was it a completely new field compared to the crappy field the Cardinals played on all year? There were complaints stretching all the way back to week 1.
Asking honestly if we know this was a whole new field
SB LVII Chiefs Eagles game thread 2-12-23
- Thread starter BullheadCardFan
- Start date
Asking honestly if we know this was a whole new field
Yes. The NFL laid it 2 weeks ago.
I’ve heard this brought up by multiple people since that play. That they want it to be blatant contact for it to be called in that situation. The defender was beaten by the route straight away on the double move. He reached out and knocked the receiver off schedule which prevented the play from being a success. That’s blatant and that has to be what the ref saw.
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,634
- Reaction score
- 38,892
Haven't read all the comments but now that James Bradberry, the guy called for the penalty, has admitted it was a good call that should get some of the controversy to stop.
Much respect to Bradberry for being honest. I think it was a great super bowl. Both teams were awesome, the chiefs were just a little better in all 3 phases. And the refs were not perfect, but they aren’t the story of this Super Bowl. For me the bigger controversy is catch vs no catch as it pertains to replay. The nfl needs to get that figured out before 2050.
right?? Because the play that was a catch on the sidelines should have been a fumble a few plays earlier.
RON_IN_OC
https://www.ronevansrealty.com
The entire NFL rulebook needs to be scrapped and rewritten from scratch.
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,634
- Reaction score
- 38,892
It just needs to make more sense. I get what happens a big controversy happens, they rewrite the rule to cover that, and then unintended consequences happen from that.
I'm still mad about the no fumble play because they aren't even following their own written rule. THe bolding is mine. I posted the video yesterday, after Sanders caught the ball he did in fact turn upfield and both feet actually came off the ground because he was in the act of starting to go forward and taking steps. I'm blanking on the name but an ex NFL ref was quoting the rule verbatim and saying as you can see a 3rd step is NOT required as Pereira said it was. It's one of the options for what constitutes a football move but it is not mandatory, we as NFL refs were told that every year.
"A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:
a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. "
agree. when the philly guy fumbled the studio ref said you needed three things... possession, two feet, and time... which he actually had because he made a hop skip between getting both feet down and getting decleated for the fumble... but it was called incomplete for lacking the time factor.
then on the philly completion where the WR bobbled the ball before going out of bounds...dude only had possession for about .2 seconds with both feet down before being out of bounds. called complete.... based on the explanation, if that pass was complete then so was the other one and it should have been a fumble.
QuebecCard
ASFN Addict
And while they're at it, change the game's name to American Rugby because it sure isn't foot-to-ball.
Krangodnzr
Captain of Team Conner
I thought the Goedert catch was real iffy.
I didn't think it was a catch at all. Never had clear possession or made a football move.
I hate the going to the ground thing.
Krangodnzr
Captain of Team Conner
Yeah it's just cognitive dissonance to argue against the call.
Bradberry reached out and grabbed him as the receiver was pulling away. Do some DBs get away with it? Sure, but if refs see it, they will call it.
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,634
- Reaction score
- 38,892
The rule I quoted if you look at the last part it says "or maintains control of the ball long enough to do so." The ref that we were quoting in our google meeting yesterday seemed to think that was the part of the rule that caused them to rule that incomplete. They didn't think he had control of the ball long enough to make a football move. BUt he said if that's the case, they're misinterpreting the rule. We were taught what that is for is a theoretical situation where a guy catches the ball, never makes a "football move" and then goes down and surrenders himself and drops the ball(which happened in one of our games years ago). The NFL doesn't want it to be a fumble because the guy is surrendering himself, so they put in that element of had time to make a football move. It's not nothing to do with getting hit and fumbling, it's about him giving himself up.
No argument here. Other than to acknowledge it could have just as easily been a non call and there would be those that share my exact same sentiment behind the situation. Either side of that coin of the argument isn't wrong per se. All I'm saying is, I've seen and we've all seen IMHO, WAYYY more blatant stuff out there on the field. I think that's why even an offensive guy himself like Greg Olson argued it a bit on the broadcast. It's not that it wasn't a penalty so much as it was just more of a 50/50 call. That's how I see it at least and maybe others like Olson did as well.. Of course, we all have our own opinions on those kinda things. So it is what it is.
good observations…when you give up a defensive TD and a punt return like that in one game…you often lose. Aside from those 2 plays the eagles really did a lot of good things. It’s hard to overcome that.
Yeah I understand. For me it’s more about the timing than it is about the call. Because the chiefs were able to run the clock out, it would of been better if bradberry actually let him score. So hindsight is 20/20. the timing of the call should not dictate the call. It was a foul just as the one in the first half was a foul on the third down (philly player grabbed the KC receiver’s arm) and that one wasn’t given, yet Olsen complained about it not being called.
I'm not even that fussed about the 2 walk in TD's for a couple of reasons. Although I'd have liked them to have learned from the first one.
1. If the Chiefs are inside your 10 chances are they are going to score. High odds both those drives are TD's one way or another anyway.
2. Skyy Moore's walk in came off the punt return that started at the 5 yard line.
3. There are only 2 ways the Eagles can play the motion man. They either switch the coverage and pass the motion off to the safety with the CB taking the safeties role (which is what they did) or they try get the CB in man coverage to run with him through all the bodies on the defense. I prefer the way they did it, for me it's the best way, but the players switching coverage have to be switched on. Especially against Reid and this offense.
This for me is far more a mistake by the players than the DC. Both time they weren't focused on what the sweeper was doing. Chances are if they stay in man and try follow the guy across both guys are open on the sweep anyway and score. So I don't think there was anything wrong with the coverage scheme, it was just handled badly by the player responsible.
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 38,491
- Reaction score
- 25,431
I hate to sound like I know more than the sod god. I did work for Western Sod as a teen and some in my 20s.
To lay sod in January, two weeks before the Super Bowl, and think that it will root into the soil in two weeks is unrealistic. Watering too much is not good as it doesn't give the plant a reason to grow deep roots. One deep water was all that should have been done. But, I bet they sprinkled it every day.
I can't say I know too much about it, although I believe this is the way it's always done.
The guy that does the field for the SB is 94 and has prepared every field for every single superbowl. He's been a groundskeeper for 81 years. That's pretty awesome. So I'm not going to dis the guy because he might die next week and I don't want his final words to be "Sorry about that Arizona turf!".
Also he used to work for the Chiefs and is a fan so he probably watered the **** of of that field on purpose
'The Sodfather,' groundskeeper for every Super Bowl field in history, prepares for one last game
'God of Sod' George Toma looks back at his career working on Super Bowl fields as he prepares for Sunday's matchup between the Kansas City Chiefs and Philadelphia Eagles.
Edit, this says how the turf is handled. Apparently very little soil and grown on a plastic base. Always done this way for every SB.
The Story Behind Super Bowl Grass
Ever wonder how the Super Bowl grows such impeccable grass even inside indoor stadiums. Here's the super story behind Super Bowl grass.
www.lawnstarter.com
I don’t know why the NFL can’t get their grass/turf situation figured out either. The NFLPA has been making a stink about artificial turf as it relates to player safety, and pushing for natural grass. For a multi-billion dollar company I don’t understand why they can’t figure this out for the players.
Eagles and Chiefs players both agreed that the Super Bowl's $800,000 turf was terrible: 'It was like playing on a water park'
When the Eagles and Chiefs concluded Super Bowl LVII, there was one thing both sides could agree on: That field was brutal.
Throughout the game, star players on both teams struggled to keep their feet beneath them, prompting several mid-game cleat swaps from players looking to find a way to make sharp moves against the untrustworthy turf.
Heading into the game, the field came highly touted by legendary groundskeeper George Toma, better known as "The Sodfather." Toma, 94, has been looking over the grass at every Super Bowl since the beginning and said that the field in Arizona was the second-best they've ever had for the big game.
That supposedly good turf came at the cost of $800,000, he estimated, and who knows how many man-hours in construction and maintenance. Also, every day since it was installed two weeks ago, the field was dragged out of the stadium and into the direct sunlight of the desert sun. It is quite an operation.
But all that work resulted in a pretty poor final product, according to the guys that played on it.
SoonerLou
ASFN Addict
Listening to Cowherd. Made a great point about Kelce and Creed Humphrey and how a great interior helps Mahomes and Hurts flourish.
Chiefs lucked out that we traded for Hudson. He was going there.
Chiefs lucked out that we traded for Hudson. He was going there.
Keim was able to snatch defeat in the jaws of victory.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Arizona Cardinals @ Seattle Seahawks Pre Game Thread. 11/17/24-11/23/24- Latest: BirdGangThing
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
