No announcement yet.

The Curse Of The 9ers

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Curse Of The 9ers

    What will officials dream up Sunday night when the Rams take the field in San Francisco? Letís turn back to 1998. The first call occurred with the Colts leading 21-7. The ball was intercepted by Indianapolis defensive back Jeff Burris in his own end zone. He returned it to the 9ers' 32-yard line, which almost certainly would have led to a 24-7 lead and, given the way that Peyton Manning was carving up the 9ers' at the time, most likely an insurmountable 28-7 lead. Instead, the officials called Burris for "holding" and the 9ers were handed the ball back and ultimately a touchdown.

    On the 9ers' next possession, Young again threw a pick, again it was overruled ruled by a defensive holding penalty, and again the 9ers got the ball back and scored. The result of the botched calls? A point swing of a minimum of 14 and as much as 28 points. The blown calls by the referees were so bad; the NFL had to come out with a statement in essence apologizing for the poor officiating.

    The Colts farce allowed the 9ers to host the wildcard game Enter Green Bay, a team they hadnít beat in 5 tries. A Jerry Rice fumble was ruled down by the referees, and four plays later, a touchdown pass to Terrell Owens.

    Enter New York; another playoff game which the 9ers had little chance of winning even with all the referee huddles that always end in gifting the 9ers the ball or the call. Even though the Giants blew a sizeable lead and deserved to lose the game given the fact that they laid down like dogs for the 9ers one cannot deny the injustice of the referee shenanigans which gifted the 9ers yet another referee aided win. Once again the NFL had to cut and paste their 49er apologist bile as if this sort of thing is not common in the NFL. Oh wait they are right, its not common place in the NFL unless itís an important 49er game.

    Does anyone remember the game last year? The NHS describes it best in this snippet.

    So when 12 seconds into it, an important game for the 9ers was being dictated by an inexplicable referee reversal to give the 9ers a touchdown on the opening kickoff, followed minutes later with a penalty negating a would-be 9ers turnover on a kick return, followed by several more of the classic "referee huddles" throughout the afternoon, fans nodded and understood. Even if the Rams injury-depleted split squad came to compete today (which they didn't), the script already had cast them as losers.

    The opening minutes were the 49er Problem in a nutshell. As the 9ers broke open the opening kick return, the "flag" message clearly appeared during the run-back. No big whoop, all seasoned NFL fans are well accustomed to having penalties negate good returns. The ref signaled the illegal block against the 9ers, and the game was set to start with the 9ers mired deep in their own territory.

    But wait! Someone, somewhere instead decided that it wasn't a penalty after all! Who exactly this anonymous benefactor was will always remain a mystery, but in a stunning turn that could only happen for the 9ers that those same seasoned NFL fans couldn't believe, the penalty was magically reversed. The same ref that just seconds before motioned the illegal block penalty now muttered something into the mic like, "Um, I was just practicing my miming before. There's actually no penalty. When we threw the flag, we didn't think the 9ers would score, but since they did, there's no penalty."

    That made it 7-0, and then after the Rams scored on their first possession to make it 7-3, the 9ers coughed up the ball on the ensuing kick near their own 10-yard line. Unlike before, there was no "flag" message displayed on the screen, no flag could be seen thrown, and even though the announcers were in the middle of talking of a huge turnover for the Rams, once again, seasoned fans knew what was coming. Sure enough, that same ref was now muttering something about an "off sides on the Rams because they got the ball, which would be unfair to the 9ers."

    More huddles and inexplicable calls followed, but don't take our word for it, here's what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch had to say: "That belated roughing-the-passing penalty on Toyoka Jackson to prolong a 9ers drive? That wasn't just a horrible call, [it was] one that calls the integrity of the officiating crew into question."

    So instead of the game starting potentially 10-0 Rams, the ball went back to the 9ers, and the Rams deflated faster than the Hindenburg.

    Of course as Rams fans we have seen every ploy the NFL can come up with to favor the 9ers so this is nothing new for us. The question is how much does it now take to gift the 9ers their wins? Have the Rams learned that they must play well enough to overcome the unforeseen circumstances that will undoubtedly favor the 9ers? Are we going to hear from the announcers like we do in every 49er game ďI have never seen that beforeĒ. The Rams better expect it if they want to win on Sunday night. For those of you that are new to the stench of playing the 9ers we do not expect you to fully understand but if things go as normal you will. Or maybe itís finally over? We shall see.

    Got any horror stories relating to the 9ers? Post them here. They are not limited to Rams games.

  • #2
    Re: The Curse Of The 9ers

    If I tried to remember all the times the niners stole a game from the Rams, I'd have to be a genius. I've put up with so many bad calls, it's not even funny.

    Let's see how many times the Rams get called for the old "Ten Yard Penalty". You know, if the Rams get 10 yards, it's a penalty.

    Tom_SF (Rams fan in enemy territory)


    • #3
      Re: The Curse Of The 9ers

      Say RamTime, where do you come up with such a consice description of years gone by as this? I'm impressed! I couldn't give you a recap like that of the last game!!! You must be a wizard of the like of...who?...perhaps Av, Ferter, Nick or Dez? Good job!!!

      Hey, tommorrow night is the deal, its time to kick some whiner a**!!! all got your game face on? I do!!!

      Go Rams!!!


      • #4
        Re: The Curse Of The 9ers

        I can't believe I forgot the greatest wizard of all!!! RamWraith, please forgive my error. I guess I was wrapped up in the moment. I bow before you, sir. Please join us in the eulogy of the whiners Sunday night!!!

        Go Rams!!!


        Related Topics


        • Barry Waller
          The Immaculate Reception and Bert Emmanuel Play Complaints Don't Hold Water
          by Barry Waller
          Watching this show about the most unbelievable play in NFL history, that started t alk of replay and changed the rule book. Of course every RAider and Raider fan is screaming bloody murder to t his day, about what they say are t hree no calls on that play.

          They claim the NFL wanted them to lose and they got cheated, but as I look at this play, after so many years, so many times, some t hings sem clear.

          1. The Steelers did nothing intentionally deceptive or illegal, on that 4th and 10 play, they just got very very lucky, as lucky as anyone ever, especially since Franco Haris HAD to score on that play or time runs out. Now the Raiders? They actually DID intentionally cheat to win a game, with the fumbleroosky play, They Changed the rule on that deal too so it CAN'T happen again, as they did the rule on a touched ball, so one like the Immaculate reception would ALWAYS be good.

          2. Conspriracy theory One, that Frenchy Fuqua touched the ball.
          Fact: The film is unclear who touche the ball, and the way it went backwards t hat far, shows that the impetus was caused by Jack Tatum trying to make a knockout hit, rather t han just stop the reception, or even just tackle Fuqua after t he catch.
          If he does that, game over time runs out.

          Fact, even if Fuqua and Tatum both touched the ball, under old rule, still good, play continues. If called good by Referee with instant replay, video is clearly incomclusive. AND now under new rule, doesn't matter who touched the ball.

          3. Villapiano wasn't clipped. The video does clearly show a hit from the side, at most a very borderline foul, one that would be roundly criticized if it were to decide a game. You must have a clear cut clip to make tht call.

          Also with the ball going every which way, the greatest officials in the world would have a hard time having just the right view of that block, especially the umpire, who would have been the guy making that call from the middle of the field.

          It was no more a clip that Az Hakim on the Ike Bruce TD play in the SB win.

          And also, there is no assurance that the 6-2 220lb Villipiano, no doubt exhausted, so much that a weak block knocked him sideways, would have tackled the 6-2 230lb Harris, no doubt a much fresher player at that point.

          It would have taken a Mike Jones effort.

          4. "Harris trapped the ball" Again a very tough call for officials on such a play, and no evidence exists that it was a trap, or at least t hat the tip of t he ball touched t he ground. Once again that rule has been changed, the Bert Emmanual rule they call it. If ruled a catch, still a catch with replay, unless todays replays would show at least one clearer view.

          Again, the refs have a split second to be looking in the right direction, and once the ball flies backwards, I doubt if anyone but Harris even sees it....
          -03-23-2013, 08:35 AM
        • MsWistRAM
          Let's get back into it
          by MsWistRAM
          First of all, :p to Dez and Dod for getting to go. Just kidding guys! I envy all who do. Even if given the opportunity, don't know if my social anxieties would let me enjoy it.

          Second, thanks to the few who attended the chatroom during the game. It really enhances the experience when I have to catch the game on radio. The input and feedback is great. It's like having buddies over to watch the game. (I need to find me some football buddies.) Can't remember all the name, should get in the habit of writing them down, but thank you Blankman71, Shale, Daddo?, etc. etc. etc. (you know who you are).:confused:

          I am so glad we have Archuleta. He was making alot of stops out there yesterday. Seems, though, that we are relying on him a little too much. I'd like to see the defense stop the ball at or behind the line of scrimmage more instead of waiting till it gets out into our safeties' territory.

          I'm glad to see Wilken's is as solid as he was last year. Again, though, would rather see more touchdowns made and have him contribute more on the extra point (ok, I'm totally blocking out that mishandled snap, that wasn't his fault).

          Knowing how Faulk's knees are makes mine hurt. And yet, he plays as solid as he ever did. The whiners stopping him at the goal line though, did indicate that he can't be our go to guy all the time. That was smart going to Robinson for the touchdown. Throws them off the trail.

          Hakim can be a solid receiver when he doesn't try to over compensate. It's nice that he wants to redeem himself when he makes a mistake, but then he tries too hard and that makes me wonder where the confidence is. Saw highlights of his touchdown, he was glowing. Now that's the Hakim I like to see!

          That thumb was obviously still bothering Warner. Couldn't see them, but sounded like he had some wobbly passes and he wasn't going deep as much. Still shows patience and cool under pressure though.

          We so need to clean up some of those penalties. That one on the punt that gave the whiners another 4th down and the opportunity to convert and then take it in for a touchdown rather than turning it over can show how costly those mistakes can be. Of course there's no accounting for the bad calls by the biased officials. That just being pissy!

          Overall, could have been a better game, no doubt. But they did pull that rabbit out of the hat for the win. Here's hoping the next one gives our fingernails a chance to grow!
          -09-24-2001, 06:59 AM
        • djccon
          No Whining!
          by djccon
          I haven't had the heart to read a whole lot about what others are saying about yesterday's game, but I'm tired of "the official's call." from what little I've heard. For ny to even SUGGEST Garnes didn't grab Canidate just dumbfounds me. How far did his jersey need to be stretched for them to feel the call was justified? Add to that, the possession on which they got their 3rd field goal - on which one of the ny DBs was hammering on Holt's arms WITHOUT LOOKING BACK FOR THE BALL. Where the he** was THAT call? There are FOUR more points on the board for us.

          I suggest ny should be THRILLED what the refs DIDN'T do to them. What about the repeated headlocks placed on Wistrom and Little that were NEVER called? The tackle where the guy grabbed Holt's helmet to pull him down - ummmmm, sorry folks, but you cannot use ANY part of a ball carrier's helmet in an attempt to tackle the runner - remember Fletcher getting that called against him (using the back of Deuce Staley's helmet to pull him down) in Philly?

          Props to the Giants and the scheme they put in place to throttle the Rams down. Don't cheapen by whining about it being taken away from you. You had as much given to you as you had taken away.

          As for us Rams fans, we all know we escaped by skin of our teeth. However, when you play a very GOOD team, play without your A game, and still win...well, that takes a GREAT team.
          -10-15-2001, 05:45 PM
        • NJ Ramsfan1
          "The Call"- Perspective Needed
          by NJ Ramsfan1
          In what undoubtedly will take over as the most disputed (non) call since the infamous "Tuck rule" game, I figured I'd start a thread on yesterday's Pass Interference play which will hopefully minimize talk on every other thread while lending some perspective and fairness to the conversation.

          First, anyone with a shred of objectivity and two eyes realizes this was a missed call. Even those WITHOUT objectivity like Robey-Coleman himself acknowledges a flag was expected. This point is not debatable, in my eyes. Second, if we'd been on the receiving end of this call, this board would be blowing up with people (rightly) beside themselves. A full dose of "The refs are anti-Rams proclamations would be given. Gap, among others, would probably have a stroke. And third, we will unfortunately hear about this for awhile, as calls like this only fade when the next big story takes its place. Let's remember this if anyone feels the urge to knock the Saints or their fans. They have a right to be pissed.

          This, however, is all I will concede to the people who will harp on the fact that the Rams were somehow undeserving of their place in the Super Bowl. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I for one will not allow this nonsense to sully our season and our berth in SB 53. I point to four specific instances in which this call should not have mattered.

          1) On the previous Rams drive, Goff visibly had his face mask pulled as he was attempting to run the ball into the end zone. Replay clearly showed this, and Troy Aikman pointed it out. If called, the Rams would have had the ball 1st and goal at the 1 yard line. If they'd scored a TD, they'd have been up 24-20 and NO would've had to go the length of the field for a TD instead of a go-ahead FG. Though we can't assume the Rams would have definitely scored a TD there, chances are pretty good that with three tries from the 1 yard line they'd have done so, changing the complexion of the game.

          2) After the non PI call, Payton did a horrible job managing the clock- electing to pass (incomplete) and leaving the Rams with more time than they otherwise should have had on their subsequent possession if NO had run the ball. LA would have had to expend their timeouts and their last drive would have been much, much tougher.

          3) The Saints had an opportunity to stop the Rams defensively on their game-tying drive, rendering this entire conversation about the missed pass interference moot. They didn't do so and allowed a game-tying 48 yard FG.

          4) The Saints got the ball first and could have ended the game with a score or at worst kicked a FG, forcing the Rams to come down and do the same. They didn't do that either. They turned the ball over, setting up Zeurlein for his game-ending heroics.

          In sum, the disappointment and anger from Saints fans is justified. Yet any one of the above-listed circumstances would have produced a different...
          -01-21-2019, 06:48 AM
        • Guest's Avatar
          Instant Re-Penalty?
          by Guest
          I just finished watching the game on TIVO, and I am glad I waited for the outcome before watching it. Even knowing that the pats lost, I still had a couple of episodes of screaming at the TV.

          The first G-Men drive, Harrison CLEARLY lowers his head to drive the top of his helmet into the ribs of the receiver. Unfortunately for him, his actions took Gay out of the game with an arm injury. Of course there was no flag. That's a legal tackle for cheatriots. They used this tackling technique all through the game, and was never flagged for it.

          Next comes their first TD drive. Faulk (IIRC) is tripped up and hits the turf a yard short, but slide another yard and a half. They spot the ball right at the first down marker, and it becomes 1st and goal. The PI in the endzone that put them in position to score was legitimate, but wouldn't have happend if they had already kicked a FG 4 plays earlier.

          And as the title suggests. When did instant replay become a tool for calling a penalty? When it was first re-instituted, it clearly said that it could not be used to call, or negate, a penalty. So how was the red flag used to call the twelth man penalty? Fortunately for all fans of football, and the G-Men, the pats fell on their sword on that drive.

          -02-04-2008, 08:14 PM