Nantz and Simms

[FanSince72]

Am I the only one who thinks these two are the biggest tools on the planet?

I have had it with the both of them apologizing for the League and never taking a position on anything.

After Clark's 15-yard penalty for what turned out to be just a really great football play, neither one of these dopes could bring themselves to say that this was just a bad call and a great play by Clark. Instead they went on forever about "launching", having one's helmet "in the vicinity of the head", the "spirit of the rule" and on and on and on.

Both of them are so afraid of risking their cushy "Big Market" status that they'd swear to agree that the sun rose in the West if that's what the League asked them to do. Nantz earlier said (after showing a replay of Philly's DeShaun Jackson's 65-yard game winning punt return) that Jackson cruising along the goal line for a bit before actually crossing it, "Was showboating" and that he thought that was "sad".

Has Nantz ever actually had ANY fun in his life?

I mean Jackson is a showboat and I won't argue that. But look what he just did - especially after initially muffing the punt. I think that given the way that game was played and how Philly fought back, a run of 65 yards through traffic to win was worth a bit of celebration and even some showboating.

After all, this is SUPPOSED to be entertainment, no?

[IowaSteeler927]

Very well said. I agree with all your points. Oh and to answer your question about Nantz... No I don't think he has ever done anything fun. I think he runs around like a mindless robot follower spewing out whatever he is told to say.

[SCMom]

Ok...it's been said in multiple threads (including the league officials thread, in which I just said this not 20 minutes ago), but it's unfortunately true.

What Clark did, according to the rules, is a penalty. He clearly launched and led with his helmet. It as a good call, get over it.

[IowaSteeler927]

Originally Posted by SCMom

Ok...it's been said in multiple threads (including the league officials thread, in which I just said this not 20 minutes ago), but it's unfortunately true.

What Clark did, according to the rules, is a penalty. He clearly launched and led with his helmet. It as a good call, get over it.

It was a horrible call. He led with the face of his helmet not the top of it. How exactly is he supposed to hit the guy? He either has to run and hit him or jump and hit him and I think jump and hit him is the only option when Braylon Edwards is in the air. Edwards is a big physical receiver and outsizes Ryan Clark. Fact of the matter is that the referees do have some discretion and it could have been used here. Instead they have their tails between their legs because Goodell has become the Josef Stalin of the NFL and would probably have them fined, suspended, or purged if they did anything otherwise.

[SCMom]

Do you guys not know what launching is?

h) If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver’s head or neck area—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver’s neck.

Note: Launching is defined as springing forward and upward by a player who leaves his feet to make contact on the receiver.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...sary-roughness

[SCMom]

This bears mentioning as well...and it's not something I agree with completely, but it's in the rulebook. The refs are told to err on the side of caution, even if they aren't 100% sure.

Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...sary-roughness

[stb_steeler]

Simms likes to hear his own voice

[FanSince72]

Originally Posted by SCMom

This bears mentioning as well...and it's not something I agree with completely, but it's in the rulebook. The refs are told to err on the side of caution, even if they aren't 100% sure.



http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...sary-roughness

I understand that and to some extent I even agree with it.

What bothered me more was that Nantz and Simms offered nothing in the way of why it "could have" been a good hit or that it was even debatable. In their eyes the League was right and that was that and it's that fealty that bugs me.

When I watch a Sunday Night game with Michaels and Collinsworth, if they saw the same play, they would at least offer some reason why it might not have been called or offer an opinion about the call being more about adhering to rules (or erring on the side of caution). In other words, they try to see all sides of a situation and I've even heard Collinsworth say that a call was flat-out bad when he thought it was or that the officials are overreacting.

Whether he's right or wrong isn't the point. The point is that he had the stones to question something and I appreciate that honesty and the courage to take an opposing stance.

But Nantz and Simms seem to be following the League protocols as if not doing so would cost them their jobs and as a result, anything they say seems as if it was said to appease the League rather than offer a real honest-to-God opinion about something. They come off as suck-ups and apologists and that just drives me crazy.

[SCMom]

Originally Posted by FanSince72

I understand that and to some extent I even agree with it.

What bothered me more was that Nantz and Simms offered nothing in the way of why it "could have" been a good hit or that it was even debatable. In their eyes the League was right and that was that and it's that fealty that bugs me.

When I watch a Sunday Night game with Michaels and Collinsworth, if they saw the same play, they would at least offer some reason why it might not have been called or offer an opinion about the call being more about adhering to rules (or erring on the side of caution). In other words, they try to see all sides of a situation and I've even heard Collinsworth say that a call was flat-out bad when he thought it was or that the officials are overreacting.

Whether he's right or wrong isn't the point. The point is that he had the stones to question something and I appreciate that honesty and the courage to take an opposing stance.

But Nantz and Simms seem to be following the League protocols as if not doing so would cost them their jobs and as a result, anything they say seems as if it was said to appease the League rather than offer a real honest-to-God opinion about something. They come off as suck-ups and apologists and that just drives me crazy.

Honestly, I remember when the call was first made, they were discussing for a minute how Clark didn't even make helmet to helmet contact...then they saw a closer replay and saw him launching and basically said, well that's a penalty anyway, that's why it was called (not quoting exact words...but the jist of what they said).

I was pissed too at first b/c I didn't think he made HTH contact (and he didn't...and I think the refs should have called it launching and leading with the helmet, not HTH contact), but either way it was a penalty.

[Lex Yinzer]

The worst thing about a broadcast involving Phil Simms - and he was in perfect form with this last night - is the way he gets exasperated with the fans who want a flag thrown on a legitimate instance of pass interference, how he goes on to describe it as a "perfectly clean" play or "good coverage," only to have to backtrack when he sees the replay. He did this multiple times during the Jets game, but it seemed like it really caused him physical pain to have to own up to it when Sanders was held, blatantly, on the final drive.

Don't get me wrong. I'm more upset that the Steelers put themselves in a position to allow a non-call that was obvious to everyone in Heinz Field but the official to cost them the game with their lackluster, uninspired play, but a call actually costing them the game - after the entire Jets secondary got away with mugging our receivers the entire night, as Simms reluctantly had to acknowledge after initially calling all those instances "clean" - should rightly make everyone furious.