The REAL reason why the Skins lost today

[TheNewStandard]

1 minute ago, tiger7_88 said:

I bet Sergeant Major McRacist and his son-in-law Corporal Cracker have the Redskins as their 2nd favorite team.

Art Monk, John Riggins and that "warm up the Diesel" guy who used to wear the Headdress are the only likeable things about the 'skins. 

[Navy_football]

Do they even realize, the Panthers (Rivera/Shula) really dialed the offense down about half way through the 3rd? It could have been much worse.

[DamnItJake!]

 NFL conspiracy..cuz they suck lets not over analyze this!! Start moving their games to London!!

[OriginalPantherDan]

58 minutes ago, Ruff said:

It was the right call. 29 had both feet come off the ground, launching into the defender, while leader with his shoulder. It was definitely a personal foul. 

Hate the rule all you want, but it's there, the player violated the rule, and the call was made. Next question. 

[Byrdman4real]

Lmao they lame as hell

[glo]

The rule is right and a good rule, but the call was not. Olsen put his head down right when he got hit. Shouldn't have been called.

[Moorgan]

Hey Washington...

[PntherPryd]

The penalty call that negated the fumble recovery TD was one of the few the crew got right.  Really disappointed that the Fox crew and Mike Pereira did not immediately call it that way.  They were clearly confused.  Defender cannot make contact to head and shoulder area as first point of contact.  Could post a link but everybody has google.

Listening to DC area fans and the iggles before them has me soooo looking forward to putting the NFC East in our rear view mirror.  Reading game comments and cowboy fan prognostications is bringing down my IQ and driving up my liquor budget.

 

[SOJA]

I get that the 14 point swing was huge and that Culliver made a great play, but that was by the rule book targeting of a defenseless receiver. You can hate the rule, but you can't hate that call. 

[t96]

2 hours ago, weyco2000 said:

Every penalty called was warranted. Except the call on Jacobs, hell there could've been more.

The one on the could-have-been pick 6 was questionable...

[JawnyBlaze]

2 hours ago, w280sax said:

The personal foul to call back the interception return was the biggest call of the game.  I havent seen a replay since i got home from the stadium, so i am not sure if it was the right call or not.  I wouldnt have been surprised for the refs to not call it for us though.

It was the right call.  Dude hit Olsen in the head with his helmet (not a vicious spearing or anything, but still hit him in the head) and forearmed him in the throat.  Hit all the bullet points in the letter of the rule (head and neck area).  I knew as soon as I saw the play live it should be a penalty,  the guy leaped UP to hit Olsen in the head.  If he had just tackled him like he was supposed to, it would have been a catch for short gain instead of a penalty.  The shot to the head is obviously what made Olsen lose the ball, he should probably get checked for a concussion just to be safe.  He seemed to go limp there for a split second, his hands and arms just kinda fell away from the ball and that's why it just kinda hung there in the air for the guy to intercept.

[JawnyBlaze]

14 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

The one on the could-have-been pick 6 was questionable...

I thought it was one of the least questionable calls in the game.  I made the above post responding to one on the first page, didn't see yours as I was typing the above, but like I said he hit Olsen in the head and throat.  That's a penalty 10/10 times.

[t96]

Just now, JawnyBlaze said:

I thought it was one of the least questionable calls in the game.  I made the above post responding to one on the first page, didn't see yours as I was typing the above, but like I said he hit Olsen in the head and throat.  That's a penalty 10/10 times.

I'll have to re-watch it.

[JawnyBlaze]

3 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

I'll have to re-watch it.

Yea, the back angle replay they showed as they were discussing it on air after the play shows the best angle of the forearm/elbow to the throat.  The helmet to helmet wasn't vicious, but it was the first contact made between them and the guy leaped up (as someone earlier in the thread described it, launched) making it look like he was actually AIMING at the head.  A proper, legal tackle would have been going lower, wrapping up at the waist.  Not intentionally going high.

An argument could be made he was trying to break up the pass and that's why he was high, and that's reasonable and I don't necessarily think the guy was consciously trying to dirty hit Olsen in the head, but intent or otherwise he hit him in the head.