Turn Off Ads?
Page 14 of 62 FirstFirst ... 410111213141516171824 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 925

Thread: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

  1. #196
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,629

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by moewan View Post
    That was embarrising, those calls weren't even judgement calls.
    Has that 4th timout been addressed? The ref announced the 10s runoff and then let the game resume without the clock being changed. He never made another announcement that he'd changed his call nor did I see Marvin throwing a fit, so what exactly happened there? Did the ref just not know the rules? Even with a 10s runoff the Redskins were getting a break as they could not have run another play that quickly

    The Bengals won this game even though they:

    -threw a pick 6 on the road
    -lost the turnover battle
    -couldn't run the ball

    Forget the mantra that you can't be good in the NFL if you can't run the ball. It's a luxury to be able to run the ball. There have been a lot of good teams recently that don't run. The recent championships from NE, Pitt and GB all came from teams with very little running game.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #197
    Member medford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    2,083

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    Sea Ray,

    The announcers stated that the Refs gaved the Redskins the 4th timeout b/c the player was injuried. They didn't dive any deeper into it (if the shield sent a memo to the teams, you can bet your sweet hind end they sent a memo to CBS, Fox, NBC, ESPN to back off the refs) acting like it was perfectly w/n the rule. As far as I know, that is exactly why the rule was created. Of course things change, I didn't realize until last weekend that in college touchbacks on kickoffs are brought out to the 25 now, so perhaps that rule was changed. I don't know, I would have thought Marvin would have been more vocal about it.

    But while we're on the subject of "rule changes" have they changed the rule about touching a football after the oppossing team touches it in specific regards to the Terrance Newman play on the punt down by the goal line. IIRC, the rule stated that once the oppossing team touches the football, it doesn't matter what the recieving team does, they can't turn it over, ie, the redskins could have batted the ball out to the 5, Newman could have picked up the ball and returned it 20 yards before fumbling, it still would have been the Bengals ball (where exactly I'm not sure). Now perhaps that rule has changed, but its in place to prevent a team from slapping the ball at the opponent who is 5 yards away and created contact and a chance at a turnover. Neither announcer appeared to be aware of this rule, and what Newman did was actually very smart, assuming the rule was in place. Instead of potentiall being down at the 1, he could have got it out to the 5 had he fielded it cleanly. Had the Redskins got hold of the ball after he touched it, it still would have been the Bengals ball at whatever spot the Redskins first touched the ball.

  4. #198
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,629

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by medford View Post
    Sea Ray,

    The announcers stated that the Refs gaved the Redskins the 4th timeout b/c the player was injuried. They didn't dive any deeper into it (if the shield sent a memo to the teams, you can bet your sweet hind end they sent a memo to CBS, Fox, NBC, ESPN to back off the refs) acting like it was perfectly w/n the rule. As far as I know, that is exactly why the rule was created. Of course things change, I didn't realize until last weekend that in college touchbacks on kickoffs are brought out to the 25 now, so perhaps that rule was changed. I don't know, I would have thought Marvin would have been more vocal about it.

    But while we're on the subject of "rule changes" have they changed the rule about touching a football after the oppossing team touches it in specific regards to the Terrance Newman play on the punt down by the goal line. IIRC, the rule stated that once the oppossing team touches the football, it doesn't matter what the recieving team does, they can't turn it over, ie, the redskins could have batted the ball out to the 5, Newman could have picked up the ball and returned it 20 yards before fumbling, it still would have been the Bengals ball (where exactly I'm not sure). Now perhaps that rule has changed, but its in place to prevent a team from slapping the ball at the opponent who is 5 yards away and created contact and a chance at a turnover. Neither announcer appeared to be aware of this rule, and what Newman did was actually very smart, assuming the rule was in place. Instead of potentiall being down at the 1, he could have got it out to the 5 had he fielded it cleanly. Had the Redskins got hold of the ball after he touched it, it still would have been the Bengals ball at whatever spot the Redskins first touched the ball.
    I thought the way that the announcers talked about that special teams play was pittiful and was the capper on an awful day for Wilcotts and his partner. They came across as clueless idiots for not knowing that rule of "illegal touching". Newman had everything to gain and nothing to lose and NFL announcers, especially guys who played the game, should have known that.

    In regards to the injury TO, why didn't the refs explain it to us? Now we're left to wonder about the call and the rulebook. I'm under the impression that the 10s runoff is the correct call. I have no idea why they didn't enforce it. If anyone hears something else, please post it here

  5. #199
    Waitin til next year bucksfan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    10,297

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by medford View Post
    But while we're on the subject of "rule changes" have they changed the rule about touching a football after the oppossing team touches it in specific regards to the Terrance Newman play on the punt down by the goal line. IIRC, the rule stated that once the oppossing team touches the football, it doesn't matter what the recieving team does, they can't turn it over, ie, the redskins could have batted the ball out to the 5, Newman could have picked up the ball and returned it 20 yards before fumbling, it still would have been the Bengals ball (where exactly I'm not sure). Now perhaps that rule has changed, but its in place to prevent a team from slapping the ball at the opponent who is 5 yards away and created contact and a chance at a turnover. Neither announcer appeared to be aware of this rule, and what Newman did was actually very smart, assuming the rule was in place. Instead of potentiall being down at the 1, he could have got it out to the 5 had he fielded it cleanly. Had the Redskins got hold of the ball after he touched it, it still would have been the Bengals ball at whatever spot the Redskins first touched the ball.
    Its my understanding that once a ball is touched by the punting team the receiving team can do no worse than that spot. If a ball is touched at the 5 and then downed at the 1 the receiving team gets the ball at the 5. If the ball is touched at the one then rolls into the endzone the team gets the ball at the 20. I have seen before where team goes to down the ball and someone picks it up and returns it for positive yardage. It irritated me that he announcers did not know the rule when they were hammering Newman. Had Ed Reed attempted to do it they may have realized the rule then went on to talk about how great of a player he is.

    IMO its similar to a FG attempt. Once the ball crosses over the line the defensive team gets the ball no worse than the spot of the kick. If the kick is blocked or caught in the endzone I believe the defense can return it as can do no worse than the spot of the kick.

  6. #200
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,629

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    Look this over and tell me if I'm reading this correctly.

    Digest of Rules Main

    Timing in Final Two Minutes of Each Half
    On kickoff, clock does not start until the ball has been legally touched by player of either team in the field of play. (In all other cases, clock starts with kickoff.)
    A team cannot buy an excess time out for a penalty. However, a fourth time out is allowed without penalty for an injured player, who must be removed immediately. A fifth time out or more is allowed for an injury and a five-yard penalty is assessed if the clock was running. Additionally, if the clock was running and the score is tied or the team in possession is losing, the ball cannot be put in play for at least 10 seconds on the fourth or more time out. The half or game can end while those 10 seconds are run off on the clock.
    If the defensive team is behind in the score and commits a foul when it has no time outs left in the final 40 seconds of either half, the offensive team can decline the penalty for the foul and have the time on the clock expire.
    Fouls that occur in the last five minutes of the fourth quarter as well as the last two minutes of the first half will result in the clock starting on the snap.
    http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/timingfinal

    It seems to me that the bolded part would apply to what happened in the game with 1:07 left when a Redskin player was injured. So it seems to me that the ref should have run off 10 seconds. Anybody read it differently?

  7. #201
    Member medford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    2,083

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    I think you're correct. What I believe it says, you get the time out, including all priledges that area ssociated with it (like meetting w/ the coaches over on the sidelines for a predetermined # of seconds before the play clock is started), however 10 seconds will be run off the clock before the next play can happen.

    Under the 5th TO scenerio, the TO and all of its benefits are allowed for an injury, however you get a 5 yard penalty, plus the 10 second run off if the clock was live.

  8. #202
    Who wants a mustache ride Ohayou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    901

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by UKFlounder View Post
    A decent career backup forced into a role he's unqualified for. Then again, he is slow and incapable of making big plays, just the kind of back Marvin loves (see Benson, Cedric).

    It's just amazing that with so many picks in last year's draft they totally ignored the RB position. At some point, you need some speed and elusiveness back there
    He's still better than Benson. For crying out loud, the guy fumbled 12 times in 2 years...but that's beside the point. Having a below average O-line doesn't exactly contribute to the running game.

    I do agree with you, though. They should have drafted another RB. LaMichael James would have been a good fit for the RBBC. I don't understand why they continue to give Scott touches. Leonard and Peerman are both better options. In fact, it really bothers me how little they utilize Leonard. Meh. They have two 2nd rounders next year. Andre Ellington, maybe?
    Choo got it, dude.

  9. #203
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    7,206

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Ohayou View Post
    He's still better than Benson. For crying out loud, the guy fumbled 12 times in 2 years...but that's beside the point. Having a below average O-line doesn't exactly contribute to the running game.

    I do agree with you, though. They should have drafted another RB. LaMichael James would have been a good fit for the RBBC. I don't understand why they continue to give Scott touches. Leonard and Peerman are both better options. In fact, it really bothers me how little they utilize Leonard. Meh. They have two 2nd rounders next year. Andre Ellington, maybe?
    I think Marvin unwittingly fell into being ahead of the curve in terms of offense. He basically attempted to build based on the early 2000's Ravens & Steelers model of "big back grounds and pounds while QB makes enough big plays to keep defense honest." But as the game has shifted for the last few years, it's now beneficial to have a QB with a lot of options to spread out the defense and a big back to pound inside and keep defenses honest. They don't really need a playmaker at RB as there's only one football. But having a guy who can consistently get the tough 2-3 yards inside will benefit Dalton, Green, & Co immensely.
    When people say that I donít know what Iím talking about when it comes to sports or writing, I think: Man, you should see me in the rest of my life.
    ---Joe Posnanski

  10. #204
    I hate the Cubs LoganBuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,249

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier Red View Post
    I think Marvin unwittingly fell into being ahead of the curve in terms of offense. He basically attempted to build based on the early 2000's Ravens & Steelers model of "big back grounds and pounds while QB makes enough big plays to keep defense honest." But as the game has shifted for the last few years, it's now beneficial to have a QB with a lot of options to spread out the defense and a big back to pound inside and keep defenses honest. They don't really need a playmaker at RB as there's only one football. But having a guy who can consistently get the tough 2-3 yards inside will benefit Dalton, Green, & Co immensely.
    I agree with this, but with one caveat, there should be a pass catching RB option with big play potential. Someone like James, or even a Chris Rainey would make for an added element to the passing game. As it stands now Brian Leonard is the pass catching RB option.
    The Sox traded Bullfrog the only player they've got for Shottenhoffen. Four-eyes Shottenhoffen a utility infielder. They've got a whole team of utility infielders.

  11. #205
    My clutch is broken RichRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Asheville, NC or thereabouts
    Posts
    3,892

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    In addition to everything else, the refs marked off 20 yards against the Skins on the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty at the end.

    Nice win for the Bengals but the Skins pass defense is atrocious, having been lit up for three consecutive weeks now (Brees, Bradford, Dalton). I think Shanahan and Haslett are living in the past, when being able to stop the run was enough. I don't know how DeAngelo Hall still has a job, just for example.

    I hope RGIII survives his rookie season. Man, is he taking some hits.

    The Bengals are kind of my second team (behind the Skins), since I know so many Bengals fans are also fellow Reds fans. So, congrats guys!
    "I can make all the stadiums rock."
    -Air Supply

  12. #206
    Member OesterPoster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    West-central Ohio
    Posts
    2,054

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    You guys are right. Officials screwed up (go figure).

    Joe Reedy ‏@joereedy

    League spokesman says a 10-second runoff should have been applied on the Redskins injury with 1:07 remaining.

  13. #207
    Member OesterPoster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    West-central Ohio
    Posts
    2,054

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    Wow, so they also admitted to screwing up the spot on the false start/unsportsmanlike penalties. They moved the ball back 5 yards too many, this time in favor of the Bengals.

    NFL acknowledges officiating errors in Bengals-Redskins game

    By Jay Morrison | Monday, September 24, 2012, 04:45 PM

    An NFL official confirmed Monday that the referees in Sunday’s Bengals-Redskins game made two errors in the final 67 seconds.

    The first came with the clock running and less than two minutes remaining in the game when Washington quarterback Robert Griffin III completed a 12-yard pass to wide receiver Leonard Hankerson. Hankerson was injured on the play, and so the clock was stopped with 1:07 remaining.

    Below is the e-mail response from Michael Signora, Vice President of Football Communications National Football League.

    Rule 4, Section 5, Article 4 (f) of the NFL Rule Book states: “If an excess team timeout is charged against a team in possession of the ball, and time is in when the excess timeout is called, the ball shall not be put in play until the time on the game clock has been reduced by 10 seconds, if the defense so chooses.”

    Because Washington had used all three of its timeouts, a 10-second runoff should have been applied in this situation. The clock should have been set at 0:57 and started on the referee’s ready for play signal.

    With the clock running and under one minute remaining in the game, Washington spiked the ball to stop the clock. That resulted in a 3rd and 25 from the Cincinnati 34 with seven seconds remaining. The clock was stopped at this point because of the incomplete pass on the previous play, i.e. the spike. The Redskins were then penalized for a false start. Because the clock was stopped, there is no 10-second runoff in this situation. It was properly officiated.

    In addition to the five yard penalty for the false start, which would have taken the ball from the Cincinnati 34 to the Cincinnati 39, Washington was penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct. A penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is 15 yards. From the Cincinnati 39, the ball should have then been spotted at the Washington 46. Instead, the ball was incorrectly spotted at the Washington 41, a difference of five yards.

  14. #208
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,629

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    Now that that's settled, I wonder if we'll ever learn why the officials let the game continue without a 10s runoff being enforced. They made the right call but let the game continue anyway. You can't tell me the officials weren't watching every second tick off at that point. Everyone else in the stadium was. I'd also like to know if Marvin argued to them about it. It didn't seem like he did. He should have insisted that 10s run off

  15. #209
    I hate the Cubs LoganBuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,249

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Ray View Post
    Now that that's settled, I wonder if we'll ever learn why the officials let the game continue without a 10s runoff being enforced. They made the right call but let the game continue anyway. You can't tell me the officials weren't watching every second tick off at that point. Everyone else in the stadium was. I'd also like to know if Marvin argued to them about it. It didn't seem like he did. He should have insisted that 10s run off
    He was pointing and yelling.
    The Sox traded Bullfrog the only player they've got for Shottenhoffen. Four-eyes Shottenhoffen a utility infielder. They've got a whole team of utility infielders.

  16. #210
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,629

    Re: 2012-2013 Bengals Discussion

    Let's hear it for Michael Johnson AFC Player of the Week!



    http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/pos...player-of-week


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

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

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25