Top 10 reasons why the Bears lost

[FirstTimer]

I'd also like to be clear, I don't think those missed calls changed the game in any way shape or form.

I think the roughing the passer on Peppers(which was the correct call) and PI on Jennings that followed had a bigger impact. But as Senser pointed out this situation just shows the absurdity of the NFL rules as they stand now.

[bucky]

But as Senser pointed out this situation just shows the absurdity of the NFL rules as they stand now.

I would like to see rules simplified and have an official in the booth that can request challenges. Maybe let the coaches keep there two challenges in case they think the booth ref misses one.

I don't want to slow the game down too much, but I don't want coaches to be limited cause they are FORCED to use early challenges.

I'm all about trying to get calls on every play correct.

[FirstTimer]

He hits the ground with his hand under the ball.

The ball touched the ground. It doesn't have to bounce off of it like a super ball. If it touches the ground the ball can't move and must be completely controlled through the process of the catch. That didn't happen. The ball moved and changed position and orientation as he went to the ground and rolled over.

What McCauley's ruling pretty much meant was that Shields had the ball when he went up and started to come down. Knox touched his helmet as he was going to the ground..however Shields and the ball go to the turf, the ball touches the ground Shields regains control and gets up in runs.

From now on when WR's go up to make plays if they are touched on the way down, bobble the ball before you hit, get up and keep running and it should be legal.

Like I said, I have yet to see a replay showing the ball not touching the turf when he goes to the ground.

[manchild24]

That reverse was inexcusable. I'd almost justify it if it was a reverse to Hester or someone you know... fast. But to Earl Bennett. That's just an awful call. No trick plays on 3rd down in the 4th quarter. Especially not if the trick play makes no sense. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone even without hindsight that would make that call.

Agree, atleast get in a Playmakers hands.

[FirstTimer]

At :51 and :52 seconds it shows it. Shield's hand is actually closer to the camera than the ball is as he goes to the turf. It would be impossible for his hand to be under the ball if his hand was out in front of the football towards the camera.

[bucky]

The ball touched the ground. It doesn't have to bounce off of it like a super ball. If it touches the ground the ball can't move and must be completely controlled through the process of the catch. That didn't happen. The ball moved and changed position and orientation as he went to the ground and rolled over.

The replay showed the ball moving AFTER he started rolling over, AFTER the ball was back off of the ground. There was no clear shot of the ball moving as Shields hit the ground. I really didn't see a good enough of an angle to have overturned the call no matter what the call was on the field.

I'm not trying to say it was definitely an Int. Just not enough video evidence to overturn it. I'm with senser.

[bucky]

At :51 and :52 seconds it shows it. Shield's hand is actually closer to the camera than the ball is as he goes to the turf. It would be impossible for his hand to be under the ball if his hand was out in front of the football towards the camera.

Don't see enough to overturn.

[FirstTimer]

The replay showed the ball moving AFTER he started rolling over

That's the point. It can't move at all. He went to the ground with one hand on the ball. Immeideitly after the ball touches the ground it can't shift positions as he rolls over.
,

AFTER the ball was back off of the ground. There was no clear shot of the ball moving as Shields hit the ground.

It doesn't have to move only when it hits the ground. It can't move at all while it hits the ground or immedietly after. it woul dbe impossible for the ball to have NOT moved after it hit the ground as it went from his right hand only touching the ball into his stomach.

[bucky]

That's the point. It can't move at all. He went to the ground with one hand on the ball. Immeideitly after the ball touches the ground it can't shift positions as he rolls over.
,
It doesn't have to move only when it hits the ground. It can't move at all while it hits the ground or immedietly after. it woul dbe impossible for the ball to have NOT moved after it hit the ground as it went from his right hand only touching the ball into his stomach.

You can lose control of the ball as you roll over and well after the player hits the ground. Not enough video evidence to overturn. I'm with senser. I wouldn't have overturned it either way.

So were both not budging, here's a change of topic.

How about that third string QB that gave the Bears offense some life.

How about the Bears for NEVER quitting and keeping it a game to the VERY end.

How about how well both defenses played.

How about that impressive int by Raji who caught the ball with his hands and not his body and scored the game winning points.

How about that undrafted free agent rookie (Shields) with the game ending int and a great athletic play whether the first was an int or not.

How about GB playing on the road AGAIN against a very good football team and winning the game.

I'd say we both can be very proud of our teams. The NFCN represented very well this year. At least for this season, fans have to say that the NFCN was the best division in the conference.

[FirstTimer]

You can lose control of the ball as you roll over and well after the player hits the ground.

Not if the ball touches the ground...but if we want to get away from that point... If he lost control of the ball "well after" he hits the ground then that means he should have been down at the one as Knox touched him as he was first falling to the ground, by definition, "well before" he lost control.

Like I said, McCauley can't have it both ways on the call...even if you want to say the ball didn't touch the ground.

[bucky]

Not if the ball touches the ground Plus if he lost control of the ball well after he hits the ground then that means he should have been down at the one.

Like I said, McCauley can't have it both ways on the call...even if you want to say the ball didn't touch the ground.

Said I was done with this.

[Senser81]

Not if the ball touches the ground...but if we want to get away from that point... If he lost control of the ball "well after" he hits the ground then that means he should have been down at the one as Knox touched him as he was first falling to the ground, by definition, "well before" he lost control.

Like I said, McCauley can't have it both ways on the call...even if you want to say the ball didn't touch the ground.

When I was in grade school playing touch football, whenever someone would tag me, I'd bobble the ball and continue running. I would say I didn't have possession of the ball when I was tagged, so technically I wasn't down.

Very effective argument on my part.

[bucky]

When I was in grade school playing touch football, whenever someone would tag me, I'd bobble the ball and continue running. I would say I didn't have possession of the ball when I was tagged, so technically I wasn't down.

Very effective argument on my part.

That's why you use flags.

[FirstTimer]

That's why you use flags.

Can't pull the flag of someone with no possession

[FirstTimer]

When I was in grade school playing touch football, whenever someone would tag me, I'd bobble the ball and continue running. I would say I didn't have possession of the ball when I was tagged, so technically I wasn't down.

Very effective argument on my part.

We used to use fake kneel downs where we would fake kneel the ball on kick offs and punts but not let our knee touch the ground then take off.