Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Havenless

Couple of points on the Ref calls in the game

Recommended Posts

Eparadox is correct. The rules *do* have a provision that covers this scenario. Rule 12, Section 2, Article 13.7:

 

http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf

 

A passer who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has left his hand is obviously out of 
the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the defense through the end of the play or until 
the passer becomes a blocker, or until he becomes a runner upon taking a lateral from a teammate or 
picking up a loose ball, or, in the event of a change of possession on the play, until the passer 
assumes a distinctly defensive position
 
Foles was jogging towards the ball carrier and I think you could resonably argue this constitutes a defensive position (note: technically though the ball carrier's knees where down slightly before Baker was delivering the hit). That said, it was still a blind side block which is forbidden on any player. Either the refs didn't think he was in a defensive position or they simply made a mistake explaining the call over the PA system. I think they should have called "illegal blindside block".
 
There is also this little note in the rule book:
 
Note 1: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic on the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is..... A quarterback at any time after a change of possession (Also see Article 8(f) for additional restrictions against a quarterback after a change of possession);

 

Okay, if this is the rule... I can see why it could be called a penalty.  However, I would argue that the words underlined are the wrong ones. In this case, I still think it was legal. The important word is UNNECESSARY.  If the QB is engaging in the play and trying to tackle the returner than blocking him is a necessary act.  It is a fair act.  Now, if it had been blindside, if Baker would have launched himself, if there was a blow to the knee or head, I would agree with you, but Baker got in front of the shoulders as Foles was running towards the play.  This gives Baker (or should) permission to treat him like any would be tackler.

 

Now, all of you are right.  If my QB had been hit like that (and he has) I would have been mad, but I also would have acknowleged it as a football play.  It was a hard, clean hit (it was also a "legal" cheap shot).

 

Burg that was a penalty all day every day and twice on a Sunday. Foles was not close to being in a position to make a tackle nor was he making any real effort to get in a position to make a tackle. Not even debatable, thats getting called every time and if someone did that to RGIII or Kirk I'd expect our O'Line to be getting up close and personal with whoever did it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually glad Philly got the penalty on the play where DJax hit the guy in the face after the play.  For some reason both the announcer and refs decided that the incredibly late hit where the safety came in and dove at Jacksons' shoulder WELL after he was down, was not a problem.  Which is exactly what prompted him to retaliate in the first place.

 

Spot on. It also set the tone for the rest of the game. On that play, they had the opportunity to do the right thing & take control of the game. Instead, they waffled and let things get progressively worse.

 

And, I must add, our good buddies Aikman & Buck failed, yet again, to stick up for anything Redskins when commenting on the replay. I hate those assholes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually glad Philly got the penalty on the play where DJax hit the guy in the face after the play.  For some reason both the announcer and refs decided that the incredibly late hit where the safety came in and dove at Jacksons' shoulder WELL after he was down, was not a problem.  Which is exactly what prompted him to retaliate in the first place.

 

Yep. That play had INTENT TO INJUR. Extremely late hit against the returning villain's injured shoulder? Stay classy, Jenkins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Keenan Robinson penalty was the game. That was a 3rd down and it led to a field goal. Guess how many points we lost by? Absolutely brutal. 

 

 

That's the problem, "we" always look for excuses. And we lost by as many points as Forbath banged off the goalpost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. That play had INTENT TO INJUR. Extremely late hit against the returning villain's injured shoulder? Stay classy, Jenkins. 

I think it's just things like this that add to the pattern.

 

No personal foul on DJax.  None on Cousins.  But a hard, clean block on a would-be tackler is worth a penalty and an expulsion. Not to mention all the fraudulent PIs on Robinson and other Redskins and mysteriously missing hankies when the Eagles are on D.

 

Oh,

That's the problem, "we" always look for excuses. And we lost by as many points as Forbath banged off the goalpost.

Agree and disagree.  It is useful to condemn wrongs and not just lay down and take them.  On the other hand, you can't just wring your hands and surrender.  The Redskins did not lie down and give up once the refs declared their alliegance.  They continued to fight and were just bad enough or dumb enough to lose.  The Eagles needed every bit of help, every bs free first down and overlooked hold the refs could muster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's just things like this that add to the pattern.

 

No personal foul on DJax.  None on Cousins.  But a hard, clean block on a would-be tackler is worth a penalty and an expulsion. Not to mention all the fraudulent PIs on Robinson and other Redskins and mysteriously missing hankies when the Eagles are on D.

 

Oh,

 

This board cried when Griffin got kicked in the junk by Smith, you can't really say that was a "clean block" at all. It was a cheap shot.

 

Robinson's PI wasn't so peachy, but maybe if he wouldn't get smoked in consecutive plays and actually look in the ball's direction it wouldn't give doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burg that was a penalty all day every day and twice on a Sunday. Foles was not close to being in a position to make a tackle nor was he making any real effort to get in a position to make a tackle. Not even debatable, thats getting called every time and if someone did that to RGIII or Kirk I'd expect our O'Line to be getting up close and personal with whoever did it as well.

 

You're wrong on your point about Foles. Go back & look at the replay. He threw the ball from about the right hash mark on his own 18 yard line. He was hit when he was to the right of the field numbers at about the 28 yard line while heading straight towards the path of Breeland (who was running with the ball). Breeland caught the ball at ~50 yard line. Foles, if not interested in making a play, had plenty of time to get out of the way, move to the left from where he threw, and NOT head toward the path of the ball carrier. He chose not to do that. 

 

Not "making any real effort to get into position to make a tackle" would mean he's nowhere in the vicinity of Breeland & heading away from the action. Clearly we was trotting (not in a full sprint) toward the ball carrier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong on your point about Foles. Go back & look at the replay. He threw the ball from about the right hash mark on his own 18 yard line. He was hit when he was to the right of the field numbers at about the 28 yard line while heading straight towards the path of Breeland (who was running with the ball). Breeland caught the ball at ~50 yard line. Foles, if not interested in making a play, had plenty of time to get out of the way, move to the left from where he threw, and NOT head toward the path of the ball carrier. He chose not to do that. 

 

Not "making any real effort to get into position to make a tackle" would mean he's nowhere in the vicinity of Breeland & heading away from the action. Clearly we was trotting (not in a full sprint) toward the ball carrier.

He was "standing his ground", and he has no legal obligation to retreat.

(sarcasm from somebody who wishes people would drop it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong on your point about Foles. Go back & look at the replay. He threw the ball from about the right hash mark on his own 18 yard line. He was hit when he was to the right of the field numbers at about the 28 yard line while heading straight towards the path of Breeland (who was running with the ball). Breeland caught the ball at ~50 yard line. Foles, if not interested in making a play, had plenty of time to get out of the way, move to the left from where he threw, and NOT head toward the path of the ball carrier. He chose not to do that. 

 

Not "making any real effort to get into position to make a tackle" would mean he's nowhere in the vicinity of Breeland & heading away from the action. Clearly we was trotting (not in a full sprint) toward the ball carrier. 

 

He was, yes. But the ball carrier's knees were down when the hit was made. Foles even appears to be slowing down as he sees the runner go down. Granted, it happened very fast in real time (bang bang) and you might not reasonably expect Baker to be able to pull up in time. That said, it was still a blind side hit or close enough that a ref will call it. Here's the video for anyone who missed it:

 

http://deadspin.com/big-hit-on-nick-foles-sparks-brawl-between-eagles-and-w-1637420679

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong on your point about Foles. Go back & look at the replay. He threw the ball from about the right hash mark on his own 18 yard line. He was hit when he was to the right of the field numbers at about the 28 yard line while heading straight towards the path of Breeland (who was running with the ball). Breeland caught the ball at ~50 yard line. Foles, if not interested in making a play, had plenty of time to get out of the way, move to the left from where he threw, and NOT head toward the path of the ball carrier. He chose not to do that. 

 

Not "making any real effort to get into position to make a tackle" would mean he's nowhere in the vicinity of Breeland & heading away from the action. Clearly we was trotting (not in a full sprint) toward the ball carrier. 

 

Please - are you really saying that Foles was making an effort to get involved in a tackle or was in anyway involved in the tackle that was already happening? He was jogging at best rather than making a sprint to get in on the play. It was a cheap shot and a clear penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burg that was a penalty all day every day and twice on a Sunday. Foles was not close to being in a position to make a tackle nor was he making any real effort to get in a position to make a tackle. Not even debatable, thats getting called every time and if someone did that to RGIII or Kirk I'd expect our O'Line to be getting up close and personal with whoever did it as well.

 

 

foles was 5 to 5.5 yards away from the play at the time he got hit. and he was absolutely running in the direction of the play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Robinson's PI wasn't so peachy, but maybe if he wouldn't get smoked in consecutive plays and actually look in the ball's direction it wouldn't give doubt.

The fact that you want to try to justify the Robinson PI is all I need to know.  Refs can do no wrong in your eyes.  That wasn't pass interference under any definition of the term.  Not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

foles was 5 to 5.5 yards away from the play at the time he got hit. and he was absolutely running in the direction of the play. 

 

He was jogging at best AND slowing down. I'm as big a homer as anyone but that play is getting flagged every time. 

The fact that you want to try to justify the Robinson PI is all I need to know.  Refs can do no wrong in your eyes.  That wasn't pass interference under any definition of the term.  Not even close.

 

I agree with you here - that was a bad call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please - are you really saying that Foles was making an effort to get involved in a tackle or was in anyway involved in the tackle that was already happening? He was jogging at best rather than making a sprint to get in on the play. It was a cheap shot and a clear penalty.

Not only am I saying that but the video supports what I'm saying. He's 10 yards forward & to the right of where he released the ball heading toward the ball carrier. His intent to tackle based on the speed he was running could mean he was hoping he didn't have to make the tackle. But there's nothing in the video that explains his thoughts. Only the video evidence of him heading towards the path of the ball carrier, albeit at a trot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only am I saying that but the video supports what I'm saying. He's 10 yards forward & to the right of where he released the ball heading toward the ball carrier. His intent to tackle based on the speed he was running could mean he was hoping he didn't have to make the tackle. But there's nothing in the video that explains his thoughts. Only the video evidence of him heading towards the path of the ball carrier, albeit at a trot.

 

Well you and I are just going to have to disagree (which is fine). The Ref disagreed with you as well and I strongly suspect the NFL will disagree when it comes to dishing out fines this week ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was jogging at best AND slowing down. I'm as big a homer as anyone but that play is getting flagged every time. 

 

 

 

 

that may be true, but either way, foles is putting himself in a position to make a play. 

 

i dont even know if i disagree with the spirit of the rule, but QBs cant have it both ways. you cant put yourself in position to make a play and be protected at the same time. 

 

the rule needs to be fixed- the qb has to move away from the play, get out of bounds away form the play or lay down. he cannot move to the ballcarrier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you and I are just going to have to disagree (which is fine). The Ref disagreed with you as well and I strongly suspect the NFL will disagree when it comes to dishing out fines this week ...

Well to be fair, the NFL has been on the wrong side of things for a loooong time when it comes to just decisions (see Ray Rice, Redskins cap penalty, etc., etc. etc.  Almost every decision the NFL lays down seems wrong these days.  Makes ya wonder if Snyder has been cheap when it comes to paying off the right people)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been at the game and suffering through multiple bad calls, I vowed to leave it they reversed Maclins catch.

It's a call stands league... Roberts catch against Jax. Not nealy irrefutable.

I left the stadium after that. Very poor reffing, the delay in throwing 2 of the flags were so blatant it was physically painful.

Offense looked great, surprised we weren't able to run better though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you want to try to justify the Robinson PI is all I need to know.  Refs can do no wrong in your eyes.  That wasn't pass interference under any definition of the term.  Not even close.

 

The previous play it was, and they missed it. The second play the ref was trailing. You can overgeneralize anything I say to suit you all you want, that speaks more of you than I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be fair, the NFL has been on the wrong side of things for a loooong time when it comes to just decisions (see Ray Rice, Redskins cap penalty, etc., etc. etc. Almost every decision the NFL lays down seems wrong these days. Makes ya wonder if Snyder has been cheap when it comes to paying off the right people)

Meanwhile partners in crime Mara and Goodell catching a game together again. How many games has he attended at Giant stadium...seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be fair, the NFL has been on the wrong side of things for a loooong time when it comes to just decisions (see Ray Rice, Redskins cap penalty, etc., etc. etc.  Almost every decision the NFL lays down seems wrong these days.  Makes ya wonder if Snyder has been cheap when it comes to paying off the right people)

 

So the league's office practices translate directly and totally to the officiating, got it.

Meanwhile partners in crime Mara and Goodell catching a game together again. How many games has he attended at Giant stadium...seriously?

 

 

Goodell has been to FedEx as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be fair, the NFL has been on the wrong side of things for a loooong time when it comes to just decisions (see Ray Rice, Redskins cap penalty, etc., etc. etc.  Almost every decision the NFL lays down seems wrong these days.  

 

Almost does not mean every - and this one was clearly the right call on the field IMO and if/when they assess a fine on Baker that will be the right decision as well, again IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the league's office practices translate directly and totally to the officiating, got it.

 

Who do you think writes the rules?  The League's ofices.  :silly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.