jason

This game worries me. I don't think the Bears come out with a victory. Demarcus Ware is going to give the OL fits, and unless he's doubled the entire game, I expect him to get 2-3 sacks and a couple other pressures. And throw in an anticipation False Start by an OT while we're at it.

First bold - Reread my entire post. I excluded the first two parts of the analysis because the pictures indicate a decent/good pocket/protection. Second bold - It sounds great, and I completely agree with you in theory, but the reality is that Cutler doesn't have time for anything other than his hot read or the #1 read on probably 85% of the passing plays. He doesn't get the privilege of thinking about what the X or the Y does and then going to the hot read. Most of the time it appears that when his primary is covered, he is immediately thereafter pressured. And when he does get time to hit the hot receiver, that guy often has coverage close by because the Bears rarely confuse anyone on offense (especially now). I agree with the gunslinger comments, and the eroding footwork, and the poor decision-making, but I am still under the impression that the majority of his problems, like most QBs, are caused by the pressure. And since the Bears' OL has given up more pressure than any OL in the past three or four years, it's understandable that he has developed some preservation-based faults. Which is why I've been saying for years now that the Bears need to fix the OL before anything else. A bad OL turns a good QB into a scared QB, and at that point it doesn't matter who in the hell you have at WR.

Amen. See enough gun-fire, you start to duck reflexively at loud noises.

1st example: Good point. It's a bad read by Jay. 2nd example: Good point. Bad footwork by Jay in an adequate pocket. The rest? Hard to fault a guy for making the very first decision or read when that's all he gets time to do. It's also hard to fault a guy for eroding footwork when he so rarely gets time to sit down in the pocket and throw, much less throw to a secondary or tertiary read. The "pocket presence" one is ridiculous, because presence requires some semblance of consistency, not to mention at least a decent block. If Jay had stepped to the left in that scenario, Mattews would still have got him. The author makes it seem like Matthews has an inability to change direction, which is utterly ridiculous. And let's not forget, Matthews Raji. If the scenario were Raji, then maybe there is a point. What's funny to me is that aside from the first two scenarios, every screenshot during a developing play shows Cutler under duress or a pocket that is about to collapse.

If anyone wants a PDF of the NFL Rulebook from last year, let me know. It provides the A.R. that I pasted previously in this thread. As for control, possession, and catch, it's kind of fuzzy. Possession is established when a player controls the ball and comes down inbounds, with either both feet or some other body part that is not the hands. That process completes the catch unless they go to the ground, in which case they have to have control of the ball all the way through. But in terms of a definition of control, it's not there. The best that is there is the A.R. I provided, because it clears up the gray area of whether a player can have "control" of the ball while he is in the air. The guideline appears to be control-->possession-->catch. To be honest, with that close of a call, with that many bodies around, with the inability to see what Tate's hands are touching, I'm not so sure the regular NFL guys wouldn't have screwed the pooch on that one as well.

And it was an absolutely ATROCIOUS call. Virtually nobody who understands football agrees with that call. And it's also why the quote you provided says: It was perhaps the only time where offensive pass interference has reversed the outcome of the play I bet that guy was quickly demoted from the ranks of SEC officials...or became a replacement official this year.

Yes, the analyzation is getting crazy. People are shitting themselves over a call that is milliseconds away from being right or wrong. The human eye just doesn't work like that with 100% accuracy. And even with replay it's difficult to ascertain at times. Naked eye: Looked like joint possession to me. Several fellow officials and I were texting back and forth during the game, and during the controversial plays, and you'd be surprised at the disagreement between several VERY good officials, some at quite high levels.

I'm working on it. But, ultimately, I agree with what you said. The problem of course is that eventually this will be a judgement issue, and if the official on the field judged that "control" was established, it almost doesn't matter what comes after that.

Unfortunately, when dealing with the actual rules of football, it's not as simple as you think. When dealing with the NFL's rules, it's even worse. Otherwise, you'd have never heard of the Tuck Rule. This is especially true in regards to the play in question, because, technically, Tate was the first one to catch the ball (by the strict definition of a catch and possession in the NFL). But control of the ball by Jennings was first.

1. You're still wrong on the OPI. Unless you can find an instance, or multiple instances to prove your point, you're wrong. There have been countless hail mary passes thrown, and I can't recall ever seeing an OPI called. Can you? Go searching for it; you may find one play that supports your side of the debate. 2. I've since reversed my opinion on the final play, but not because it's obvious. The wording of the rules in this case make it somewhat difficult (as I pointed out in the other thread I created), and that's where the officials were wrong.

Establishing a few things about the NFL rules I have read this morning: 1) Control precedes Possession 2) Possession precedes a catch 3) A catch requires two feet or some other body part that is not the hands to contact the ground In the NFL and College rule books they have what are called Approved Rulings (AR). They explain what the correct call is in an odd situation where the rule is not perfectly clear. The following is the AR for the final play [A is the offense and B is the defense]: A.R. 8.29: First and 10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. RULING: B's ball, first and 10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control. So, the reason the GB defender should have been awarded the INT is because of the word "control." There is no doubt that Tate was the first to catch the ball (i.e. he had control, had possession, and his two feet touched the ground in bounds before Jennings), but he was not the first to control the ball. If the control of the ball in the air wasn't so clear cut, and the ball wiggled a little or was spun laterally while they were grabbing for it, then the call would have been correct because Tate satisfied the other requirements first. As it stands, however, control-->possession-->catch.

Nope. They could easily have called it, would have been supported, and would have been right. Some might have said just like Gruden, "You don't decide the game" (which would kind of have made him a hypocrite), but with an OPI that bad it would have been difficult to argue against.

For the record, after reading the NFL rule book, the call was wrong and I reverse my decision. But it's not because the play is obvious, it's because the verbiage of the rule.

GREAT POINT! My conspiracy theory is that the NFL actively wants the Packers to do well, and they try to institute changes to the rules and how the officials manage the game, so that the Packers get the advantages when possible. And now that those old hats are gone, and the new guys are there, the new guys don't have the subtle ability to pull it off. Or don't know about it. And as a result, the monster that was Green Bay's offense is currently 25th in total offense.

If that's your perspective, I understand it better. I don't necessarily agree, because we don't know what he's doing on each play, but I understand it. It would also explain why you have a quicker tendency to say he's holding onto the ball, because you believe Cutler to be waiting for only Marshall to get open.

hahahahaha. Glass houses, Warren. Brandon Marshall destroyed him.

Sorry, Lucky, but on the OPI you're 100% wrong. That simply never is getting called, from pee-wee to the pros. As for the catch, I'll make a three part case for dual possession (which goes to the WR) before slightly changing my opinion from last night: 1. The NFL rule for possession says nothing about two hands or anything similar. "When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds." 2. Tate had a hand on the ball. 3. NFL WRs make one-handed catches all the time. I admit it's a tough call no matter how you slice it, and the safer choice is to go with Jennings over Tate because of the 2 hands vs. 1 hand idea. But keep in mind that the rule says both feet. By the time both of Jennings' feet hit the ground it's pretty clear that Tate is in there with both hands. It doesn't matter if one player has the ball closer to him, or the players' relative position to the ground/each other. This picture, however, presents a good case for an INT (even though we don't know at what point this was taken):

Hyperbole aside (i.e. all star OL), the bolded part is probably not argued against by many. But the second half was rock-solid by the Packers' OL. I'm sure that provides Rodgers with a lot of confidence, knowing that his guys can put it together on a consistent basis. Sure, they imploded in the first half, but they played pretty well in the second half. Cutler, on the other hand, can never be sure of such a performance, nor can he expect sustained play from his OL. Nobody is saying Cutler is better than Rodgers, or that other QBs don't face some pressure. Those are both semi-strawmen. The simple fact is, however, that Cutler is probably greatly affected by the fact that the OL can't get their stuff together for more than a few plays in a row, and he is almost assured of taking a beating every game for the near duration of the game. I understand if he's rattled by it.

And if his presnap read is covered? What then? Is he supposed to immediately throw it away or run with it? If not, then do you factor everything after the first read as a slight on Cutler? Is the OL never supposed to give Cutler enough time to get to the second read?

I hope your optimism is correct.

FYI...an officiating perspective. 1. They NEVER call OPI on a hail mary. Never. He would have had to jump on two guys' backs, put both of them in headlocks, and do it WAY before the ball was close. 2. It was not a clear interception. Simultaneous possession goes to the WR. Gerry Austin has a slanted perspective because he's intimately linked to the locked out officials as well as the college officials who were told that accepting the NFL offer meant the end of their college career. Before the Green Bay DB was grounded there were four hands on the ball, two by each player. And Tirico doesn't know WTF he is talking about. Just think about it - if both players are standing up it's the player who comes down with the ball that is in possession. It doesn't matter whose feet hit first. When they came down with it, if anything the Seattle player was grounded first, and he definitely had two hands on the ball.

And what happened in the second half? Almost zero pressure...and whattaya know? Rodgers does better.

Bingo. Just like before, and before that. Remember when Jauron didn't deserve the extension and he got one? Remember when Lovie had the same problems he has now, yet the team overachieved and made him look good, resulting in Lovie's extension? Even during the Super Bowl year there was a lot of talk about Lovie's failings as a HC.

There's a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide distance between astrophysics and football. I'm somewhere in the middle. You appear to be close to either the w or the d. Serious questions: How do you determine if the sack is Cutler's fault? How do you determine if he's "holding the ball too long"? It seems to me this is a common theme being claimed by many, but I honestly don't think it's the case. It's just that we're so used to seeing him get pounded like a $2 whore that we expect that, by now, he knows to get rid of the ball quicker. Of course, it's still not his fault that he's getting pounded, but it seems that his window of time to get rid of the ball is decreasing in the minds/eyes of his detractors. It seems that anything over a three-step drop, plant, throw is on Cutler. Three-step drop, plant, look for secondary read? On Cutler. I don't believe that is fair or accurate.