Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 13

Thread: Phantom sack?

  1. #1

    Phantom sack?



    Someone who knows could you please explain this for me?

    We get to Batch and as he is going to the ground he throws the ball to the ground and it is called an incomplete pass. Worst fucking challenge i have ever seen btw.

    Flacco gets hit and as he is going to the ground he throws the ball and it is caught. Why did they blow the whistle when he wasn't even on the ground yet?

    Being devils advocate i have always said There are shitty calls in every game. Some help and some hurt. That one def hurt and for the life of me i can't figure out why it happened.

    Anyone know of some video somewhere? They didn't even show it on replay unless i missed it somehow.




  2. #2

    Re: Phantom sack?

    Refs sucked; we still coulda woulda shoulda won

    But didn't

    What else is new?

    as for the whistle, the ref thought Flacco was going to get sacked, and in anticipation of that, blew the play dead just as Flacco threw the ball




  3. #3

    Re: Phantom sack?

    Quote Originally Posted by PerpetuallyBored74 View Post
    Refs sucked; we still coulda woulda shoulda won

    But didn't

    What else is new?

    as for the whistle, the ref thought Flacco was going to get sacked, and in anticipation of that, blew the play dead just as Flacco threw the ball

    Well not sure how they can blow a whistle on a hunch.




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ponce Inlet, FL
    Posts
    181

    Re: Phantom sack?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravens825 View Post
    Well not sure how they can blow a whistle on a hunch.

    Apparently it's not uncommon (Boldin/Weddle):

    http://www.nctimes.com/sports/footba...84847f816.html

    Daopoulos said, while not sure if there was helmet-to-helmet contact, he would have penalized Boldin.

    “It's just such a vicious hit,” Daopoulos said in a phone interview from Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “I just think it wasn't a legal hit. It had the potential for a block in the back. It also was a hit on a defenseless player. It kind of fell into a couple of categories. …

    “There's not 100 percent evidence that it was an illegal hit. It just didn't look good to me.




  5. #5

    Re: Phantom sack?

    It was a bad call, but understandable considering the league/refs these days. The "in the grasp" rule as it stands today only applies when a QB is "in the grasp" and is in danger of being hit by a 2nd defender. In the case where they called it on us, there was a 2nd defender and the guy may have touched Flacco's leg, but there was no real danger Joe was going to get hit/hurt because the 2nd defender was on the ground (in no position to hit anyone).

    The bottomline is the rule as it stands looks to prevent a QB from being held upright while someone else hammers him. In those cases, the ref should call in the grasp and blow the whistle. It was a bad call today.




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arbutus
    Posts
    1,548

    Re: Phantom sack?

    What I would like to know is that if the pass after he was "in the grasp" and the whistle was blown was no good, then why was the act of throwing him headfirst into the ground kosher, especially in light of Kruger's 15 yard shove later on?




  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: Phantom sack?

    What I wanna know is, if this was a sack, how was the play where we challenged for a fumble not a sack. Batch was clearly wrapped up and all but on the ground. I don't think it would have been anything other than a loss of a few yards, but come on there was no way this was a sack.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  8. #8

    Re: Phantom sack?

    In general, I thought the officials let the players play. But they had two big gaffes that cost the Ravens. The no-call on Boldin in the endzone was bad. He clearly got hit/shoved way before the arrival of the pass. And the Ravens would have about 30 more career sacks against Roethlisberger if the "in-the-grasp" rule was applied the same way as it was in that one play.




  9. Re: Phantom sack?

    This situation last night with the lack of consistency on how both of these calls were made pissed me off almost as much as everything else.

    There is no freakin' way the play on Batch is not a sack if the play on Flacco was.

    Total Bullshit IMO!!

    No it didn't cost us the game, but was definitely a load of shit.

    They talk about wanting to protect the QBS and have no consistency in how they call these types of plays.

    The Batch play he was on his way down to the ground and the ball comes squibbling out of there at the last second and it's an incomplete pass.

    The Flacco play the ball comes out with normal throwing motion while basically still upright and hits the intended receiver for a completion and is in the grasp? Yeah, OK.

    If that was Rothlisberger back there in place of Flacco it would have been considered a completion with announcers and media gushing about how big and strong he is to be able to keep the play alive, yadda, yadda, yadda.....

    No consistency, at all!!

    Then you're gonna turn around and call roughing the passer on a guy trying to kill the QB preventing him from getting the ball off to avoid a sack.
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




  10. #10

    Re: Phantom sack?

    It was a bad call (the one where Flacco was called in the grasp), but not for the reasons people think. The rule has nothing to do with how long or securedly the QB is wrapped up in terms of calling "in the grasp," it only applies (should be called) when the QB is in the grasp and is in imminent danger of being hit by a 2nd defender.

    I would need to watch the Batch play again, but I don't recall any 2nd defender moving in for a hit (obviously subjective and I could be remembering incorrectly). On the Flacco call there was a 2nd defender sitting on his ass pawing at Flacco's calves, and apparently that was enough for the idiot ref to call it dead, of course he allowed Flacco to get thrown to the ground after the whistle without a roughing call, so all in all the whole play was horribly officiated.




  11. #11

    Re: Phantom sack?

    The "In the Grasp" sack has gone the way of the dinosaur with the extent of added protections that have been applied to the QB in the last few years. For me, it just seems redundant to have a rule such as that when 15 yard penalties (and fines/possibly suspensions) exist for hitting too high, hitting too low, leading with the helmet too high, leading with the forearm/shoulder too high, and/or a late hit. Protect QB's like they've done with hits to the head...punishment after the act which discourages future head-hunting. Preemptive whistle-blowing to end the play and "protect the qb" just makes it all too subjective for my taste.

    QB's like Joe Flacco or Big Ben who are 6'6" 250 lbs+ can stand in and shake a linemen off a lot of the time. It's an advantage of being a big strong QB.




  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arbutus
    Posts
    1,548

    Re: Phantom sack?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    On the Flacco call there was a 2nd defender sitting on his ass pawing at Flacco's calves, and apparently that was enough for the idiot ref to call it dead, of course he allowed Flacco to get thrown to the ground after the whistle without a roughing call, so all in all the whole play was horribly officiated.
    Actually, that's a personal foul as well....AKA the Brady Rule.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland