brandon browner - aka, Why Roger Goodell is a weasel

Roland also believes the last play was a completion. Just ask him. Watch him spin that.

quote:

Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:
I'm pretty sure RolandD is one of the people who thinks 6-1X0+2/2 = 1 and we won't be able to change his mind no matter how clear the picture is.

Roland is a troll, wasting his life signing up to comment on various internet boards so everybody can learn of his ingnorance.

hey Roland, we don't think the final call was muffed, we know it was muffed. It was an interception an no one other than delusional Seahawk fans see something different. Thinnk it was muffed. Give me a break. Stevie Wonder is screaming at the audacity of that call.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandDeschain:
Helmet to the shoulder isn't a helmet to the helmet,

You started off strong on then the train derailed. I'm guessing the school librarian came by and noticed you were using the computer for something other than your report on Tom Sawyer and you had to wrap things up fast.

In time you'll learn about minimizing pages. Keep at it youngling!

To bad the Seahawks couldn't win a Super Bowl with that officiating.

Roland...

Pi on Shields, thoughts?

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

quote:

your report on Tom Sawyer

What do you wanna bet he wrote that Injun Joe never laid a finger on Doctor Robinson.

Oh he did. Just to his shoulder.

from a Seahawks msg board where a Seahawk fan was wondering whether browner should be sat down by petey or could possibly get suspended...

http://www.seahawks.net/viewto...?f=2&t=51851&start=0

quote:

UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS
Article 8 There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but will not be limited to:
(a) striking an opponent anywhere with the foot or any part of the leg with a whipping motion;
(b) contacting a runner out of bounds;
Note: Defensive players must make an effort to avoid contact. Players on defense are responsible for knowing
when a runner has crossed the boundary line, except in doubtful cases where he might step on a
boundary line and continue parallel with it.
(c) a member of the receiving team cannot go out of bounds and contact a kicking team player out of
bounds. If this occurs on a kick from scrimmage, post-possession rules would apply if appropriate (9-
5-1);
(d) running or diving into, or throwing the body against or on a ball carrier who falls or slips to the ground
untouched and makes no attempt to advance, before or after the ball is dead;
(e) unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (i) is out of
the play or (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after
the ball is dead; or throwing the runner to the ground after the ball is dead;
(f) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked, is out of the
play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or
until he assumes a distinctly defensive position

yep, completely legal...

quote:

Originally posted by RolandDeschain:
Helmet to the shoulder isn't a helmet to the helmet

What is helmet to facemask?



Waiting for derpchicago to tell me, "Damn, you're dumb."

I don't think Browner should be suspended unless this is a 3rd or 4th offense (like what happened to James Harrison), it wasn't that bad of a hit, Jennings was not hurt. It was a cheap shot, but those aren't anything new in the NFL. Fine him a lot and if he does it again then suspend him. I have a hunch, based on his record, he will do it to the wrong receiver and Browner will get his.

I don't think he should be suspended either - the Seahawk fan at that site was worried about that. But a fine, definitely.

quote:

Originally posted by Tdog:
who you working for? you signed up just to dispute what my own two eyes can clearly see? GJ is too much of a pro to talk about it. I can.

Jennings did talk about it, as was posted earlier in this thread...and as far as what your eyes see, I'd say it's more of a case of confirmation bias. The pic posted by Hungry5 shows Browner's head behind Jennings's.

As for who I'm working for, certainly nothing sports or NFL-related. I do tech support for a private company. Yes, I'm a Seahawks fan and I live in Kirkland, WA. You'll assume everything I say is wrong because you hate the Seahawks right now, but let's pretend that's not the case.

Browner's point of impact:

The frame immediately after that:


In the first one, you can see Jennings's left (rear) collar, and part of the white on his shoulder jersey. That is right at the point of impact. This is literally the worst possible angle to view this from, but it's what was on the TV broadcast; Browner's head is on the inside part of Jennings's shoulder, just under and to the side of Jennings's helmet. Look at how crisp/clear Jennings's shoulder is in that pic, and the helmet edges.

Now look at picture 2. If Browner had really hit his helmet, in this frame you'd see the beginning of his helmet snapping back and the whole thing would be blurry, but not Jennings's torso. Yet, look at his torso compared to it in pic 1. Blurry. Browner hit him on the torso, not the helmet. This craptastic angle only makes it look like Browner's hitting him in the face mask, but he's not because Jennings's whole torso is getting motion blur on that screenshot.

Legal hit, if unnecessary and cheap.

"Yes, I'm a Seahawks fan and I live in Kirkland, WA"

Thanks for confirming your irrelevance to us.

It isn't a legal hit & the real refs would've flagged the crap out of him.

FYI, if you're a Seattle fan, & it seems you are, expect a boatload of penalties coming your way this weekend, especially....

1) Illegal hands to the face on your D-Line
2) Offensive PI
3) Holding on your O-Line
4) Defensive holding on your entire defensive backfield

The crap Pete C is teaching your players is about to get exposed. Good luck!

quote:

3) Holding on your O-Line

You mean, like the holding your O-line got away with on practically every down in the second half on Monday? I realize it's the only way they could keep Rodgers from leaving Seattle in a body bag, but that got quite old after a while.

New meat. Let's play.

A counter to #1 listed above from Boris.

Why would the packers be holding in the second half. They were running it down
Your DAMN throats. So was it a catch from your perspective it was it a pick. Show us more of your ignorance

still waiting

I'm a big fan of a chop block that went right after the knee of Worthy.

Don't show up and then slink away like a coward. We're cooking up a bevy of goodies for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Tdog:
from a Seahawks msg board where a Seahawk fan was wondering whether browner should be sat down by petey or could possibly get suspended...

http://www.seahawks.net/viewto...?f=2&t=51851&start=0

(e) unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (i) is out of
the play or (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after
the ball is dead;

yep, completely legal...

Way to quote from the kick-off rules section, Einstein.

@El-Ka-Bong: Not legit. Shields should not have been called for PI, same with Kam Chancellor.

@Floridarob: Why would the Packers be holding? Is that a joke? Perhaps because they allowed 8 sacks in the first half? Also, running it down our throats? Yeah, Benson's 17 carries for 45 yards with a 2.6 YPC average is running all over us, lol. Seahawks are #2 in the league for rushing defense, (and have a longest rush of 20 yards) and #1 in the league for points allowed per game.

@Henry: I'm not slinking away. I'm at work, and I actually have things to do. I check back periodically when I can.

@Floridarob/Everyone: I'm guessing very few of you, (or none of you) have seen this new angle that came out yesterday from Q13 Fox showing the hail mary play. Check it out, since you "know" it was an interception...and some media guys are coming around now, check out Pete Prisco's Tweet here:
Pete Prisco ‏@PriscoCBS
Maybe the call was right. Looks like Jennings is the one doing the pulling. http://bit.ly/SmgQBw

Also, NFL Network went over the last ~50 hail mary plays in the NFL, PI not called once. Refs never call PI on hail mary plays, so don't even go there. (Though yes, obviously, Tate pushing Shields to the ground was PI.)

Another thing you all should keep in mind, is that media outlets like ESPN love to stir and add to controversy whenever possible. More ratings. More money. Just because *insert your favorite talking head here* is shouting that the Packers were robbed by that lowly South-Alaskan expansion team the beloved Packers weren't supposed to lose to, doesn't necessarily make it true; unless you really believe everything you hear from the media.

Roland,

It's pretty clear your football knowledge doesnt run vast and deep.
You went all frame by frame Zapruder style on a couple game stills. Who does that?
Then you point out a local Seattle station has footage from the grassy knoll.
You ask Packer fans to pretend we don't hate the Seahawks. 3 days removed from a crime.
The replacement refs were canned this morning.
You started posting this afternoon.

I think you know where I'm going with this....

quote:

Originally posted by ChilliJon:
Roland,

It's pretty clear your football knowledge doesnt run vast and deep.
You went all frame by frame Zapruder style on a couple game stills. Who does that?
Then you point out a local Seattle station has footage from the grassy knoll.
You ask Packer fans to pretend we don't hate the Seahawks. 3 days removed from a crime.
The replacement refs were canned this morning.
You started posting this afternoon.

I think you know where I'm going with this....

How I interpret your post: "A Seattle news station showed an angle of the footage I don't like. Disqualified."

Oh well if Pete Prisco agrees it must be true!

Did you happen to catch where Ed Hochuli, ya know a professional ref, in addition to other professional refs said that simultaneous catches are incredibly rare. In fact Hochuli had never seen one in his entire career. Ever. And then went on to agree that it was an interception. Show me all the angles you want, you and are not professionals who don't know how to interpret what we're looking at like a pro ref can. I'll take Hochuli's word and the word of at least two other former pro refs who agree.

As for the rest of the game, what are you trying to prove? Yeah the Seahawks had some dirty plays that didn't get called, own it. Browner was the most penalized DB in the NFL last season, he doesn't play by the rules. Own it. Charles Woodson doesn't either, he gets flagged often, but he doesn't take cheap shots. Browner does and you know it. It was an unnecessary shot regardless of legality. Deal with it.

Roland first thanks for the different angle unfortunatley it shows Tates left hand sure on the ball BUT YOU WATCH VERY CLOSELY YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE HIS RIGHT HAND MOVE OFF OF JENNING WRIST ON TO THE BALL THEN BACK OFF AND BACK ON AS HE TRIES TO GET A BETER GRIP TO RIP IT AWAY FROM JENNINGS CHEST.

I already agreed it was an unnecessary and cheap shot earlier in this thread, not sure where you think I'm not admitting that or can't deal with it? I also agreed the PI on Shields was bogus.

Also, the same Ed Hochuli that threw a game a couple years ago? Yeah...

I agree that simultaneous catches are very rare, though. It's pretty obvious why; outside of hail mary plays, where do you see players in the position to actually catch a ball at the same time where one can't easily rip it away from the other? Almost none.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandDeschain:

quote:

Originally posted by ChilliJon:
Roland,

It's pretty clear your football knowledge doesnt run vast and deep.
You went all frame by frame Zapruder style on a couple game stills. Who does that?
Then you point out a local Seattle station has footage from the grassy knoll.
You ask Packer fans to pretend we don't hate the Seahawks. 3 days removed from a crime.
The replacement refs were canned this morning.
You started posting this afternoon.

I think you know where I'm going with this....

How I interpret your post: "A Seattle news station showed an angle of the footage I don't like. Disqualified."

A Seattle station showed a angle that is moot because Jennings already had possession in the air. The "pulling" comes from the wrestling match on the ground. Possession by rule is already established when Jenning has two arms around the ball and to the chest. Pretty much the regular refs and the rule book bear that out slapdick but then that's an "angle" you don't like.

Really you ****ing troll, bask in the glory that is the 10 pounds of **** in a 5 pound bag that is Pete Carroll.

You got beat plain and simple. Your defense had a great first half, the Packers adjusted and piss pounded you in the run game. What about the other bull**** calls like the TWO PI calls that were beyond farce.

You really think you're going to come here and talk **** and think it has to do with you rooting for a glorified expansion team with XFL uniforms? You give Vikings fans a run for their money.

Roland, You're strengthening my point.

You honestly believe Tate caught the ball don't you?

Let me ask you this. Why is it so hard for Seattle fans to simply admit you were handed a gift win? Is it an inferiority thing? Is it becasue winning doesn't happen regularly and you're going to defend victory regardless of how it happened?

There's no shame in admitting you caught a break. Digging in and fighting back makes you look desperate for relevance.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerBackerDPM:
Roland first thanks for the different angle unfortunatley it shows Tates left hand sure on the ball BUT YOU WATCH VERY CLOSELY YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE HIS RIGHT HAND MOVE OFF OF JENNING WRIST ON TO THE BALL THEN BACK OFF AND BACK ON AS HE TRIES TO GET A BETER GRIP TO RIP IT AWAY FROM JENNINGS CHEST.

Yeah, his right hand leaves and comes back in while they're falling. So what? There is no "percent of possession" rule of any kind. It's not like 60/40 goes to the one with 60%. It doesn't work that way.

So Roland, since you are here let me ask you these questions. 1) do you believe the roughing the passer call was correct? Yes or no.
2) do you believe the PI call on Shields was correct? Yes or no
3) do you believe there should have been an off. PI call on the final play when Tate pushed Shields down? Yes or no. This would, of course ended the game and made the INT a non issue. Thanks for showing up. I am almost certain you wont hang around.

So what? How about the rule book?

The whole of the football world disagrees with you peckerwoods yet you can't take the gift and shut your suck?

Well, let's delve deeper shall we?

No, there is no percent possession... but there is continuous possession, which Jennings has and Tate does not. And, that continuous possession must be maintained throughout the catch all the way to the ground.

Refer to the non-catch from Calvin Johnson last year vs CHI.

quote:

Originally posted by ChilliJon:
Roland, You're strengthening my point.

You honestly believe Tate caught the ball don't you?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChilliJon:Let me ask you this. Why is it so hard for Seattle fans to simply admit you were handed a gift win?

I texted two different friends after the game, and the next morning said to a coworker, that I think we got a gift. Then, I saw that 22-second clip from another angle. Then, the day after that, I saw yet another new angle, the one I linked from Pete Prisco's Tweet. That changed things.

quote:

Originally posted by ChilliJon:Is it an inferiority thing? Is it becasue winning doesn't happen regularly and you're going to defend victory regardless of how it happened?

I could ask you the same thing. You're so used to winning, you can't handle a close loss? I don't see any of you admitting the BS PI call on Chancellor that would have ended your TD drive with a punt, which is what would have happened with Hochuli or any other real officiating crew on the field. Seahawks almost certainly would have won 7-6 in that case. You were gifted a drive extension that led to points. If the final call had gone your way, you'd have stolen a win...but all would be right with the world, wouldn't it? The Seahawks kept Rodgers to 0 TDs for the first time in a year-and-a-half, but no respect for the absolute monster of a game the Seahawks defense played, either. Just...complaining.

quote:

Originally posted by ChilliJonigging in and fighting back makes you look desperate for relevance.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about Packers fans. Can't admit what you see in the new angle. Except the phrase "desperate for justification" is more appropriate, rather than relevance.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandDeschain:

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about Packers fans. Can't admit what you see in the new angle. Except the phrase "desperate for justification" is more appropriate, rather than relevance.

So you'll ignore the fact that I laid out the rule that shows possession before they were on the ground.

What's wrong fluffy? Can't soft shoe around that one?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandDeschain:
Also, NFL Network went over the last ~50 hail mary plays in the NFL, PI not called once. Refs never call PI on hail mary plays, so don't even go there. (Though yes, obviously, Tate pushing Shields to the ground was PI.)

Good of you to ignore the fact that several real refs have come out & said the PI was so blatant that it should have been called. And yes, they acknowledged that PI during a Hail Mary is typically not called even though it happens on virtually every attempt.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave in MN:
So Roland, since you are here let me ask you these questions. 1) do you believe the roughing the passer call was correct? Yes or no.

I can't answer this as a yes or a no. It's questionable. The football was out of Wilson's hands before he made contact, and he still proceeded to do it on the legs. Like it or not, touching legs on a QB after the ball has been released usually leads to a flag. Blame the golden boy QBs, one of which you have, for this officiating habit. If he had even tried to hold back, it wouldn't have been called.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave in MN:
2) do you believe the PI call on Shields was correct? Yes or no

I already answered this earlier. No.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave in MN:
3) do you believe there should have been an off. PI call on the final play when Tate pushed Shields down? Yes or no. This would, of course ended the game and made the INT a non issue.

By the rules? Yes. That would have been bias against the Seahawks, though. NFL Network checked the last ~50 hail mary plays in the NFL, and no PI calls on any of them despite nearly all of them having flagrant PI happening. PI just doesn't get called on hail mary plays, you only want an exception to that because it'd have given you a win here.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave in MN:
Thanks for showing up. I am almost certain you wont hang around.

Probably not, if quite a few people continue to be vicious to me.

Let me add, if that's the way you have to win a game and feel good about it, you might want to check your overall personal makeup. **** happens in sports just like the Packers have said and are moving forward. Still doesn't make it right. So when a shrivel dick like you shows up, gets pounded with facts that the rest of the football world understand, and then talk schit about our reaction . . . you can pretty much go **** yourself.

My goodness gracious! Roland doesn't have a response for the rule I posted and is seemingly ignoring it. Why is that?