Jeffro Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/jason-reid/zorn-returns-to-fair-catch-pla.html Coach Jim Zorn spoke today with Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating, about the Redskins' botched punt return in the fourth quarter that resulted in a turnover and led to the Carolina Panthers scoring the go-ahead touchdown in their 20-17 victory Sunday at Bank of America Stadium. The play, on which punt returner Antwaan Randle El signaled for a fair catch, ended with the Panthers recovering the ball on the Redskins' 12-yard line after Byron Westbrook was blocked into Randle El and the ball hit Westbrook's foot. "I read the paragraph in the rule book that talks about getting the opportunity to have a fair catch," Zorn said. "It was explained within that paragraph what the problem was. "If you're an active blocker, and that's the key, or an active rusher, you can actually block that said player into the punt returner as long as there's activity going on, you can't just stand around and get pushed into him. But if you are blocking, and that receiver, even though he's made a fair catch, he can be pushed into." Zorn challenged the call on the field. "I could have saved the timeout," Zorn said. "But gosh, it was worth it for me to challenge that one. I mean, that was a key play in the game. I wasn't going to save a timeout for that. It was my duty, in my mind, to challenge that one." And I thought we couldn't look any more stupid... I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 How does he not know this rule? I know this rule. I only coach high school football. That one was completely on Westbrook. Why the heck would you run towards the return man blocking when he clearly signaled for a fair catch and was clearly in a whole bunch of traffic? It's called football IQ and apparently alot of our guys either A) Don't have it or Don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbar3383 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/jason-reid/zorn-returns-to-fair-catch-pla.htmlAnd I thought we couldn't look any more stupid... I stand corrected. I would have challenged that too. I think your blatent hatred is making you look stupid... Give it up, watch something else until you calm down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangSteve Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I bet we see a lot of this by many teams for the rest of the season. I do see a rule change coming into effect by this, it's strait up interfering with a fair catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted October 13, 2009 Author Share Posted October 13, 2009 I would have challenged that too.I think your blatent hatred is making you look stupid... Give it up, watch something else until you calm down Hatred? I don't think so.. but nice try. I disagree with challenging a call that he had 5 minutes to review prior to throwing the flag. Given the 5 minutes it took the refs to make the call (correctly) I would think that the Redskins could have come to the same conclusion. Had the refs made the call immediately and we didn't have adequate time to review, then fine I agree with the challenge. But in this situation where they had so much time to review and in the 4th with a team coming back.. save the TO imo. And just because I don't agree with you don't make me "stupid" nor a "hater" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wshngtn1 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 That one was completely on Westbrook. Why the heck would you run towards the return man blocking when he clearly signaled for a fair catch and was clearly in a whole bunch of traffic? It's called football IQ and apparently alot of our guys either A) Don't have it or Don't think. While I don't dispute that it was his fault, it was a short kick and he probably couldn't hear ARE calling him off. It was just a tough play - give him a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I bet we see a lot of this by many teams for the rest of the season. I do see a rule change coming into effect by this, it's strait up interfering with a fair catch. Completely disagree. Westbrook ran his man over to Randle El trying to block him, when there was clearly a ton of traffic in the area. Common sense dictates that ARE would call for the fair catch for a few reasons: 1) He always calls for a fair catch 2) That was the right situation for a fair catch Football IQ would say that if you see that kind of traffic near the return man, too much bad can happen by running over to him and bringing your man with you. Not the least of which is the ball hitting you and creating a live ball situation for the punting team. Because Westbrook ran his man into the play, when his man shoved him, it blew up the entire play. It's completely on Westbrook that that play happened. 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 While I don't dispute that it was his fault, it was a short kick and he probably couldn't hear ARE calling him off. It was just a tough play - give him a break. You don't have to hear someone calling you off to know the situation. My only reason for pause in completely ripping Westbrook was that at least he was trying. He was playing dumb football, but he was trying to make something happen for the return team. That IS a positive. But a horrible, horrible lapse in judgement at the same time. I don't want the guy cut or anything. But he needs to start playing smart football. Fix it. Period. But it was his fault. You can't give guys breaks on stuff like that. Mistakes happen. They're fixed by coaches (not me, obviously, as I'm sure he could care less what I say) getting into the player and letting them know what they did was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Adama Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 And I thought we couldn't look any more stupid... I stand corrected.How does the organization look more stupid? You had an ex-coach announcing the game who was confused by the play as well. And realize he wears an ear piece where they feed him information. I think the rule is stupid and Westbrook was way off base for even being near Randle El.How does he not know this rule? I know this rule. I only coach high school football. That one was completely on Westbrook.While I agree with you regarding Westbrook, I disagree with your sentiment about Zorn. Again Billick was confused as they play was going on until he got fed information from his control booth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 How does the organization look more stupid? You had an ex-coach announcing the game who was confused by the play as well. And realize he wears an ear piece where they feed him information. I think the rule is stupid and Westbrook was way off base for even being near Randle El.While I agree with you regarding Westbrook, I disagree with your sentiment about Zorn. Again Billick was confused as they play was going on until he got fed information from his control booth. That's scary, BCS. I promise you, I saw the play happen live and my first thought was, "If that ball hit a Redskin, we're screwed." I actually thought he challenged because he thought the ball hit a Panther, but this article is pretty clear in saying he challenged because he didn't know that you could do that. I suppose those little rules get lost in translation when you don't have much time to watch football other than your own games and film on opponents... *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I wasn't aware the rule was written like that. Makes me wonder why we don't see the kicking team attempting to throw blockers into the punt returner on every fair catch. Why try to get around a block when you can instead attempt to interfere with the catch on many punts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Edds Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 it may be a rule, but it is a stupid rule IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tone_dubbz Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 How does he not know this rule? I know this rule. I only coach high school football. That one was completely on Westbrook. Why the heck would you run towards the return man blocking when he clearly signaled for a fair catch and was clearly in a whole bunch of traffic? It's called football IQ and apparently alot of our guys either A) Don't have it or Don't think. I'm with you, I blame that purely on Westbrook's dumbass. He shouldn't have been any where near the returner, let a lone let someone block you into the him. No wonder his ass is barely on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I wasn't aware the rule was written like that. Makes me wonder why we don't see the kicking team attempting to throw blockers into the punt returner on every fair catch. Why try to get around a block when you can instead attempt to interfere with the catch on many punts? it may be a rule, but it is a stupid rule IMO. Disagree, Dick. Here's why... Most punt return teams are smart enough to know that if a defender is that close to the return man, the return man is taught to call for a fair catch... Which ARE did... That's a by the book decision and it was the right decision. Therefore, most blockers, when that close to the return man, will lay off of their blocks. If you're moving and you're angle is going to take you within 6 yards of the return man, you need to either readjust your angle and drive your man or let your man go, especially in that situation where there was a ton of bodies there. This is why you don't see this happening more often. Most of the time the return team wants nothing to do with the football. It's "poison". Stay away other than your return guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btubes18 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I bet we see a lot of this by many teams for the rest of the season. I do see a rule change coming into effect by this, it's strait up interfering with a fair catch. I was just talking to a coworker about this...honestly I see this happening a lot now. Personally, I would have challenged this call too and can see a new rule change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Does it work the other way too? Can a blocker say..throw a gunner into the return man after a fair catch had been called to draw a fair catch interference call? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadExField Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I wish ARE would've called fair catch and moved away from the ball since their was heavy traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman#21 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 That was a really bad break, and it cost the Skins the game..unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Here's the thing. Even though Westbrook was between Randel-El and the Carolina guy, the Carolina guy still interfered with the fair catch. In fact, his right hand even touched Randel-El's shoulder. Look at the video. Just because Westbrook was between the Panther and Randel-El doesnt give the guy immunity from an interference call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 That was a really bad break, and it cost the Skins the game..unfortunate. That's really it. You can go around and try to assign blame, but **** happens sometimes. The punt was extremely short and Westbrook was engaged with a blocker and probably didn't know about ARE being behind him. Personally, I think it sucks that the rule reads that way, but that's the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long n Left Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 The rule is bogus for one reason, specifically...it creates a judgment call by the referee. Was the man engaged or not? If the blocker is engaged, hears the return man call off for a fair catch, stops blocking, then gets pushed into the guy, that, by rule, is interefrence. As fast as things happen on the field, do you think a ref can tell if a guy has stopped blocking? No freakin way! That makes it a judgment call. The rules commitee tries to make calls black or white (interference will always be a judgment call,) and this rule definitely has various shades of grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornToHail Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 That's really it. You can go around and try to assign blame, but **** happens sometimes. The punt was extremely short and Westbrook was engaged with a blocker and probably didn't know about ARE being behind him.Personally, I think it sucks that the rule reads that way, but that's the way it is. I'm not sure that one thing cost the 'Skins the game. Their offense was a no show (again), the O-line was...exposed (again), we wasted our time outs (again), and special teams was abysmal. Sure that play was like the perverbial nail in the coffin for a team that was tumbling downwards in the second half, but...it didn't cost us the game. We still could've held Carolina to a field goal instead of letting Stewart run in from 8 yards out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I would have challenged that too.I think your blatent hatred is making you look stupid... Give it up, watch something else until you calm down The ball clearly hit Westbrook. So, Zorn's challenge was essentially, "I think this is a stupid rule and you should change it. Right now. For me. Please." It was an unwinnable challenge. To be honest, the refs should not have allowed him to challenge it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Here's the thing. Even though Westbrook was between Randel-El and the Carolina guy, the Carolina guy still interfered with the fair catch. In fact, his right hand even touched Randel-El's shoulder. Look at the video.Just because Westbrook was between the Panther and Randel-El doesnt give the guy immunity from an interference call. I know that you are supposed to give a receiver a clear path to the ball, but is that limitless? I mean if the punt goes 10 yards, does everyone on the coverage team have to open up a clear path to the ball for the receiver? ARE had to run a good ten yards to get there. It's not the coverage guy's responsibility to know where the ball is in the air at all times, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 All that play did was allow Carolina to score quicker than they would have had it been caught. The Skins offense wasn't doing a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.