Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Packers safety

  1. #1
    RK.'s Avatar
    RK.
    RK. is offline Ring of Fame Rally Cross II Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    4,457

    Packers safety

    Am I the only one that found that to be a weird call? I guess I never realized that a safety was considered a penalty. It seems to me that if the intentional grounding call turned out not to be a penalty, then the holding penalty would be enforced causing a safety. :???:

    WWBGD

  2. #2
    midgensa's Avatar
    midgensa is offline Jersey Retired Free Kick Specialist 3 Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,304

    Re: Packers safety

    A safety was not considered a penalty ... not sure what you are talking about there ...
    They ruled that it was not a fumble and that it was forward pass, so that took care of that ... they ruled he was outside of the tackle box so it was not intentional grounding ... so that took care of that ... and they did enforce the holding penalty but said IT DID NOT HAPPEN in the endzone ... which was incorrect, but they did call holding and ruled that it happened outside of the endzone which would make it half the distance to the goal, so the Lions declined it ... anything else you didn't get? I think I covered it there.

  3. #3
    Deronn's Avatar
    Deronn is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    174

    Re: Packers safety

    This might help... Just don't ask why I was on the Packers site! :shock:

    Notebook: Coaches Shed Light On Mysterious Play

    by Jeff Fedotin, Packers.com
    posted 12/12/2005

    A very peculiar play took place during the fourth quarter of Sunday's game. With the Packers backed up in their own end zone, linebacker Earl Holmes was about to drop Samkon Gado for a safety when the running back threw an incomplete pass.

    "I don't know if I've seen that play ever in football," Head Coach Mike Sherman said.

    The officials initially ruled it a safety but then determined Gado attempted the pass while outside of the tackle box and called the pass incomplete. The change did not surprise Sherman.

    "I knew the play I called," he said. "He had to be outside the pocket."

    Immediately after the play Sherman approached Gado on the sideline, and Gado forseshadowed the referee's eventual decision.

    "Coach, I did throw it forward," Gado said.

    Regardless offensive coordinator Tom Rossley called it a dangerous play because the Detroit Lions could have intercepted the pass and scored a touchdown. Inexperience likely factored into Gado's decision. The rookie has only played in seven NFL games.

    "I don't know if Sam's ever been in that position," Rossley said. "For him to do what he did was very high risk."

    Further complicating the play, the officials called Mark Tauscher for holding. Such a violation could result in a safety, but they determined he committed the penalty outside of the end zone. Sherman did not disclose whether he agreed with the holding call after reviewing the tape.

    "I did not pay a lot of attention to it," he said with a smile.

  4. #4
    RK.'s Avatar
    RK.
    RK. is offline Ring of Fame Rally Cross II Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    4,457

    Re: Packers safety

    Ahhh that sounds better. A friend of mine tried to explain it to me but had it wrong I guess. He said that the intentional grounding was ruled an incomplete pass after the Packers threw in the red hankie. Because they had reviewed the first call, which resulted in a safety, and you can only challenge one call per down that the holding call could not be reviewed or assessed because the first penalty (intentional grounding) had been accepted by the Steelers then overturned. He said the Steelers were asked do you want the intentional grounding call or the holding call. They took the intentional grounding because they didn't know if the holding had occured in the endzone or not.

    Any way that's what he said and since I didn't see the game, I was a little confused as to what exactly had happened. From the above you can see why. :smile:

    WWBGD

  5. #5
    VKG4LFE's Avatar
    VKG4LFE is offline Jersey Retired Tetris Champion, Monkey GO Happy 4 Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Hartford, WI
    Posts
    15,993

    Re: Packers safety

    In a way I'm glad they won becuase they inched farther away from NOT getting reggie bush.

    I get the most pissed off looks from people with my VKG 4 LFE Wisconsin license plate, and I LOVE IT!!

  6. #6
    BearsTroll is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    64

    Re: Packers safety

    "VKG4LFE" wrote:
    In a way I'm glad they won becuase they inched farther away from NOT getting reggie bush.
    Yeah but i would rather have the packer pick bush, and have him end up being a bust

    Poor randy

Similar Threads

  1. Safety.
    By The Dropper in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-19-2009, 07:22 PM
  2. QB+Safety
    By Matt Blair in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-11-2007, 10:52 PM
  3. Safety First (On Spielman)
    By cogitans in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 01:31 AM
  4. Was it a safety?
    By Rastak in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-08-2006, 07:31 PM
  5. safety
    By rkuriger04 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-28-2005, 09:15 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •