Game Thread W16 - San Francisco V Seattle (1 Viewer)

[solorca]

100 yards. Both streaks down. Love me some beast mode.

 

[duaneok66]

predictable with Jackson at QB

 

[GregR]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

So was he on his knees or laying on the ground. He just got up onto his knees and the hawks had half a second to figure out he wasn't getting all the way up. Unavoidable and a bs penalty. Especially with all the late shots they've been letting go.

Touching a player who is on his knees makes the player just as down as touching a player who is laying on the ground. The penalty for unnecessarily hitting either is the same as well. I'm cheering for the Seahawks and there's no way those players didn't have time to pull up and touch him down.

 

[jon_mx]

game...

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Harbaugh takes another field goal for the 2 point lead. Tarvaris helps out and fumbles after SF gets major pressure.

Blouses.

 

[goldenchild]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

 

[duaneok66]

geesh - run straight out of bounds . . . LOW IQ move.

 

[jon_mx]

Seattle seems pretty clueless on time management.

 

[duaneok66]

I've seen Chris Johnson do it too - what are these backs thinking?? They wasted a down due to his idiocy.

 

[goldenchild]

and a stupid penalty cost SF a 3rd and goal from the 1.

it wouldve been 4th and goal from the 1

One more FG and that should be the nail.

Good call.

 

[BaBastage]

100 yards. Both streaks down. Love me some beast mode.

Kudos to Lynch and the Seahawks... the streaks had to end eventually.Given the choice of keeping the streaks alive or taking the win towards home field advantage, I think the 'Niners will rest easy tonight.

 

[mad sweeney]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

Put down the rose colored glasses, re-watch the play, and then report back. TIA

I have. I stand by my statement that it was too quick for the guys to realize he wasn't getting all the way up. He should'nt have gotten to his knees do quickly. No way to know.

 

[mad sweeney]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

I said the players didn't have time to realize that he wasn't getting all the way up. Try reading and comprehending before you start calling names.

 

[wdubb]

I think I lost a couple of years of my life watching this game. All's well that ends well though. Kinda sucks to give up the streaks on essentially one bad ST play but I'll take the win.

 

[goldenchild]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

Put down the rose colored glasses, re-watch the play, and then report back. TIA

I have. I stand by my statement that it was too quick for the guys to realize he wasn't getting all the way up. He should'nt have gotten to his knees do quickly. No way to know.

You said "he was getting back up"...I agree that there was probably not enough time to tell, looking at it from the players' side... but I'm not debating that.

 

[mad sweeney]

and a stupid penalty cost SF a 3rd and goal from the 1.

it wouldve been 4th and goal from the 1

One more FG and that should be the nail.

Good call.

You still weren't right, were you? Just like your lack of comprehension about what I was saying. Better luck next week.

 

[goldenchild]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

I said the players didn't have time to realize that he wasn't getting all the way up. Try reading and comprehending before you start calling names.

Dude... look at the first posting in this very chain... "dude was getting back up"... I can read just fine.

 

[thecatch]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

I said the players didn't have time to realize that he wasn't getting all the way up. Try reading and comprehending before you start calling names.

It doesn't matter. Even if he was getting back up, his knees were on the ground and all they had to do was touch him. The rule did not require the would be tacklers to discern the returner's intent.

 

[goldenchild]

and a stupid penalty cost SF a 3rd and goal from the 1.

it wouldve been 4th and goal from the 1

One more FG and that should be the nail.

Good call.

You still weren't right, were you? Just like your lack of comprehension about what I was saying. Better luck next week.

After I posted that statement, the 9ers kicked one more FG to get to 19... and that's all it took to win the game.Comprende?

 

[mad sweeney]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

I said the players didn't have time to realize that he wasn't getting all the way up. Try reading and comprehending before you start calling names.

Dude... look at the first posting in this very chain... "dude was getting back up"... I can read just fine.

By the players perspective, yes. In subsequent posts I made it very clear that I wasn't saying the guy was getting back up. So, pull off your blind bat glasses, read the posts, think about them for aminute or two to make sure you know what they're saying, then get back to me. TIA

 

[mad sweeney]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

I said the players didn't have time to realize that he wasn't getting all the way up. Try reading and comprehending before you start calling names.

It doesn't matter. Even if he was getting back up, his knees were on the ground and all they had to do was touch him. The rule did not require the would be tacklers to discern the returner's intent.

Let's say the guy was trying to get up off both knees, it could very easily take more of a touch for him to be down. In this case, the guy popped to his knees quick and didn't have time to realize he wasn't going to complete the act. They were in dive mode before it could be figured out, no time to stop. In this case, being an idiot that doesn't know he's not down got them 15 yards.

 

[goldenchild]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

I said the players didn't have time to realize that he wasn't getting all the way up. Try reading and comprehending before you start calling names.

Dude... look at the first posting in this very chain... "dude was getting back up"... I can read just fine.

By the players perspective, yes. In subsequent posts I made it very clear that I wasn't saying the guy was getting back up. So, pull off your blind bat glasses, read the posts, think about them for aminute or two to make sure you know what they're saying, then get back to me. TIA

I get it, you're one of those guys that can't accept being wrong. It's okay. It was a great game. Good luck Seahawks.Let's go ATL!!!

 

[mad sweeney]

and a stupid penalty cost SF a 3rd and goal from the 1.

it wouldve been 4th and goal from the 1

One more FG and that should be the nail.

Good call.

You still weren't right, were you? Just like your lack of comprehension about what I was saying. Better luck next week.

After I posted that statement, the 9ers kicked one more FG to get to 19... and that's all it took to win the game.Comprende?

That was after the 16th point, no? That was the one where they got the penalty on the 3rd and goal, no?

 

[mad sweeney]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

I said the players didn't have time to realize that he wasn't getting all the way up. Try reading and comprehending before you start calling names.

Dude... look at the first posting in this very chain... "dude was getting back up"... I can read just fine.

By the players perspective, yes. In subsequent posts I made it very clear that I wasn't saying the guy was getting back up. So, pull off your blind bat glasses, read the posts, think about them for aminute or two to make sure you know what they're saying, then get back to me. TIA

I get it, you're one of those guys that can't accept being wrong. It's okay. It was a great game. Good luck Seahawks.Let's go ATL!!!

And you're one of those guys who can't read. I corrected myself in subsequent posts, but those don't matter to you apparently. Good luck with you're remedial English classes.

 

[thecatch]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

I said the players didn't have time to realize that he wasn't getting all the way up. Try reading and comprehending before you start calling names.

It doesn't matter. Even if he was getting back up, his knees were on the ground and all they had to do was touch him. The rule did not require the would be tacklers to discern the returner's intent.

Let's say the guy was trying to get up off both knees, it could very easily take more of a touch for him to be down. In this case, the guy popped to his knees quick and didn't have time to realize he wasn't going to complete the act. They were in dive mode before it could be figured out, no time to stop. In this case, being an idiot that doesn't know he's not down got them 15 yards.

C'mon, they had at least a split second to back off and they should have done so. There was no dispute on the broadcast that they made the correct call.

 

[goldenchild]

and a stupid penalty cost SF a 3rd and goal from the 1.

it wouldve been 4th and goal from the 1

One more FG and that should be the nail.

Good call.

You still weren't right, were you? Just like your lack of comprehension about what I was saying. Better luck next week.

After I posted that statement, the 9ers kicked one more FG to get to 19... and that's all it took to win the game.Comprende?

That was after the 16th point, no? That was the one where they got the penalty on the 3rd and goal, no?

I posted that "nail" comment right before the blocked punt that led to Lynch's TD. 9ers kicked a FG after that and that was all the scoring for the rest of the game.I am giving myself more credit, however... I was expecting the FG first and then expected a SEA score after... but I'll take it.

 

[goldenchild]

Shouldn't be a flag, dude was getting back up.

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.

Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

I said the players didn't have time to realize that he wasn't getting all the way up. Try reading and comprehending before you start calling names.

Dude... look at the first posting in this very chain... "dude was getting back up"... I can read just fine.

By the players perspective, yes. In subsequent posts I made it very clear that I wasn't saying the guy was getting back up. So, pull off your blind bat glasses, read the posts, think about them for aminute or two to make sure you know what they're saying, then get back to me. TIA

I get it, you're one of those guys that can't accept being wrong. It's okay. It was a great game. Good luck Seahawks.Let's go ATL!!!

And you're one of those guys who can't read. I corrected myself in subsequent posts, but those don't matter to you apparently. Good luck with you're remedial English classes.

Gotta love the irony.

 

[mad sweeney]

and a stupid penalty cost SF a 3rd and goal from the 1.

it wouldve been 4th and goal from the 1

One more FG and that should be the nail.

Good call.

You still weren't right, were you? Just like your lack of comprehension about what I was saying. Better luck next week.

After I posted that statement, the 9ers kicked one more FG to get to 19... and that's all it took to win the game.Comprende?

That was after the 16th point, no? That was the one where they got the penalty on the 3rd and goal, no?

I posted that "nail" comment right before the blocked punt that led to Lynch's TD. 9ers kicked a FG after that and that was all the scoring for the rest of the game.I am giving myself more credit, however... I was expecting the FG first and then expected a SEA score after... but I'll take it.

Well, then I was wrong, I thought it came it was the one that put them up by 6.

 

[mad sweeney]

Should have been a flag. And he was sitting on his knees slapping the ball, not getting up.

Regardless, you can't destroy a guy who is laying on the ground and just needs to be touched to make him down. That's the poster child of "unnecessary roughness". Flag well deserved, and he might end up with a fine.

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

I said the players didn't have time to realize that he wasn't getting all the way up. Try reading and comprehending before you start calling names.

Dude... look at the first posting in this very chain... "dude was getting back up"... I can read just fine.

By the players perspective, yes. In subsequent posts I made it very clear that I wasn't saying the guy was getting back up. So, pull off your blind bat glasses, read the posts, think about them for aminute or two to make sure you know what they're saying, then get back to me. TIA

I get it, you're one of those guys that can't accept being wrong. It's okay. It was a great game. Good luck Seahawks.Let's go ATL!!!

And you're one of those guys who can't read. I corrected myself in subsequent posts, but those don't matter to you apparently. Good luck with you're remedial English classes.

Gotta love the irony.

Perhaps even an ESL class first. They'll teach you the difference between the words/phrases "on his knees" and "laying down".

 

[goldenchild]

and a stupid penalty cost SF a 3rd and goal from the 1.

it wouldve been 4th and goal from the 1

One more FG and that should be the nail.

Good call.

You still weren't right, were you? Just like your lack of comprehension about what I was saying. Better luck next week.

After I posted that statement, the 9ers kicked one more FG to get to 19... and that's all it took to win the game.Comprende?

That was after the 16th point, no? That was the one where they got the penalty on the 3rd and goal, no?

I posted that "nail" comment right before the blocked punt that led to Lynch's TD. 9ers kicked a FG after that and that was all the scoring for the rest of the game.I am giving myself more credit, however... I was expecting the FG first and then expected a SEA score after... but I'll take it.

Well, then I was wrong, I thought it came it was the one that put them up by 6.

It's all good man. Good game and good luck.

 

[goldenchild]

[

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

I said the players didn't have time to realize that he wasn't getting all the way up. Try reading and comprehending before you start calling names.

Dude... look at the first posting in this very chain... "dude was getting back up"... I can read just fine.

By the players perspective, yes. In subsequent posts I made it very clear that I wasn't saying the guy was getting back up. So, pull off your blind bat glasses, read the posts, think about them for aminute or two to make sure you know what they're saying, then get back to me. TIA

I get it, you're one of those guys that can't accept being wrong. It's okay. It was a great game. Good luck Seahawks.Let's go ATL!!!

And you're one of those guys who can't read. I corrected myself in subsequent posts, but those don't matter to you apparently. Good luck with you're remedial English classes.

Gotta love the irony.

Perhaps even an ESL class first. They'll teach you the difference between the words/phrases "on his knees" and "laying down".

For the record... I was "good posting" the part of Greg's statement that it should have been flagged. I'll let Greg comment on the rest of his statement, but I'm pretty sure he meant that you can't destroy someone that is giving himself up (whether that's laying down or kneeling).HTH

 

[mad sweeney]

Good posting? First he says dude was on his knees and then defends why you can't hit someone laying down. Yup, real good posting.

You honestly thought he was trying to get back up? You are one blind bat if so.

I said the players didn't have time to realize that he wasn't getting all the way up. Try reading and comprehending before you start calling names.

Dude... look at the first posting in this very chain... "dude was getting back up"... I can read just fine.

By the players perspective, yes. In subsequent posts I made it very clear that I wasn't saying the guy was getting back up. So, pull off your blind bat glasses, read the posts, think about them for aminute or two to make sure you know what they're saying, then get back to me. TIA

I get it, you're one of those guys that can't accept being wrong. It's okay. It was a great game. Good luck Seahawks.Let's go ATL!!!

And you're one of those guys who can't read. I corrected myself in subsequent posts, but those don't matter to you apparently. Good luck with you're remedial English classes.

Gotta love the irony.

Perhaps even an ESL class first. They'll teach you the difference between the words/phrases "on his knees" and "laying down".

For the record... I was "good posting" the part of Greg's statement that it should have been flagged. I'll let Greg comment on the rest of his statement, but I'm pretty sure he meant that you can't destroy someone that is giving himself up (whether that's laying down or kneeling).HTH

I understand that, HTH. Furthermore have never argued against that HTH. I said that they couldn't tell he was giving himself up since he popped up to his knees right away and they didn't have time to realize he wasn't finishing the act of getting back up HTH. Like I said, English classes. HTH.eta: See how I bolded the part I was responding to? HTH