Skip to main content

Was Michael Crabtree held last night? Yes

There's a great deal of talk about the no-call in the final minutes of the Super Bowl last night between the Baltimore Ravens and San Francisco 49ers. Down 34-29 late in the 4th quarter and facing a 4th and goal from the 5-yard line, 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick flung the ball high in the air toward wideout Michael Crabtree. The ball stretched just out of the reach of the receiver, which resulted in Baltimore retaining possession and being all but guaranteed the victory. Just after the play, Crabtree and especially head coach Jim Harbaugh were infuriated that pass interference or holding wasn't called on Ravens cornerback Jimmy Smith. If Smith had been called for either, it would have set the 49ers up inside the 3-yard line with a 1st and goal, which would have given them an excellent opportunity of taking the lead and possibly even winning the game. Baltimore wound up taking a safety with four seconds remaining and after tackling Ted Ginn Jr. on the free kick return, the Ravens made their 34-31 victory official.

It seems that, as usual, most sports talking heads agree with the officials' non-call. This includes one of the two announcers whom called last night's game - Phil Simms. Like the others, Simms contended that at that crucial point of the game, officials shouldn't call pass interference or holding. Following every review and angle, Simms started seeing Smith's grabbing a hold of Crabtree as more obvious, but couldn't admit he was wrong, so he went on saying, "Well, I still say let the players play. Don't call anything at that point of the game."

While I agree that questionable calls should not be made toward the end of the game, I don't think this was a questionable call. ...and no, I wasn't pulling for either team. I was just rooting for a great game, as is typical. If the two players were simply battling for position without either of them gaining an upper-hand in the battle, I would have said that the no-call was the right choice to make. However, that wasn't the case. As could be clearly seen via multiple replays, while the ball was in the air, Smith had grabbed onto Crabtree with both hands, preventing him from having an opportunity to catch the pass. This, my friends, constitutes as holding. If it doesn't, then I have no idea what defensive holding looks like. This would have set up the 49ers with a 1st and goal inside the 3-yard line, with an excellent opportunity to go up either 35-34 or 37-34 if they converted their 2-point conversion attempt.

Also, with Baltimore up 31-29 and facing a critical 3rd down play inside their own territory, 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver got called with pass interference, which set the Ravens up with a 1st and 10 that would eventually lead to a field goal to place them up by the score of 34-29. Culliver definitely made some contact on the play, yet it wasn't as blatantly obvious to me as Jimmy Smith's hold on Michael Crabtree. My only point is, if the refs are going to call Culliver for interference there, they should have called Smith for holding, which appeared to me to be the less questionable of the two calls anyway. If they didn't call Culliver for interference, I likely would have said to let the Crabtree play go as well. Then again, the Crabtree play would have never happened, because if faced with a 4th and goal in that situation, Jim Harbaugh would have brought out place kicker David Akers to kick the go-ahead field goal to place the Niners up 32-31.

Overall, I thought the game was fairly well officiated, but the call on Culliver and non-call on Smith in the final couple drives of the game is what I'll remember most about the officiating. When the league alters the rules to say, "A defensive back can grab a hold of a receiver with both hands while the ball is in the air, not allow him to catch the ball due to it, and this will not constitute as defensive holding," I'll change my position on the non-call last night and say the refs got it right. Until that point, though...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"