Jump to content

Saints 31 Panthers 26


Recommended Posts

It's just a shame that the referees totally lost track of what was going on in the game the last 2 minutes. Sean Payton imo got bailed out from his arrogance after deciding to go for it on 4th and 2 at midfield. That play that the referees called an interception should have been reviewed by rule and I believe they overturn it and give Carolina the ball near midfield instead of the 38.

 

Did Carolina still have a chance at the end, yes they did. They would have however had the ball at midfield with more time on the clock and wouldn't have been so rushed to try to score. The questionable grounding call really had Rivera upset as well as he contended there was a receiver streaking toward the sideline on the play. Don't the officials owe the teams an opportunity to win the game on the field. Shouldn't they have gotten the referees together to discuss the grounding call and made sure it was the right call?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Orleans advances to play the Vikings next week.

 

Was kind of like watching an Ohio State game. Former Buckeyes with big games in this one...Ted Ginn Jr. and Michael Thomas on the receiving end...Marshawn Lattimore and Vonn Bell on defense.

 

Good thing those guys developed late, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just a shame that the referees totally lost track of what was going on in the game the last 2 minutes. Sean Payton imo got bailed out from his arrogance after deciding to go for it on 4th and 2 at midfield. That play that the referees called an interception should have been reviewed by rule and I believe they overturn it and give Carolina the ball near midfield instead of the 38.

 

Did Carolina still have a chance at the end, yes they did. They would have however had the ball at midfield with more time on the clock and wouldn't have been so rushed to try to score. The questionable grounding call really had Rivera upset as well as he contended there was a receiver streaking toward the sideline on the play. Don't the officials owe the teams an opportunity to win the game on the field. Shouldn't they have gotten the referees together to discuss the grounding call and made sure it was the right call?

 

I'm not sure how that wouldn't have been international grounding. That was pretty obvious imo. Replay didn't even show anyone really even close to that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how that wouldn't have been international grounding. That was pretty obvious imo. Replay didn't even show anyone really even close to that area.

 

That was probably the most obvious intentional grounding call those officials have ever had to make.

 

The INT isn't on the officials either. It was under 2 minutes, so all reviews have to come from the booth. If they don't buzz down, the officials aren't allowed to review it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how that wouldn't have been international grounding. That was pretty obvious imo. Replay didn't even show anyone really even close to that area.

 

I didn't say that I felt it was questionable I said that Rivera felt it was and I think it deserved them taking a few minutes to gather the refs and discuss whether or not there was a receiver in the area. They owed the coach the benefit of that. Refereeing these days has gotten to the point that they can make a big difference in the outcome of a big game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was probably the most obvious intentional grounding call those officials have ever had to make.

 

The INT isn't on the officials either. It was under 2 minutes, so all reviews have to come from the booth. If they don't buzz down, the officials aren't allowed to review it.

 

That's what I was referring to by rule the booth should have reviewed it. They are part of the refereeing crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was probably the most obvious intentional grounding call those officials have ever had to make.

 

The INT isn't on the officials either. It was under 2 minutes, so all reviews have to come from the booth. If they don't buzz down, the officials aren't allowed to review it.

 

The INT should have been overturned, obviously did not complete the catch by the standards they hold the offense to. The intentional grounding call was very close, and he may have actually been outside the tackle box. They never really showed any really good replays on it, but I saw one later on ESPN that made me question what I originally thought. Glad the Saints won though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how that wouldn't have been international grounding. That was pretty obvious imo. Replay didn't even show anyone really even close to that area.

 

The refs thoroughly botched the end of the Panthers-Saints game

 

The ball went out of bounds. The question was really about the tackle box. In the replays it is very close to being outside the tackle box if not outside the tackle box. Did he throw it away to get rid of it? Surely. But every NFL QB does in that situation and if they are out of the box don't get flagged for it.

 

I don't know if that kind of call is reviewable but it surely is worth consultation. Olsen says the White Hat was calling it grounding but there were other refs disagreeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The refs thoroughly botched the end of the Panthers-Saints game

 

The ball went out of bounds. The question was really about the tackle box. In the replays it is very close to being outside the tackle box if not outside the tackle box. Did he throw it away to get rid of it? Surely. But every NFL QB does in that situation and if they are out of the box don't get flagged for it.

 

I don't know if that kind of call is reviewable but it surely is worth consultation. Olsen says the White Hat was calling it grounding but there were other refs disagreeing.

 

Clearly referees in a big game not doing their job properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.