“It just looked wrong,” Seattle coach Pete Carroll said, via Danny O’Neil of the Seattle Times. “A very big call to make when the guy wasn’t intending to hit the quarterback or anything like that.”

“And I even tried to turn my body kind of over not to even land on him. But when I’m going at my speed, I can’t just stop in mid-air, just magic. It’s just very frustrating, and that definitely changed the game. We had an interception on that play that they definitely can’t slow the game down like this for us and take the game away like that from us. _ Earl Thomas

“They’re just trying to slow this game up for certain people,” Thomas said. “I can’t fly. I’m not Superman. I did everything possible to try and not rough the passer - Earl Thomas


Maybe he shouldn't have launched himself while running full speed. Poor babies. lol

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

They weren't crying when the refs gave them the GB game, sometimes you win some and sometimes you lose some. I've hated Pete Carroll since his first stint in the NFL.

If I was a Seahawks fan, I would be upset with that call... That one call changed the outcome of the game.. We got lucky as hell.... I will take it, sometimes we get the short end of the stick, this time the football gods gave us a pass.. But I wouldn't make fun of the Seahawks or their fans for being upset with that call....sucks for them, blessing for us...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They weren't crying when the refs gave them the GB
> game, sometimes you win some and sometimes you
> lose some. I've hated Pete Carroll since his first
> stint in the NFL.


Good point about the Green Bay game, football karma

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

They had their shot to stop us on the final drive and they couldn't. Oh Well.

They deserve to be made fun of for being whining _____....(fill in the blank)....and screw Seahawks fans!

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

Agreed....If he was trying to bat the ball he would have gone for maximum height and would not have landed on Tannehill.

Thomas launched himself at Tannehill hoping to get the ball but ensuring Tanny wasn't getting a clean throw. The second he left his feet he relinquished the ability to prevent his illegal hit.

Next time keep on your feet or jump straight up!

Plus...Seattle was undisciplined all day. They had 10 penalties to Miami's 2.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

The Seattle Seahawks say they ''are aware'' of a report that cornerbacks Richard Sherman and Brandon Browner are facing four-game suspensions for violating the NFL's policy on performance-enhancing drugs.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

Actually, it was a good call. Players know that if you hit a QB in the head with anything, it's going to be roughing. The ref was in the perfect position to see it. Thomas took a chance and he lost. Playing disciplined is part of the game and in this instance, he didn't play disciplined. Was it lucky for us? Damn right... but it was the right call. Now don't get me started on the non calls I've seen this year when Cam Wake is getting held to the point of being mugged.

What a bunch of whiners. The NFL is specific on where and when you hit a QB. Not in the head or below the knees. Not when he doesn't have the ball. They want defenders to think hard about the angles they take, and not launch themselves. This has been talked about a great deal, and ref have taught players how to do this right.

The Seattle defender launched himself at RT. That little coach is whining about the law of physics while ignoring the initial conditions. The flag was legit. Seattle bailed out RT, not the refs.

But the fact remains, RT was bailed out. RT made a bad decision and forced a throw he shouldn't have. Luckily the Seattle defender made a worse decision. But, as a Dolphins fan I'm more worried about what Tannehill did than Seattle. We caught a lucky break.

------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

it was a big play but it did not really change the outcome the way some are thinking. We scored a play or 2 later. Then SEA scored on a KO. So within 1 min of the penalty the game was right where it would have been had the INT stood, with SEA up 7.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it was a big play but it did not really change the
> outcome the way some are thinking. We scored a
> play or 2 later. Then SEA scored on a KO. So
> within 1 min of the penalty the game was right
> where it would have been had the INT stood, with
> SEA up 7.


Berk- Do you think if we failed to score on that drive, we still would have pulled out the win...I dont, we arent a great scoring team at this point, we need to capitalize on redzone opportunities to win... That play could have been a detrimental swing, instead we got another shot and capitalized... Granted it wasnt the last score by either team but still a crucial game changing call IMO...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

There are two ways to look at it leading to two opposite conclusions.

First, are the rules too leaning toward pansy football or worst, impossible football. HELL YES!!!!

Secondly, knowing that, can't you complain? No.

I myself think that a roughing call like that should be reviewable.

It started with the hit by Jack Tatum on Darryl Stingley.


Since then, the NFL has tried to write an objective rule to cover what is essentially subjective conduct.

Moreover, I have actually seen a helmet hit called when you look at the replay and the "victim" was only actually hit in the shoulder.

We simply need to go back to simply "roughing" AND IT NEEDS TO BE REVIEWABLE BY REPLAY.

I love it for the Dolphins but basically Seattle got hosed.

And it wasn't by the sprinklers going off either.

Chyren- I think there has to be some type of incidental contact or intent of the rule, should be part of how or when the roughing the passer penalty is called... I dont believe Earl Thomas was intending to rough the passer or hit Tannehill in the head, I think the contact was incidental so to speak... However I understand the difficul issues that come with making the call and distinction between intent and incidental,etc on the spot... not easy

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Yeah, Crowder. I agree 100% with what you say. But since it is not a "replay" call, you have to rely on what the referee "thought he saw" from who knows what angle at 100 mph speed.

In the old days of the NFL, replay was unthinkable. Little by little it has crept in.

Now to the point that every scoring play is automatically reviewed.

We just have to get rid of the old vestiges and review every horrendous penalty like that wherein a replay will show just where the blow contacted.

In this case, like you said, the replay will show whether

1) whether the contact was intentional or incidental

2) whether the contact was to the helmet at all.

etc.

What happens to the guy that just comes in rushing like a bat out of hell, out of control and hits the QB in the head.. His intent maybe wasnt to specifically hit the QB in the head but his play was reckless and didnt show respect for the protection of the QB's head.. Ultimately what the NFL is trying to protect... I just dont know if it would be officiated anymore accurately.. Plus replaying intent, is question the officals judgement of intent not real facts, so that is not a mess I see the NFL placing themselves in... Complicated issue, the NFL needs to keep trying to improve somehow...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

LOL, Crowder. Juries have to do it all the time.

And determining intent from a replay is not as hard to do as you think.

What you are forgetting is the fines that the NFL levies days after the game.

They do so based on those same films that you say are difficult to judge intent by.

SO how do you judge the reckless player who roughs the passer?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

LOL. How do they judge a reckless driver who is not drunk but is speeding in a school zone and hits a child?

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL. How do they judge a reckless driver who is
> not drunk but is speeding in a school zone and
> hits a child?


Well from that angle, perhaps Earl Thomas was reckless speeding in a school zone and hit Tannehill in the head... Has the NFL made the pocket a school zone now adays with the rules... seems like it...So it seems that you think ultimately the call on Earl Thomas would be the same by your rules..

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

I hate this rule. Its enabled QB's of today to beat QB records made by real men. Marino was up against alot more when his line shutdown. But as long as our defense has to live by it and it exists, that was a good call.

Crowder, if I were an NFL official reviewing that play, no way would I impose a fine.

Moreover, were I a ref and had been able to see first hand what I saw on replay, no way would I have thrown a flag.

I just didn't see it like you did.

I'll tell you what I'll do however, I will see if they show the replay on nfl.com as a "highlight" play.

If so, I'll look at it again but when I saw the replay during the actual game, I disagreed with it.

I liked what it did for myself but I told myself, "I'd be going nuts if this call had been made against the Dolphins at such a critical stage of the game."

I also tend to think that when a team has a "last gasp chance" to either keep the game going or lose, the refs tend to make these calls.

I think the same thing happened to that other team when there was that 4th and 29 play, it escapes me now, and the guy was tackled and he leaned forward with the ball. They replayed it and ruled that yes, the ball should be where the runner had it when his knee was down but gave the offensive team such a generous spot that it was deemed a first down. But without that first down, the game was over. They went on to win but I think sometimes the refs will make a call in a way to keep the chance of success open in a close game at the end of the game. I've got no proof of that but I suspect it.

Agree with Crowder. that was a BS call. We got lucky, but we will take it to offset the Nolan Carrol 5 PI calls

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chyren- I think there has to be some type of
> incidental contact or intent of the rule, should
> be part of how or when the roughing the passer
> penalty is called... I dont believe Earl Thomas
> was intending to rough the passer or hit Tannehill
> in the head, I think the contact was incidental so
> to speak... However I understand the difficul
> issues that come with making the call and
> distinction between intent and incidental,etc on
> the spot... not easy


I don't like the refs determining intent. In many cases they don't really know what the players are intending.

Incedental contact is another story.

The NFL has a logic to its rules. Losing starting QBs makes the game worse. On the other hand, some QBs get these BS calls more than others, which, IMO, makes the game worse.

------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

Well after further review, word on the street Earl Thomas was fined $15 grand for the hit....

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

I didn't hear Peter complaining about the "NO-CALL" when Golden Tate practically raped RJ Stanford to make that catch that Tim Ryan thought was so great!

The hit on RT was, by NFL rules, a blow to the head of the QB. Incidental or not...it had to be called.

Whether it deserves a fine? That's another story. The NFL couldn't suspend Suh for the kick to Schaub's nads b/c they believed it to be accidental yet they still fine him? How does that make sense?