The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

langleyparkjoe wrote:Hey Fios, I agree man, I think they got Rocky's call correct, that ball look like it hit the ground first and I also think that was a weak call against Ware.

IMO, had Rocky just kept running instead of jumping on his blockers, he would have been in the end zone, special teams would have kicked the extra point, and there'd been no time to challenge.

That was an ill-timed dive. He must have been watching BLloyd film all week.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Hey Fios, I agree man, I think they got Rocky's call correct, that ball look like it hit the ground first and I also think that was a weak call against Ware.

IMO, had Rocky just kept running instead of jumping on his blockers, he would have been in the end zone, special teams would have kicked the extra point, and there'd been no time to challenge.

That was an ill-timed dive. He must have been watching BLloyd film all week.

Nah, they still would have challenged it. Our Special teamers wouldn't have gotten onto the field any faster that our offense was tryin'.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Hey Fios, I agree man, I think they got Rocky's call correct, that ball look like it hit the ground first and I also think that was a weak call against Ware.

IMO, had Rocky just kept running instead of jumping on his blockers, he would have been in the end zone, special teams would have kicked the extra point, and there'd been no time to challenge.

That was an ill-timed dive. He must have been watching BLloyd film all week.

I was thinking about that too. I'm somewhat surprised teams don't practice getting on and off the field quickly after a controversial play, to keep the other team from challenging. Even if the D lines up as the offense and spikes the ball, or hell, just run a play. the other team's offense would have to defend, and would either be caught offsides, or with their players shuttling in and out.

It was a bogus call cus U never see the ball touch the ground. You ASSUME that it does. That is NOT conclusive evidence.

He didn't have control of the ball, I thought that was the issue

Even if you don't have control of the ball, And it never touches the ground it's a catch.

I think it did hit the ground, but your right. You can't see that from the replays and thats not conclusive evidence.

You have to maintain control and have two feet down before going out of bounds to call it a catch. You have to maintain control on a catch in bounds for it be a catch IF he then drops it and its fumble. But it never touches the ground, and you bobble it, then come up with it, thats a catch.

Bueno point

It definitely hit the ground. It was between his arms, and when he hit down, it bounced off the ground and up into his gut, That was when he lost control of it. Had he managed to keep it under control, it wouldn't have mattered that it hit the ground. That rule was changed several years ago, so that even if the ball touches the ground, if the reciever maintains control, it is still a catch. He didn't, so it wasn't.

JSPB22 wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Hey Fios, I agree man, I think they got Rocky's call correct, that ball look like it hit the ground first and I also think that was a weak call against Ware.

IMO, had Rocky just kept running instead of jumping on his blockers, he would have been in the end zone, special teams would have kicked the extra point, and there'd been no time to challenge.

That was an ill-timed dive. He must have been watching BLloyd film all week.

I was thinking about that too. I'm somewhat surprised teams don't practice getting on and off the field quickly after a controversial play, to keep the other team from challenging. Even if the D lines up as the offense and spikes the ball, or hell, just run a play. the other team's offense would have to defend, and would either be caught offsides, or with their players shuttling in and out.

Sounds like a great idea. Someone in New England has just read your post and the next time NE gets an INT or a fumble, Vrebal will end up throwing a TD.

As far as the Rock non-INT, had he scored the team could have ran out and kicked the extra point If I remember correctly, since he didn't score they went to a TV time out and Son of a Bum had more time to take a look at it.

The Dallas game.

I think the only bad call that was made by Gibbs was the field goal instead of going for it. Remember that 4th and 1 call when we had a 7-0 lead?

So he is showing alot of improvement.

So that is two consecutive games where our offense has shown significant improvement.

Funny how both games we lost though.

HEROHAMO wrote:The Dallas game.

I think the only bad call that was made by Gibbs was the field goal instead of going for it. Remember that 4th and 1 call when we had a 7-0 lead?

So he is showing alot of improvement.

So that is two consecutive games where our offense has shown significant improvement.

Funny how both games we lost though.

merged with existing thread

skinsfan#33 wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Hey Fios, I agree man, I think they got Rocky's call correct, that ball look like it hit the ground first and I also think that was a weak call against Ware.

IMO, had Rocky just kept running instead of jumping on his blockers, he would have been in the end zone, special teams would have kicked the extra point, and there'd been no time to challenge.

That was an ill-timed dive. He must have been watching BLloyd film all week.

I was thinking about that too. I'm somewhat surprised teams don't practice getting on and off the field quickly after a controversial play, to keep the other team from challenging. Even if the D lines up as the offense and spikes the ball, or hell, just run a play. the other team's offense would have to defend, and would either be caught offsides, or with their players shuttling in and out.

Sounds like a great idea. Someone in New England has just read your post and the next time NE gets an INT or a fumble, Vrebal will end up throwing a TD.

As far as the Rock non-INT, had he scored the team could have ran out and kicked the extra point If I remember correctly, since he didn't score they went to a TV time out and Son of a Bum had more time to take a look at it.

Sure is a creative thought, but that's probably an awful lot of ineligible players who have to announce they are eligible receivers... no way to save time on that. What a mess it would turn into...

On defense 3rd and long has become an enigma for this team ..
but whats makes more frustrating its not the 3rd and 10's its 3rd and TWENTY!!!...and guys are wide open

Opposing players are open because our dline is unable to generate any sort of pressure without a blitz. The dline really is the main weakness of this defense.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

On defense 3rd and long has become an enigma for this team ..
but whats makes more frustrating its not the 3rd and 10's its 3rd and TWENTY!!!...and guys are wide open

Opposing players are open because our dline is unable to generate any sort of pressure without a blitz. The dline really is the main weakness of this defense.

I agree. It is a little better than in past years, but we still need to see some improvement there. Montgomery has been coming along, thankfully, but this will be our weakness through the rest of the season without a doubt.

JSPB22 wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Hey Fios, I agree man, I think they got Rocky's call correct, that ball look like it hit the ground first and I also think that was a weak call against Ware.

IMO, had Rocky just kept running instead of jumping on his blockers, he would have been in the end zone, special teams would have kicked the extra point, and there'd been no time to challenge.

That was an ill-timed dive. He must have been watching BLloyd film all week.

I was thinking about that too.

Then it is settled. This loss falls squarely on Rocky's shoulders.

Bench him.

Countertrey wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Hey Fios, I agree man, I think they got Rocky's call correct, that ball look like it hit the ground first and I also think that was a weak call against Ware.

IMO, had Rocky just kept running instead of jumping on his blockers, he would have been in the end zone, special teams would have kicked the extra point, and there'd been no time to challenge.

That was an ill-timed dive. He must have been watching BLloyd film all week.

I was thinking about that too. I'm somewhat surprised teams don't practice getting on and off the field quickly after a controversial play, to keep the other team from challenging. Even if the D lines up as the offense and spikes the ball, or hell, just run a play. the other team's offense would have to defend, and would either be caught offsides, or with their players shuttling in and out.

Sounds like a great idea. Someone in New England has just read your post and the next time NE gets an INT or a fumble, Vrebal will end up throwing a TD.

As far as the Rock non-INT, had he scored the team could have ran out and kicked the extra point If I remember correctly, since he didn't score they went to a TV time out and Son of a Bum had more time to take a look at it.

Sure is a creative thought, but that's probably an awful lot of ineligible players who have to announce they are eligible receivers... no way to save time on that. What a mess it would turn into...

It would be very interesting. I doubt the any NFL officiating crew would allow it to happen even if it was legal.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Hey Fios, I agree man, I think they got Rocky's call correct, that ball look like it hit the ground first and I also think that was a weak call against Ware.

IMO, had Rocky just kept running instead of jumping on his blockers, he would have been in the end zone, special teams would have kicked the extra point, and there'd been no time to challenge.

That was an ill-timed dive. He must have been watching BLloyd film all week.

I was thinking about that too. I'm somewhat surprised teams don't practice getting on and off the field quickly after a controversial play, to keep the other team from challenging. Even if the D lines up as the offense and spikes the ball, or hell, just run a play. the other team's offense would have to defend, and would either be caught offsides, or with their players shuttling in and out.

Sounds like a great idea. Someone in New England has just read your post and the next time NE gets an INT or a fumble, Vrebal will end up throwing a TD.

As far as the Rock non-INT, had he scored the team could have ran out and kicked the extra point If I remember correctly, since he didn't score they went to a TV time out and Son of a Bum had more time to take a look at it.

Sure is a creative thought, but that's probably an awful lot of ineligible players who have to announce they are eligible receivers... no way to save time on that. What a mess it would turn into...

It would be very interesting. I doubt the any NFL officiating crew would allow it to happen even if it was legal.

Yes it is legal, and no it wouldn't require players to report as eligible. They would basically line up opposite their normal positions. Their numbers determine what positions they can play, and the ranges are similar on both sides of the ball. Linemen would be linemen, backs would be backs and or receivers. They could work out a standard formation beforehand in practice with players lining up where they are eligible.

The point is moot. Fat boy threw the flag before the D even got off the field. It was pretty quick.

JSPB22 wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Hey Fios, I agree man, I think they got Rocky's call correct, that ball look like it hit the ground first and I also think that was a weak call against Ware.

IMO, had Rocky just kept running instead of jumping on his blockers, he would have been in the end zone, special teams would have kicked the extra point, and there'd been no time to challenge.

That was an ill-timed dive. He must have been watching BLloyd film all week.

I was thinking about that too. I'm somewhat surprised teams don't practice getting on and off the field quickly after a controversial play, to keep the other team from challenging. Even if the D lines up as the offense and spikes the ball, or hell, just run a play. the other team's offense would have to defend, and would either be caught offsides, or with their players shuttling in and out.

Sounds like a great idea. Someone in New England has just read your post and the next time NE gets an INT or a fumble, Vrebal will end up throwing a TD.

As far as the Rock non-INT, had he scored the team could have ran out and kicked the extra point If I remember correctly, since he didn't score they went to a TV time out and Son of a Bum had more time to take a look at it.

Sure is a creative thought, but that's probably an awful lot of ineligible players who have to announce they are eligible receivers... no way to save time on that. What a mess it would turn into...

It would be very interesting. I doubt the any NFL officiating crew would allow it to happen even if it was legal.

Yes it is legal, and no it wouldn't require players to report as eligible. They would basically line up opposite their normal positions. Their numbers determine what positions they can play, and the ranges are similar on both sides of the ball. Linemen would be linemen, backs would be backs and or receivers. They could work out a standard formation beforehand in practice with players lining up where they are eligible.

I still say some official would blow a whistle or throw a flag or do something to screw up the play, but most likely the opposing Head Coach would call a time out.

But I would love to see someone try it.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Hey Fios, I agree man, I think they got Rocky's call correct, that ball look like it hit the ground first and I also think that was a weak call against Ware.

IMO, had Rocky just kept running instead of jumping on his blockers, he would have been in the end zone, special teams would have kicked the extra point, and there'd been no time to challenge.

That was an ill-timed dive. He must have been watching BLloyd film all week.

I was thinking about that too. I'm somewhat surprised teams don't practice getting on and off the field quickly after a controversial play, to keep the other team from challenging. Even if the D lines up as the offense and spikes the ball, or hell, just run a play. the other team's offense would have to defend, and would either be caught offsides, or with their players shuttling in and out.

Sounds like a great idea. Someone in New England has just read your post and the next time NE gets an INT or a fumble, Vrebal will end up throwing a TD.

As far as the Rock non-INT, had he scored the team could have ran out and kicked the extra point If I remember correctly, since he didn't score they went to a TV time out and Son of a Bum had more time to take a look at it.

Sure is a creative thought, but that's probably an awful lot of ineligible players who have to announce they are eligible receivers... no way to save time on that. What a mess it would turn into...

It would be very interesting. I doubt the any NFL officiating crew would allow it to happen even if it was legal.

Yes it is legal, and no it wouldn't require players to report as eligible. They would basically line up opposite their normal positions. Their numbers determine what positions they can play, and the ranges are similar on both sides of the ball. Linemen would be linemen, backs would be backs and or receivers. They could work out a standard formation beforehand in practice with players lining up where they are eligible.

I still say some official would blow a whistle or throw a flag or do something to screw up the play, but most likely the opposing Head Coach would call a time out.

But I would love to see someone try it.

Then at least you've forced the other team to burn a time-out.

joebagadonuts wrote:The point is moot. Fat boy threw the flag before the D even got off the field. It was pretty quick.

He threw it after the replay showed the ball hitting the ground. The purpose of the D running a play, is to not even give the network showing the game time to show a replay. Teams already do this on offense when a possibly controversial play happens. The offense will run up and go no-huddle to get off another play before a replay can be shown. I'm merely suggesting they do the same thing on a change of possession type play.

JSPB22 wrote:Then at least you've forced the other team to burn a time-out.

If they call a time-out, are they allowed to challenge the play right after? If not, then (supposing the Skins pulled a JSPB22) Dallas wouldn't have been able to challenge the Skins' turnover.

Irn-Bru wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Then at least you've forced the other team to burn a time-out.

If they call a time-out, are they allowed to challenge the play right after? If not, then (supposing the Skins pulled a JSPB22) Dallas wouldn't have been able to challenge the Skins' turnover.

Yes. That has happened in the past. In fact, I think we did that in the Green Bay game. We called our last TO, then challenged the play. Should have done it in the opposite order, that way, if we win the challenge, no timeout would be charged. And now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I remember another team getting their TO back, because their challenge was upheld.

JSPB22 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Then at least you've forced the other team to burn a time-out.

If they call a time-out, are they allowed to challenge the play right after? If not, then (supposing the Skins pulled a JSPB22) Dallas wouldn't have been able to challenge the Skins' turnover.

Yes. That has happened in the past. In fact, I think we did that in the Green Bay game. We called our last TO, then challenged the play. Should have done it in the opposite order, that way, if we win the challenge, no timeout would be charged. And now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I remember another team getting their TO back, because their challenge was upheld.

Wait. That's confusing. You can call your last timeout and then challenge? That doesn't seem to work with the rules.

I was just wondering if calling a timeout and then challenging would be like trying to call back-to-back to's. What you just said, at least I think, really would be against the rules. Is there any source on this we can turn to?

Irn-Bru wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Then at least you've forced the other team to burn a time-out.

If they call a time-out, are they allowed to challenge the play right after? If not, then (supposing the Skins pulled a JSPB22) Dallas wouldn't have been able to challenge the Skins' turnover.

Yes. That has happened in the past. In fact, I think we did that in the Green Bay game. We called our last TO, then challenged the play. Should have done it in the opposite order, that way, if we win the challenge, no timeout would be charged. And now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I remember another team getting their TO back, because their challenge was upheld.

Wait. That's confusing. You can call your last timeout and then challenge? That doesn't seem to work with the rules.

I was just wondering if calling a timeout and then challenging would be like trying to call back-to-back to's. What you just said, at least I think, really would be against the rules. Is there any source on this we can turn to?

You're right. I'm probably confused about the GB game, because I know you can't challenge if you have no TOs left. But I still don't think the double TO rule applies if you are challenging a play after calling a TO.