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

Seriously, how hard is it to understand.

 

According to NFL rules the QB is off limits in this situation.

 

You want to complain about the refs, complain about the non-call on the Jenkins hit on Jackson early in the game.

 

Both Bakers AND Jenkins hits were cheap shots.

Sorry, if the QB is off limits then he needs to get away from the play. have the back judge go shield him like a fighter once the towel is thrown in.

You see Brady take tackle attempts (albeit bad ones)..  QBS trying to make a play are not unheard of, especially when they are moving toward the ballcarrier.

The NFL, and this crew in particular is OVERCALLING the game.

 

the league average per team is 10 penalties per game so far.

That's ridiculous. Getting in the way, and starting to affect interest in games that aren't my team. I've gotten bored with flagfests. i don't tune in to watch refs.

 

~Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where you lose me when you say it was an illegal hit. Running towards the play whether at a jog or a full sprint is hardly taking a "distinctly defensive position."  Quite the opposite.

 

 

right. 

 

are you supposed to stand there- (or better yet- come to a complete stop while running full speed-) until he acknowledges you and puts his hands up in front of him?

 

not very practical or clear, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess Baker was lying in his post game interview when he said he didnt know it was Foles.

No he is supposed to say "Please fine or suspend me, I knew it was Foles and yeah I took him out".

Of course he was lying.

Edit: And I don't fault him or any other player lying about it either the same as if they say, "I didn't step out of bounds" or "the ball never touched the ground" etc but that doesn't change what he did

everyone is entitled to their opinion. its not as clear cut at you both are making it out to be. and there are plenty of people that know more than any of us that happen to disagree with your position.

i'll repeat my position again- my problem is with the rule. the qb cannot be allowed to run towards the intercepting player and be protected at the same time.

it needs to be changed.

I agree with this, to prevent any uncertainty in the future, clarifications or tweaks should be made

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't cite the QB specific rule (roughing the passer). They cited unnecessary roughness which applies to all players. You can't blind side anyone at any time so its not hard for anyone to figure it out in the heat of the moment. I am saying that Foles being a QB was not part of the equation (as hard as that is to believe). If it were, they would have called roughing.

 

Add: If they had called roughing the passer THEN you would have an argument that Foles was in a defensive posture. But that was not the call. This is the "defenseless player" call, and on that you could argue whether or not Foles was in a defenseless position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, it's your opinion which has nothing to do with the rule book and the type of hits that the NFL and all other levels of football are trying to eliminate.

 

Hitting a defenseless player isn't about no hit to the head (that's targeting) or no hit from behind (illegal block in the back). I have watched the video multiple times and I promise, they are telling officials to penalize that and eject. I would say this line of thinking started when Warren Sapp light up a Green Bay lineman, ending his season.

 

I completely understand everyone's points as to why they don't think it's a good call, but it's simply a change in the game that we have been watching for years.

 

So if this is the case then the QB can then tackle the runner and can not be blocked. Would the Runner also be penalized for using a stiff arm against the QB trying to tackle him? If the QB is the only player on the field that is exempt from being touched while tackling the runner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't cite the QB specific rule (roughing the passer). They cited unnecessary roughness which applies to all players. You can't blind side anyone at any time so its not hard for anyone to figure it out in the heat of the moment. I am saying that Foles being a QB was not part of the equation (as hard as that is to believe). If it were, they would have called roughing.

 

Add: If they had called roughing the passer THEN you would have an argument that Foles was in a defensive posture. But that was not the call. This is the "defenseless player" call, and on that you could argue whether or not Foles was in a defenseless position.

Except it technically was not blindside.  He hit Foles on the front of the jersey. It was not a hit from the back.  It was close, but Baker managed to just get enough ahead of him for a nasty, clean, legal blow.  I don't mind calling it a cheap shot.  It kind of was, but it was a legal cheap shot.

 

 

Again, it was not a blindside hit.  Same as in punt and kick off returns which is what makes most sense to model interception returns after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if this is the case then the QB can then tackle the runner and can not be blocked. Would the Runner also be penalized for using a stiff arm against the QB trying to tackle him? If the QB is the only player on the field that is exempt from being touched while tackling the runner.

 

No. The call was unnecessary roughness, not roughing the passer. Foles was not protected. It has nothing to do with Foles being a QB or if he's in a defensive position. He was a player like any other player who was blind sided while in a defenseless position. 

Except it technically was not blindside.  He hit Foles on the front of the jersey. It was not a hit from the back.  It was close, but Baker managed to just get enough ahead of him for a nasty, clean, legal blow.  I don't mind calling it a cheap shot.  It kind of was, but it was a legal cheap shot.

 

 

Again, it was not a blindside hit.  Same as in punt and kick off returns which is what makes most sense to model interception returns after.

 

That's certainly where there is room for interpretation and I agree that Baker technically hit Foles' front side as he was looking the other way.  The rule book says:

 

(a) Players in a defenseless posture are: ...  (8) A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward his own endline and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side. 
 
Baker approached Foles from the side even though the moment of contact caught Foles on the front of his jersey. The rule doesn't say contact from the side. Either way, it was a bang bang play for the officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The call was unnecessary roughness, not roughing the passer. Foles was not protected. It has nothing to do with Foles being a QB or if he's in a defensive position. He was a player like any other player who was blind sided while in a defenseless position. 

 

That's certainly where there is room for interpretation and I agree that Baker technically hit Foles front side as he was looking the other way. Bang bang play for the officials.

 

Now that makes more sense, however I would add that the whistle had not blown yet. Unlike when Cousins, clearly the QB was standing still, ball down, no whistle got nailed, no call. Seems to be a double standard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't cite the QB specific rule (roughing the passer). They cited unnecessary roughness which applies to all players. You can't blind side anyone at any time so its not hard for anyone to figure it out in the heat of the moment. I am saying that Foles being a QB was not part of the equation (as hard as that is to believe). If it were, they would have called roughing.

 

Add: If they had called roughing the passer THEN you would have an argument that Foles was in a defensive posture. But that was not the call. This is the "defenseless player" call, and on that you could argue whether or not Foles was in a defenseless position.

 

 

do you think unnecessary roughness is called if the hit was on, say, riley cooper, or matthews or ertz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So if this is the case then the QB can then tackle the runner and can not be blocked. Would the Runner also be penalized for using a stiff arm against the QB trying to tackle him? If the QB is the only player on the field that is exempt from being touched while tackling the runner.

 

I love how people can't accept a rule, despite it being explained and thus take it to the extreme in the other direction.

 

 

do you think unnecessary roughness is called if the hit was on, say, riley cooper, or matthews or ertz?

 

Yes, without question. Foles had slowed down, the play was ending, etc. We have oftened seen offensive lineman penalized for blowing someone up at the end of a play or just as the play is ending. I can't believe some people are defending this hit. If RGIII gets crushed like this, y'all would be screaming for a flag and rightfully so.

 

As for Cousins getting hit. Again, I don't think anyone is defending that but stop pretending it wasn't different. The RT for the skins was still trying to block as the DE went around him. That is squarely on poor officiating and not being fast enough on the whistles and stepping in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how people can't accept a rule, despite it being explained and thus take it to the extreme in the other direction.

 

So, what your saying is don't play to the whistle? If the play is close to being over immediately stop. You're arguing with fans of the WASHINGTON Redskins, being in the capitol of the United States we're uniquely qualified to look at laws and rules.

 

Each word in a rule is important. You can not show me for an instant where Foles "

assumes a distinctly defensive position." Running towards the play, even jogging towards the play is not defensive in the least. You are not reading the rule fully because I think you don't want to believe the Redskins were screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, without question. Foles had slowed down, the play was ending, etc. We have oftened seen offensive lineman penalized for blowing someone up at the end of a play or just as the play is ending. 

 

this part, i have a problem with. breelands knee comes down just as baker is about to make contact with foles. 

 

 

 I can't believe some people are defending this hit. 

 

 

among those would be several former professional football players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this part, i have a problem with. breelands knee comes down just as baker is about to make contact with foles. 

 

 

Clearly, the Redskins broke the rules by not breaking the laws of physics :silly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that makes more sense, however I would add that the whistle had not blown yet. Unlike when Cousins, clearly the QB was standing still, ball down, no whistle got nailed, no call. Seems to be a double standard. 

 

Yes that hit on Cousins sucked. But I don't think it was a conscious decision by the officials to screw the Redskins. They just react and in that moment they didn't thrown the flag, so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this part, i have a problem with. breelands knee comes down just as baker is about to make contact with foles. 

 

 

among those would be several former professional football players. 

 

Oh yeah, former players that played when big hits like this were legal are good arbiters. Former players also all wanted to go back out their with concussions, wanting to play through anything, cause hey, it's football.

 

Let's say that play happens against Alfred Morris after a Kurt Cousins' pick. Morris is slowing down and gets lit up at the end of the play. 100% of Redskins would be screaming for a penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that play sucked. But I don't think it was a conscious decision by the officials to screw the Redskins. They just react and in that moment they didn't thrown the flag, so be it.

I don't know. It was pretty conscious when tossing players for the head ref to only name Redskins players.  That is pretty telling.

Let's say that play happens against Alfred Morris after a Kurt Cousins' pick. Morris is slowing down and gets lit up at the end of the play. 100% of Redskins would be screaming for a penalty.

I disagree.  We would be screaming that so and so is a dirty player and a BLEEP, but I know I wouldn't call for a penalty.  I'd say (as I'm saying now that it was a cheap and unnecessary shot), but I wouldn't say it was a flag.  I've seen tons of players blown up legally.  That's the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, former players that played when big hits like this were legal are good arbiters. Former players also all wanted to go back out their with concussions, wanting to play through anything, cause hey, it's football.

 

 

 

i would say their opinion means more to me than, say, some random fans on a message board. 

 

i would say if baker hit him high or low or away from the play then its dirty. what makes this play appear dirty is that baker is a huge man. fortunately foles is not built like vick (or griffin  :mellow: )

 

if i'm philly, i'm thanking god that my QB is one tough sob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what your saying is don't play to the whistle? If the play is close to being over immediately stop. You're arguing with fans of the WASHINGTON Redskins, being in the capitol of the United States we're uniquely qualified to look at laws and rules.

 

Each word in a rule is important. You can not show me for an instant where Foles "

assumes a distinctly defensive position." Running towards the play, even jogging towards the play is not defensive in the least. You are not reading the rule fully because I think you don't want to believe the Redskins were screwed.

 

LOL...you should try being a football official and sit in on film review. They will say to flag this play each and every time but you can keep arguing and you still be wrong. I say this out of experience and not out of some need to defend officials or not wanting to believe the Redskins were screwed.

i would say their opinion means more to me than, say, some random fans on a message board. 

 

i would say if baker hit him high or low or away from the play then its dirty. what makes this play appear dirty is that baker is a huge man. fortunately foles is not built like vick (or griffin  :mellow: )

 

if i'm philly, i'm thanking god that my QB is one tough sob.

 

If he hits him high or low, it's actually a different penalty. So says a football official.

I disagree.  We would be screaming that so and so is a dirty player and a BLEEP, but I know I wouldn't call for a penalty.  I'd say (as I'm saying now that it was a cheap and unnecessary shot), but I wouldn't say it was a flag.  I've seen tons of players blown up legally.  That's the game.

 

Certainly, there a players being blown up legally, but not in the situation we are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. It was pretty conscious when tossing players for the head ref to only name Redskins players.  That is pretty telling.

 

 

In his defense, they were both #71 and in the middle of a very chaotic situation. And they fixed it.

 

Anyway, this horse is beaten. For the record, I loved the hit. We need more nasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If he hits him high or low, it's actually a different penalty. So says a football official.

 

 

well, i'm hoping youre not flagging players for not knowing that someone is going to be tackled a tenth of a second before they lay a block, thereby not physically being able to stop. 

 

Foles had slowed down, the play was ending, 

 

 

 

still, i'll take the former pros opinion. ;)

 

i think youre arguing the way the NFL interprets it as opposed to how it should be, which is more what i've been trying to argue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, i'm hoping youre not flagging players for not knowing that someone is going to be tackled a tenth of a second before they lay a block, thereby not physically being able to stop. 

 

 

 

still, i'll take the former pros opinion. ;)

 

i think youre arguing the way the NFL interprets it as opposed to how it should be, which is more what i've been trying to argue. 

 

How it should be is a totally different conversation as I'm arguing what the rule is and what all levels of football are wanting their officials to call. Look, some of these calls stun me when they get called but it's not so easy cause of the speed of the game and, to me, it's harder to call a game at eye level than to see a possible penalty from overhead camera angles.

 

I saw a college game over the weekend where they called targeting even though it was obvious that the contact was facemask to facemask on the hit. Even after the automatic review, because it was an ejection, they upheld the call on the field. I was shocked by it. It's just the way the game is moving and it's what officials are being told to call. 

 

BTW, was it B. Mitchell that didn't agree with the call? (the former pro you are referring to?) I was listening to the post game and I think he didn't agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, boy, as if this thread needs more reports to incite them:

 

"In the third quarter of Sunday's game, Philadelphia's Darren Sproles fielded a punt at the Eagles 23. He was pulled down by the facemask by Washington defender Akeem Davis, but no penalty flag was thrown. Two officials conferred, then threw a flag - but only after a replay had been shown on the stadium’s video board, and the crowd had reacted accordingly.Davis told The Times-Dispatch after the game he believes the video board was used to help make the call. Standing nearby, linebacker Will Compton  agreed with Davis’ assessment.

NFL VP of Football Communications Michael Signora said Sunday night that there is no written rule against using the video board, but added: "The officials do not use the video boards to aid in officiating."

http://www.timesdispatch.com/redskins-xtra/redskins-players-believe-late-flag-was-prompted-by-philly-video/article_3197057b-6db9-51b2-9e01-bb393049fbf4.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, that I don't mind. The officials should use every tool at their disposal to get the call right and if Davis pulled the facemask I don't care if the refs missed it in real time. I'm glad they got it right.

 

Likewise, they should have looked up at the video and knocked their fellow ref who threw the flag on Robinson for PI and said, "What the heck were you thinking, idiot!"

 

Get it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares about that play?  Offsetting penalties, our best OL out for the game; seems like you guys got the best of that one.  It was a cheap hit, just like Cox's shot on Cousins was cheap.  I don't see how anyone can defend the shot on Foles.  Listen, read the comments on the ESPN article, PFT article, etc about the hit.  The rest of the universe thinks your guy was a jerk.  He took advantage of the situation to land a huge blow on a guy who was not expecting it.  Much the same reason most of you hate Warren Sapp to this day.  Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, boy, as if this thread needs more reports to incite them:

"In the third quarter of Sunday's game, Philadelphia's Darren Sproles fielded a punt at the Eagles 23. He was pulled down by the facemask by Washington defender Akeem Davis, but no penalty flag was thrown. Two officials conferred, then threw a flag - but only after a replay had been shown on the stadium’s video board, and the crowd had reacted accordingly.Davis told The Times-Dispatch after the game he believes the video board was used to help make the call. Standing nearby, linebacker Will Compton agreed with Davis’ assessment.

NFL VP of Football Communications Michael Signora said Sunday night that there is no written rule against using the video board, but added: "The officials do not use the video boards to aid in officiating."

http://www.timesdispatch.com/redskins-xtra/redskins-players-believe-late-flag-was-prompted-by-philly-video/article_3197057b-6db9-51b2-9e01-bb393049fbf4.html

This was one of the late flags I was talking about. Without a doubt the refs reacted to fans response. Imagine, the play ended and time elapses enough to put it on board... Than they drop hanky. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!,!,

Further, I'm sure they didn't see replay, because IIRC, they flagged for horse collar. The play was a facemask. Thus, telling me, they didn't use board but simply reacted to fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.