2011-12 NFC North Division

[MUMac]

Not true. The officials reviewed down by contact (which was blatantly obvious and should have been called on the field) and, in a separate review, they looked at the skirmish and decided to eject Moore for going after Stafford. That decision makes little sense considering Stafford was clearly the instigator. Also, as someone on WSCR claimed this morning, the whistle hadn't actually blown when Moore hit Stafford so, technically, the play was still going on. I haven't seen a replay since I heard that though so I can't confirm. Either way, I still claim that if Moore's actions deserved an ejection, so did Fairley's when he drove Cutler into the turf well after the ball left his hand.

Your initial comment about Stafford is WRONG.  It continues to be wrong.  No if's, and's or but's.  You cannot review for a penalty.  That is the rule.  But the penalty was ALREADY called.  Check the replay's.  The flag is on the field.  Check the rulebook.  It is clear.  Further, it does not matter if the whistle blew or not.  It was a flagrant foul and deserving of a penalty, ejection, fine and suspension.  Deal with it!

As for your claim that they reviewed the fight to determine an ejection, I am not taking your word for that.  It does not fall within the uses of the Instant Replay within the NFL Rule Book.  I am not sure your interpretation is accurate.

As for the play by Fairley, it is deserving of a penalty and fine.  Not worthy of an ejection.  Take your Bear glasses off and get real.

[MUMac]

Also, you can't score enough points to beat the Packers.  No one can. 

I was at the game.  I don't know if they showed it on TV, but the stadium was unbelievable during the National Anthem.  All  fans had placards to hold up.  On one side it said "Thank You Military"  On the other side "Thank You Veterans".  Both End Zones looked like flags waving.  Really an unbelievable sight.

But, being at the game I did not hear the Packer Broadcast.  Any truth to the rumor that Larivee called the dagger on Cobb's return?   

[ATWizJr]

Hey, what team has now lost 9 straight to divisional opponents?

[MerrittsMustache]

Your initial comment about Stafford is WRONG.  It continues to be wrong.  No if's, and's or but's.  You cannot review for a penalty.  That is the rule.  But the penalty was ALREADY called.  Check the replay's.  The flag is on the field.  Check the rulebook.  It is clear.  Further, it does not matter if the whistle blew or not.  It was a flagrant foul and deserving of a penalty, ejection, fine and suspension.  Deal with it!

As for your claim that they reviewed the fight to determine an ejection, I am not taking your word for that.  It does not fall within the uses of the Instant Replay within the NFL Rule Book.  I am not sure your interpretation is accurate.

As for the play by Fairley, it is deserving of a penalty and fine.  Not worthy of an ejection.  Take your Bear glasses off and get real.

I never said that they reviewed the play to call a penalty. No ifs and or buts about that. I said that they reviewed the fight, which is allowable and is exactly what they did. It doesn't fall into the realm of "replay review." Even if Detroit had not challenged the ruling, the officials still would have reviewed the fight to see how it started and to see who did what and to see if there should be any ejections. They chose to only eject the player who retaliated which, in my opinion, was unjust. You either eject both guys or neither guy. As far as the whistle being blown after Moore jacked Stafford, whoever said that on the radio was completely off base.

My point about Fairley is that what he did to Cutler was worse than what Moore did to Stafford. Therefore, it Moore's actions were considered an "ejectable offense" then Fairley's should have been as well.

Reading comprehension is a lost art...so is apostrophe usage apparently.

[jmayer1]

I'd just like to point out that "Erin" and the mighty PACK officially eliminated the dreadful vikes from the NFC North division race last night.

[wadesworld]

I'd just like to point out that "Erin" and the mighty PACK officially eliminated the dreadful vikes from the NFC North division race last night.

Kind of sad that the Packers have the 2 best quarterbacks in the division on their team.  And I'm not even kidding.

[JWags85]

Kind of sad that the Packers have the 2 best quarterbacks in the division on their team.  And I'm not even kidding.

Seriously?  You don't think Cutler could come in during garbage time and toss to those receivers as well as Flynn?  The only Bears receiver who would get time for the Packers is maybe Earl Bennett when he is playing well. 

I understand being excited cause the Packers are playing the best football in the league but their is no reason to be asinine.

[MUMac]

I never said that they reviewed the play to call a penalty. No ifs and or buts about that. I said that they reviewed the fight, which is allowable and is exactly what they did. It doesn't fall into the realm of "replay review." Even if Detroit had not challenged the ruling, the officials still would have reviewed the fight to see how it started and to see who did what and to see if there should be any ejections. They chose to only eject the player who retaliated which, in my opinion, was unjust. You either eject both guys or neither guy. As far as the whistle being blown after Moore jacked Stafford, whoever said that on the radio was completely off base.

My point about Fairley is that what he did to Cutler was worse than what Moore did to Stafford. Therefore, it Moore's actions were considered an "ejectable offense" then Fairley's should have been as well.

Reading comprehension is a lost art...so is apostrophe usage apparently.

Save your cute little personal attacks. You are better than that, aren't you?  Well, apparently not.  I suggest, though, before you get too cute, you may want to read the NFL Rules.  Your interpretation of them is, lacking, to be kind.  I have read the rules, know the rules fairly well and it is obvious neither of those apply to you.

Again, what Stafford did was not an "ejectable offense".   I agree it was worthy of a penalty, but not an ejection.  Further, I do not find it the travesty that you apparently do, that he was not penalized.  Many times it is the retaliator that get's the penalty.  Get over it.  

According to the rules in the NFL Rulebook, Moore was guilty of a "flagrant unnecessary roughness penalty", which, by rule, is an ejectable offense.  Stafford was guilty of a horse collar or unnecessary roughness penalty.  Not flagrant.   The official did not see it during the play and did not call it.  THUS, it cannot be called during a review – simple as that.  If they reviewed the fight, there were other Lions that joined in and would have been ejected if that were the case.  Please understand the rules before arguing your points!

Give me proof that reviewing a fight is acceptable.  I do not take your word on it, because quite frankly, you are not showing a genuine knowledge of the NFL rules.  It is not in the rule book and I have never seen it done before.   As I read the NFL Rules, the only mention of a disqualification is in the "Penalty" portions of the Rules.  By the way, an ejection is considered a penalty in the NFL Rulebook.  The Replay rules are quite clear on this matter.  It states, and this is right from the NFL Rulebook, "Non-reviewable plays include but are not limited to: ... 3. Penalty administration"   So yes, it would be reviewing for penalty administration – which includes both the 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty that would need to be called AS WELL AS the disqualification of Stafford.  And you chastised me for comprehension.  Jeez!

I understand your point about Fairley.  It is merely inaccurate and wrong interpretation of the rules.  It is a judgment of the official, but that has NEVER been viewed as an "ejectable offense".  Just because it happened to Cutler does not make it one now.  He received a penalty and will be fined.  Same as Julius Peppers cheap shot against Rodgers in the Championship Game.  In both instances, the rules were appropriately applied.  They were not deemed guilty of a "flagrant" penalty, as both were during the course of the play.  Moore's was not during the course of the play.  He got up and hit Stafford, who was on his knees.  Big difference.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Hey, what team has now lost 9 straight to divisional opponents?

SKOL!! 

[MU B2002]

Sorry but Matt Flynn is not better than Cutler and Stafford.  Garbage TDs against the Vikes don't prove anything.  Show me a QB that has done more with less than Cutler.  Time to take off the cheese glasses.

[MUMac]

Seriously?  You don't think Cutler could come in during garbage time and toss to those receivers as well as Flynn?  The only Bears receiver who would get time for the Packers is maybe Earl Bennett when he is playing well. 

I understand being excited cause the Packers are playing the best football in the league but their is no reason to be asinine.

Cutler is finally being properly managed/coached by Martz.  He is a fine QB when you don't treat him as a gunslinger.  IMHO, he is the 2nd best QB in the Division.  He is playing awfully well right now, managing the game and running the offense.  He is more accurate when he is not always taking a 7 step drop, waiting to get hit!

[MerrittsMustache]

Save your cute little personal attacks. You are better than that, aren't you?  Well, apparently not.  I suggest, though, before you get too cute, you may want to read the NFL Rules.  Your interpretation of them is, lacking, to be kind.  I have read the rules, know the rules fairly well and it is obvious neither of those apply to you.

Again, what Stafford did was not an "ejectable offense".   I agree it was worthy of a penalty, but not an ejection.  Further, I do not find it the travesty that you apparently do, that he was not penalized.  Many times it is the retaliator that get's the penalty.  Get over it.  

According to the rules in the NFL Rulebook, Moore was guilty of a "flagrant unnecessary roughness penalty", which, by rule, is an ejectable offense.  Stafford was guilty of a horse collar or unnecessary roughness penalty.  Not flagrant.   The official did not see it during the play and did not call it.  THUS, it cannot be called during a review – simple as that.  If they reviewed the fight, there were other Lions that joined in and would have been ejected if that were the case.  Please understand the rules before arguing your points!

Give me proof that reviewing a fight is acceptable.  I do not take your word on it, because quite frankly, you are not showing a genuine knowledge of the NFL rules.  It is not in the rule book and I have never seen it done before.   As I read the NFL Rules, the only mention of a disqualification is in the "Penalty" portions of the Rules.  By the way, an ejection is considered a penalty in the NFL Rulebook.  The Replay rules are quite clear on this matter.  It states, and this is right from the NFL Rulebook, "Non-reviewable plays include but are not limited to: ... 3. Penalty administration"   So yes, it would be reviewing for penalty administration – which includes both the 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty that would need to be called AS WELL AS the disqualification of Stafford.  Any you chastised me for comprehension.  Jeez!

I understand your point about Fairley.  It is merely inaccurate and wrong interpretation of the rules.  It is a judgment of the official, but that has NEVER been viewed as an "ejectable offense".  Just because it happened to Cutler does not make it one now.  He received a penalty and will be fined.  Same as Julius Peppers cheap shot against Rodgers in the Championship Game.  In both instances, the rules were appropriately applied.  They were not deemed guilty of a "flagrant" penalty, as both were during the course of the play.  Moore's was not during the course of the play.  He got up and hit Stafford, who was on his knees.  Big difference.

Where did I mention anything about it being a travesty that Stafford wasn't penalized? I'll save you the time, I didn't. Yet for some reason, you keep bringing that up. I don't get it. What I said is that, IMO, both players or neither player in the fight should have been ejected. You claim that's technically a penalty and can't be reviewed but according to The Chicago Tribune, the officials reviewed the fight. I'd take their word over yours: "Moore said his ejection was more frustrating after the officials reviewed the play and saw that Stafford initiated the melee." The refs were reviewing a down by contact call 50 yards away from the end of the play so it's not like they would have just happened to see it and then eject Moore. They looked specifically at the fight and, ESPN more clearly states, "Officials review all plays involving potential violations whether penalized or not."

In terms of the Fairley play, if you consult that NFL rule book that you seemingly carry around with you, you'll see that there's a section under penalties titled, "15 Yards (and disqualification if flagrant)" and under that heading you'll see, "Roughing passer." In other words, roughing the passer can be an ejectable offense, which is odd because you are the know-all source of NFL rules yet you claimed that roughing the pass "has NEVER been viewed as an 'ejectable offense.'" I'm not saying that Fairley should have been ejected for his bodyslam of Cutler. As stated previously, I'm saying that what he did to Cutler was worse than what Moore did to Stafford.

[tower912]

The reason that Fairley was penalized and not ejected is this; he was already in contact with Cutler when Cutler threw, then he carried the tackle out and needlessly slammed Cutler into the ground.    Right call.   Penalty, no ejection.   If Fairly had made contact with Cutler after the ball was gone and then did what he did, that is possible grounds for ejection.    And fines and suspension for all I care.   

[Benny B]

Kind of sad that the Packers have the 2 best quarterbacks in the division on their team.  And I'm not even kidding.

If you mean that Rodgers and Flynn are the top two of all QB's in the NFC North, I think it's an uphill battle to win that argument.  Right now, I'd take Cutler or Stafford over Flynn.  But talk to me next year after Flynn has a starting job somewhere, and I'll probably tell you something else.

If you mean that Rodgers is the best starting QB and Flynn is the best backup QB in the division, you're still wrong.  They are probably the best starting and backup QB's in the entire league.

[MUBurrow]

According to the rules in the NFL Rulebook, Moore was guilty of a "flagrant unnecessary roughness penalty", which, by rule, is an ejectable offense.  Stafford was guilty of a horse collar or unnecessary roughness penalty.  Not flagrant.   The official did not see it during the play and did not call it.  THUS, it cannot be called during a review – simple as that.  If they reviewed the fight, there were other Lions that joined in and would have been ejected if that were the case.  

In both instances, the rules were appropriately applied.  They were not deemed guilty of a "flagrant" penalty, as both were during the course of the play.  Moore's was not during the course of the play.  He got up and hit Stafford, who was on his knees.  Big difference.

Is it true that the definition of flagrant according to the NFL is the time at which the foul occurred? It seems like you're saying that during the play does not equal flagrant whereas after the play is flagrant.  To me, thats not an intuitive reading given the standard usage of flagrant, but I honestly don't know how that word is interpreted in the NFL rulebook.

[Dish]

Wasn't the NFL trade deadline last month? I must have missed the Cutler to the Packers trade.

I mean really on the Matt Flynn Kool Aid? He's a fine back up, but I mean come on. Cutler has at least been to a Pro Bowl and the playoffs.

[MU B2002]

Got a question for you Dish...

Has Roy Williams ever caught a ball clean?  Game, practice, backyard with his kids?  I swear he juggles every single ball thrown his way. 

[MUMac]

Where did I mention anything about it being a travesty that Stafford wasn't penalized? I'll save you the time, I didn't. Yet for some reason, you keep bringing that up. I don't get it. What I said is that, IMO, both players or neither player in the fight should have been ejected. You claim that's technically a penalty and can't be reviewed but according to The Chicago Tribune, the officials reviewed the fight. I'd take their word over yours: "Moore said his ejection was more frustrating after the officials reviewed the play and saw that Stafford initiated the melee." The refs were reviewing a down by contact call 50 yards away from the end of the play so it's not like they would have just happened to see it and then eject Moore. They looked specifically at the fight and, ESPN more clearly states, "Officials review all plays involving potential violations whether penalized or not."

In terms of the Fairley play, if you consult that NFL rule book that you seemingly carry around with you, you'll see that there's a section under penalties titled, "15 Yards (and disqualification if flagrant)" and under that heading you'll see, "Roughing passer." In other words, roughing the passer can be an ejectable offense, which is odd because you are the know-all source of NFL rules yet you claimed that roughing the pass "has NEVER been viewed as an 'ejectable offense.'" I'm not saying that Fairley should have been ejected for his bodyslam of Cutler. As stated previously, I'm saying that what he did to Cutler was worse than what Moore did to Stafford.

My god you really love to be condescending, don't you?  Well, we learned a great deal about you.  You argue positions without knowledge of facts and love to be condescending.  

EDIT:  Missed a "?" and don't want the punctuation police, aka MerrittsMustache, to get their panties in a snit.

[MUMac]

Is it true that the definition of flagrant according to the NFL is the time at which the foul occurred? It seems like you're saying that during the play does not equal flagrant whereas after the play is flagrant.  To me, thats not an intuitive reading given the standard usage of flagrant, but I honestly don't know how that word is interpreted in the NFL rulebook.

No, I may not have worded it properly.  the definition of flagrant is subjective.  My comment about during the play and after is that during the play, you will get the benefit of the doubt.  After, you lose that benefit.  In the case of Fairley, he hit Cutler high, hard (and cheap), but during the play.  Moore got up and took a running start to hit him.  That is the difference in the officials eyes.

[MUMac]

The reason that Fairley was penalized and not ejected is this; he was already in contact with Cutler when Cutler threw, then he carried the tackle out and needlessly slammed Cutler into the ground.    Right call.   Penalty, no ejection.   If Fairly had made contact with Cutler after the ball was gone and then did what he did, that is possible grounds for ejection.    And fines and suspension for all I care.   

Correct.  That is what I meant by during the play.  It was still a football move, albeit a cheap and dirty one.  Moore's was not a football move.

[shiloh26]

No, I may not have worded it properly.  the definition of flagrant is subjective.  My comment about during the play and after is that during the play, you will get the benefit of the doubt.  After, you lose that benefit.  In the case of Fairley, he hit Cutler high, hard (and cheap), but during the play.  Moore got up and took a running start to hit him.  That is the difference in the officials eyes.

I don't necessarily agree with the fact that the refs make this distinction, but I do agree that this is the functional difference between the two calls, like them or not.  I am more upset about Moore being ejected while Stafford was not, rather than Fairly not getting ejected.  I felt like Fairly's play was a true case of roughing the passer, like what DLineman needed to do in order to get called 4-5 years ago, but not ejectable.  Stafford just ripped a guy down by his helmet; there is certainly no colorable football reason for what he did.  By consistently penalizing (and now ejecting) the last to retaliate, the NFL won't fix the problem of players instigating, they just keep nailing the guys who push back.  

[MerrittsMustache]

Correct.  That is what I meant by during the play.  It was still a football move, albeit a cheap and dirty one.  Moore's was not a football move.

Was what Stafford did to Moore a football move?

[JWags85]

Got a question for you Dish...

Has Roy Williams ever caught a ball clean?  Game, practice, backyard with his kids?  I swear he juggles every single ball thrown his way. 

I'm not Dish, but I don't think so.  Williams fit perfectly in the Bears' off-season rehabilitation of complete busts which to this point has yielded only a mildly serviceable Amobi Okoye.  Martz arrogantly thought cause he had him in Detroit, he could cure his terrible hands and laziness.  Considering he has less catches and TDs than considerably less gifted Dane Sanzenbacher and has only 2 more catches than Earl Bennett in twice as many games, I think I'm about done with ol' Roy.

[MUMac]

I don't necessarily agree with the fact that the refs make this distinction, but I do agree that this is the functional difference between the two calls, like them or not.  I am more upset about Moore being ejected while Stafford was not, rather than Fairly not getting ejected.  I felt like Fairly's play was a true case of roughing the passer, like what DLineman needed to do in order to get called 4-5 years ago, but not ejectable.  Stafford just ripped a guy down by his helmet; there is certainly no colorable football reason for what he did.  By consistently penalizing (and now ejecting) the last to retaliate, the NFL won't fix the problem of players instigating, they just keep nailing the guys who push back.  

With the Stafford play, some things to keep in mind.  One, Stafford was engaged with Moore when he threw him down.  Two, not sure whether the official was even watching that part of the action, as it was close to the tackle.  I can see where they would not have seen Stafford grab by the helmet, only the end result of Moore on the ground.  Three, the fact that Moore was on the ground, got up and took off (several steps) to hit Stafford is also a factor.  If they were lying next to each other and he jumps on top of him - likely result is a penalty, no ejection.  Intent is factored in with their decisions - believe it or not.  That is why something during the heat of the action or play is viewed differently.  Lastly, the fact that Stafford was kneeling on the ground, defenseless, is also a factor.  If he were standing and Moore pushed him - likely a penalty, no ejection.  He launched himself into a defenseless player.  That played a big role in the outcome.

Another way to think about it.  A player hitting someone late when they are out of bounds is viewed differently by where it occurred.  Still in or close to the chalk (or end of the play) - a 15 yard penalty.  Closer to the bench, a likely ejection in addition to the penalty.

The Packers had two plays that come to mind that sow this.  The first when Brian Robinson kicked T J Lang in the groin.  A 15 yarder, no ejection.  The 2nd when Charles Woodson punched a Saints player during the play at Lambeau.  Again, an instantaneous action like those will draw a flag, not necessarily a penalty.  

[MUMac]

Was what Stafford did to Moore a football move?

Frankly, I am really tired of discussions with you. You are certainly not worth any effort to engage in any further discussion.