any team in sports, and they happen to make up the same people I love at Sixers, Phillies, and Flyers games here. The bad ones make it worse, because there are a LOT of good people among them but I can't adequately express my hate for them and that sorry team by being fair.
Just the way it is.
Cardsfaninlouky
ASFN Lifer
You're wrong pal, I was talking about early 70's, JD Drew wasn't even born then lol. It was an Eagles game not Phillies.
MigratingOsprey
Thank You Paul!
No batteries towards Santa.
Snowballs and boos, not not batteries
That whole thing had a lot of layers to it as well and was over 50 years ago
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 91,430
- Reaction score
- 68,616
Legen
i definitely felt bad for that dude. When he sat down and put his helmet on, he was doing whatever he could to hide/block out the world. you could see in his eyes. That’s a rough rough moment in life, playing out in front of millions.
It is. Like chris webbers time out.
I feel for the kid. But he will recover.
TRW
ASFN Addict
Yep. Plus, he injured his knee on the play also. Just a terrible moment for that kid. Reading some of the tweets after that, sometimes people's rage at a sports event is ridiculous.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Staff online
-
Brian in MesaAdvocatus Diaboli -
Dback JonDoing it My Way