Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Genuinely wondering about the fairness of the refs today.

hepcat

By hepcat,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

iamhubby1 Veteran

iamhubby1

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, frankw said:

Should have been a penalty. Same with the hit on Robby Anderson. But now we're set with PJ Walker so what's done is done.

 

Neither one of those were penalties. Learn the rules.

 

Runners don't get protected, and Sam was a runner. And Robby got hit with shoulder pads well within the strike zone. Sheesh.

 

Same with DJs TD drop. Some of you expect the Panthers to get every dang call. And go all ham when we don't.

Edited by iamhubby1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KillerKat Grand Master

KillerKat

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

Neither one of those were penalties. Learn the rules.

 

Runners don't get protected, and Sam was a runner. And Robby got hit with shoulder pads well within the strike zone. Sheesh.

 

Same with DJs TD drop. Some of you expect the Panthers to get every dang call. And go all ham when we don't.

It does not matter how clean the hit is. Clean or not, the rule states you are supposed to give the Receiver a chance to run and the defender did not. It should have been a penalty. Maybe you shouldn't be telling others to learn the rules?

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
iamhubby1 Veteran

iamhubby1

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, KillerKat said:

It does not matter how clean the hit is. Clean or not, the rule states you are supposed to give the Receiver a chance to run and the defender did not. It should have been a penalty. Maybe you shouldn't be telling others to learn the rules?

 

lol This is the second time you've said this. It is not true.

 

And  you sure have a hard time with folks that don't agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1of10Charnatives Mentor

1of10Charnatives

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, OneBadCat said:

He loses control as the knee hits

In my entire history of watching football, I don't ever recall a similar play with a player going out of bounds and seeming to maintain control of the ball til he gets to the ground being initially rulled incomplete. 

Never. 

Not once.

They always call it a catch and then review it to see if it really was.

After watching the replay, it's even less defensible. Flat out bad call. Tell yourself whatever you want. I watched it multiple times. The initial call was completely inconsistent with all the football officiating I've ever seen, and the replay far from vindicated the officials call.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harbingers Grand Master

Harbingers

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, iamhubby1 said:

Am I the only one not up in arms over todays officiating?

 

And LOL at folks actually thinking refs are trying to skew games one way or another.

They usually are bad especially if you watch more games in a week than ours, other teams get poo refs too, I don’t think today for us was horrible though. Granted I wasn’t giving the game 100% of my attention but I didn’t see much besides them missing a call of helmet contact when Sam slide, not the original hit but after he was down and the play was blown another falcon definitely gave him a knee to the head. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1of10Charnatives Mentor

1of10Charnatives

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

Neither one of those were penalties. Learn the rules.

 

Runners don't get protected, and Sam was a runner. And Robby got hit with shoulder pads well within the strike zone. Sheesh.

 

Same with DJs TD drop. Some of you expect the Panthers to get every dang call. And go all ham when we don't.

Agree with you about Sam and Robby. Those were both perfectly legit hits. Disagree about the TD catch. That call was garbage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iamhubby1 Veteran

iamhubby1

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Agree with you about Sam and Robby. Those were both perfectly legit hits. Disagree about the TD catch. That call was garbage. 

 

You have to complete the catch. Which means when you go to the ground, you must maintain possession.

 

He did not make a "Football" move after the catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...