Top 10 reasons why the Bears lost

[FirstTimer]

Cutlers initial reaction was classic "What fucking route was he running?"

 

[FedEx227]

Yeah, the more I think about it it was pretty clearly a post/corner route that Devin just decided after about 30 yards he was going to turn into an out route next to the sidelines.

 

[FedEx227]

Totally agree. The insight I get is how inept he was when he was head of officiating. The whole point of replay was to change egregiously bad calls...there has to be insurmountable evidence. Pereira is always giving some half-assed opinion like "It looks like the ball might have come out", and then he concludes "They have to overturn this". NO, they don't! The evidence isn't conclusive.

On a side note, Mike Pereira is my wife's 2nd least favorite person, behind Tony Kornheiser.

It's the same frustration that comes with networks getting this ex-players on and having them say the same shit some dude in the parking lot wearing a custom jersey can say.

 

[Rush]

is anyone really surprised by the outcome of this game?
did anyone who isnt a bear fan think the bears would win this game?

its easy to look good when you play the seahawks, but the fact is the bears are average and it showed.

Why are people downplaying the Bears jesus christ.

They allowed 14 points to the powerful Green Bay offense, they had 21 because Caleb Hanie threw an INT at the 3 yard line that BJ Raji walked into the endzone with.

In the previou week Green Bay scored 48 points on the #1 seed in the NFC on the road. They are a good fucking team. The Bears didn't lose to the Cleveland Browns or the Toronto Raptors (Yes, they play basketball and also suck ass)

The Packers are a good ass team. You guys are making the Bears out to be like they got beat by a high school team.

 

[FedEx227]

My high school QB played with an injury once!

 

[bucky]

As for the placement of the ball post-interception. They did make the mistake of not placing it in the correct position. Knox tapped his helmet as he was going down with the ball.

But he didn't finish the process of catching it until after he rolled onto his back and secured the ball AGAIN. So the ref may have looked at the first touch as Shields has not completed securing the ball yet. You would have to touch him AFTER he finishes securing the ball.

Just a thought.

 

[bucky]

Why are people downplaying the Bears jesus christ.

They allowed 14 points to the powerful Green Bay offense, they had 21 because Caleb Hanie threw an INT at the 3 yard line that BJ Raji walked into the endzone with.

In the previou week Green Bay scored 48 points on the #1 seed in the NFC on the road. They are a good fucking team. The Bears didn't lose to the Cleveland Browns or the Toronto Raptors (Yes, they play basketball and also suck ass)

The Packers are a good ass team. You guys are making the Bears out to be like they got beat by a high school team.

That's just fans over-reacting. See, I think GB deserves a hell of a lot of credit cause they went on the road through out the playoffs against very good teams. And that includes the Bears. I knew it would be a dog fight. That's just how this rivalry is.

Sure I can hate on the Bears, and I do more than any other team in the NFL (Dallas is next after Chi), but I respect the organization and team.

That was a HELL of a win for GB.

 

[Tengo Juego]

But he didn't finish the process of catching it until after he rolled onto his back and secured the ball AGAIN. So the ref may have looked at the first touch as Shields has not completed securing the ball yet. You would have to touch him AFTER he finishes securing the ball.

Just a thought.

Actually, that's probably why they didn't rule him down by contact. Good call.

 

[FirstTimer]

McCauley's crew can't have it both ways.

For the sake of arguement if they think Shields pick was clean Knox clearly touched his helmet as Sheilds fell to the turf. That would make him down by contact at the 1 or so.

If they ruled that Knox hadn't touched Shields down because when Sheilds was touched he hadn't firmly secured the football yet then that means the interception never occured as the ball came loose after it touched the ground.

On top of that Pereira thought it was pretty clearly incomplete and at worse Shields would be down by contact at the 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8pJlCJjrrU

The ball touched the ground, but it was in his possession. It didn't come loose, it didn't come free of his hand until he began to roll over.

As for the placement of the ball post-interception. They did make the mistake of not placing it in the correct position. Knox tapped his helmet as he was going down with the ball.

The last angle of the last replay clearly shows the ball shifting position/orientation in his mid section after it touched the ground(which is shown in the other view)

But he didn't finish the process of catching it until after he rolled onto his back and secured the ball AGAIN. So the ref may have looked at the first touch as Shields has not completed securing the ball yet. You would have to touch him AFTER he finishes securing the ball.

Just a thought.

Like I said. It can't be both ways.

 

[bucky]

Like I said. It can't be both ways.

What do you mean it can't be both ways. He hits the ground with his hand under the ball. The video doesn't show the ball moving until he started rolling onto his back. He secures it. I'm not sure I see enough to overturn. If they would have called it incomplete, I'm not sure I see enough to overturn.

I didn't see the ball move until AFTER he had started to roll over. And I did see his hand under the ball when he hit the ground. Not so sure the replays showed anything conclusive enough to overturn. I'm with senser on this.

 

[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.