Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Couple of points on the Ref calls in the game


Havenless

Recommended Posts

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.

I agree with call... But only because that's the NFL rule today. It's a sissy rule.

But, for technicalities, was Foles pursuing the play? Yes he was, he wasn't drifting away from the play, rather towards it. If he breaks those wave if tacklers, Foles was positioning himself as a potential active defender.

That part is no doubt in my mind. I agree in TODAY'S NFL, it's a flag regardless. As a football fan, Foles pursued play and was fair game. Nothing 'cheap' about it. I'd call it both ways if unis were switched

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Redskins fan living in Philly I watch each Eagles game and are convinced that they will go 16-0 while being outplayed in every game. Its amazing to watch how somehow magically they win these games. The Colts game they got a TD off of a Pass Interference call and got the ball at the 1 off of a 50 yard bomb. Then they converted a 20 yard drive off of a Colts fumble and then the Colts were about to put it away with a field goal when the WR was dragged down on a no call and the Eagles intercepted and went down and scored. 

 

Yesterday was almost normal as far as the Eagles go, although they were outgained by approx 140 yards by the Redskins. I tell Eagles fans I know if you just watched an Eagles game without keeping track of the score you would always think they lost.

 

One thing I don't think anyone has pointed out is how the only time the Eagles scored in the second half is when their offense was the beneficiary of significant yardage off of penalties against the Redskins defense including three penalties on 3rd and long which gave them new life and led to scores. 

 

On each Eagles offensive drive where there were no penalties called, they went three and out each time.

 

Yes, they are a good team and Im exaggerating but it must be great to be an Eagles fan, knowing no matter how bad you play it just doesn't matter, somehow you'll end up with the victory.

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.

 

 

nope. the hit by sapp on clifton was nearly halfway across the field from the ball carrier. very different from the hit on foles. and it was helmet to helmet to boot. 

 

ive already said that if the baker hit were away from the play like that one, i'd say it was cheap, no doubt.

 

i couldnt care less what the rest of the universe thinks. does it bother you that the rest of the universe thinks eagles fans are assholes?

 

right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame the officials for the loss, I blame our special teams and also our secondary which was pretty horrible.

 

The 2 questions I do have though are on 2 plays.

 

1) The Baker hit on Foles.  I still haven't heard anyone say that the hit is illegal.  I know it is considered "dirty" and I don't disagree with that or disagree that it should be made illegal, but as of right now, today, IS THAT HIT ILLEGAL?  I know Aikman said during the game that the refs "frown upon those kinds of hits" but "frowns upon" does not mean illegal. If technically the hit was legal, why was it flagged? I'm sorry, but in a close hard fought game, you can't throw flags that swing games like that for a hit that is legal. If the hit is indeed illegal though, then nevermind.

 

2) On the Delay of Game call against the Redskins.  On a play like that where the whistle is blown and play is ruled dead before it is snapped, how in the holy hell is a defender not flagged for sacking the QB?  How is the QB in THAT situation where he is standing there unaware, not considered a defenseless player, especially considering the blockers have stood up and stopped playing.  I understand people are saying that some didn't hear the whistle. I am not saying it was dirty or on purpose, but intent doesn't matter in this case, Cousins was wrapped up and driven into the ground on a dead play.  Why was this not a flag?  It's very possible Cousins gets hurt on that play.

 

 

That is BS, I actually remember Perry Riley getting flagged for that back in 2011 whe nwe played the Jets at home. The whistle was blown but not all the players heard it and Perry Hit Sanchez, wasn't even that hard, and we got called for unnecessary roughness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hit mentioned many times was Warren Sapp on Chad Clifton. I know chads sister. That hit separated his penis tendon.

Yeah ... think about that.... separated a tendon that is attached to the penis.

Cant even imagine how bad that had to hurt

 

He should maybe have taklen up bowling, or he should have laid down after the interception to insure he would not be hit.

Cleanly.

 

his injury came from the fact he wass 330 lbs falling on his pelvis bone without anything breaking his impact.

 

The fact Sapp caused his launch is simply football. Every coach he ever had sonce his first Pop warner team has told him to keep his head on a swivel, and he did not.

The oldest cliché in football..  and it means to be on the lookout at all time4s because it's a violent game and there are 22 people out there hitting each other. 

 

That hit on Foles was clean, except here in the age of two hand touch.

the game is becoming something that is not what i grew to love.

i hate to say it, but I've been losing interest in games that are not the redskins, and most of it is due the utter ridiculousness of the rulebooks and tyhe refs who mis-apply them week in and week out.

Games are swung nowadays on calls more than they ever were. I find myself turning games off when the refs get over-involved, and they are almost always over-involved.

 

So, the NFl can take it for that it's worth. They can continue to coddle players from playing football, and they will lose more fans than any Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson scandal will ever cost them. hard core fans, people who grew up with it in the age of the NFL.. as the game grew, it became ingrained to us.

Now, that game doesn't exist much anymore. Now, the guys who made the game into what it is..     could not play. the Hall ofv Fame is full of players who would not be allowed to play these days,, guys who modern fans would consider 'dirty"..  how many references to Chuck Bednarik yesterday? Think he could play these days?

Not only NO, but HELL NO. 

Picture of him standing over dead Frank Gifford.. personal foul, 15 yards. ,,  but it's glorified on TV while behind it, the game is so different that announcers are crying for flags, and determining what is and what is not necessary roughness.

(I thought Joe Buck was going to burst into tears over the flag that DeSean Jackson drew when he shoved the guy in the first qtr..   Buck has no clue that the "Unnecessary roughness" was the Eagles guy slamming into Jackson's bum shoulder after he was already down, and frankly, i don't know how he could NOT know it. It's aggravating sitting there seeing something so blatant and listening to him whine about it so incorrectly. ... I'll give it to the ref there,, he got that one right...  but you'd never know it listening to Buck..  that poor little pansy spent the rest of the game pulling his thong out of his ass over that. Announcers crying for fines and penalties is outrageous,,  shut the hell up and describe the action,,  suggesting fines to the league is not your job)

 

the rules are out of control, and while fans have ALWAYS complained about bad calls, the rules were rarely at issue. .

now bad calls stem from bad rules every single game. Way way way way way too many rules. trying to legislate every possible problem. Ultimately, the mis-application of or over-abundance of rules and refs is deciding games way more often than it ever ever should.

Football is a simple game.

And now it's getting almost impossible to play it the way it was meant to be played.

 

~Bang

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want more violence in football, like the good old days.

 

-Guy watching from the comfort of his couch who hasn't struck someone in anger in decades.

 

 

What a completely stupid post on a football board about a football game.

 

seriously. You been drinking?

 

 

~Bang

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with call... But only because that's the NFL rule today. It's a sissy rule.

But, for technicalities, was Foles pursuing the play? Yes he was, he wasn't drifting away from the play, rather towards it. If he breaks those wave if tacklers, Foles was positioning himself as a potential active defender.

That part is no doubt in my mind. I agree in TODAY'S NFL, it's a flag regardless. As a football fan, Foles pursued play and was fair game. Nothing 'cheap' about it. I'd call it both ways if unis were switched

 

I've said it a couple times in this thread but its worth repeating. The officials did not call roughing the passer. Meaning, Foles was not a protected QB. They called unnecessary roughness which means they saw a blind side hit on a defenseless player. That Foles is a QB was not part of the equation. The only reason we're having this discussion is because 1) he is a QB so people immediately get confused and think he's getting special treatment and 2) when the official made the call he said "unnecessary roughness" and left it at that. He should have said "unnecessary roughness, hitting a defenseless player". Then we would know with certainty that it was not the QB rule that was in play.

 

Long story short, whether Foles was pursuing the play is not of consequence because it was unnecessary roughness that was cited which applies to all players at all times. You can't blind side hit a guy looking the other way. If you want to debate something, debate whether it was actually a blind side hit. Baker hit him in the front of the jersey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Riggodrill44 show me the rule where a knee = 2 feet. I'm looking but haven't found anything yet.

The hit by Baker on Foles was a legal hit . If Foles or any qb doesn't want to get hit after they throw an interception then don't go running toward the defender who caught your ball. Run the other way or just stand exactly where you released the ball.

John Madden even wrote a book entitled "One Knee Equals Two Feet".  Yes, this is the rule and it has been around for decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hit mentioned many times was Warren Sapp on Chad Clifton. I know chads sister. That hit separated his penis tendon.

Yeah ... think about that.... separated a tendon that is attached to the penis.

Cant even imagine how bad that had to hurt

 

I've never heard of a penis tendon, but I want to believe that Eli Manning has one in his right arm.  

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. 

Of course there is a double standard - remember, our team name describes an attribute of a group of people, therefore we are racists and we are penalized each and every game, fine, suspension, and cap violation.

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

 

This is a taught as a debate and logic tactic.  It is often used in software development where you need to test the most extreme conditions.  The guys point is valid - if the QB can't be hit during a return, is it a penalty for the guy that makes the INT to hit the QB during the return? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Madden even wrote a book entitled "One Knee Equals Two Feet".  Yes, this is the rule and it has been around for decades.

his other book ""Hey wait a Minute I wrote a Book" is one of the best and funniest football books I've ever read.

Highly recommended to any football fan!

 

 

I thought they got the Maclin call right. 

 

~Bang

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is a taught as a debate and logic tactic.  It is often used in software development where you need to test the most extreme conditions.  The guys point is valid - if the QB can't be hit during a return, is it a penalty for the guy that makes the INT to hit the QB during the return? 

 

The point isn't valid cause we have all seen a quarterback get blocked on an interception return. Obviously, anyone that has watched football at all has seen different types of blocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it a couple times in this thread but its worth repeating. The officials did not call roughing the passer. Meaning, Foles was not a protected QB. They called unnecessary roughness which means they saw a blind side hit on a defenseless player. That Foles is a QB was not part of the equation. The only reason we're having this discussion is because 1) he is a QB so people immediately get confused and think he's getting special treatment and 2) when the official made the call he said "unnecessary roughness" and left it at that. He should have said "unnecessary roughness, hitting a defenseless player". Then we would know with certainty that it was not the QB rule that was in play.

Long story short, whether Foles was pursuing the play is not of consequence because it was unnecessary roughness that was cited which applies to all players at all times. You can't blind side hit a guy looking the other way. If you want to debate something, debate whether it was actually a blind side hit. Baker hit him in the front of the jersey.

Ok... You make a point than refute it, and I agree. Foles was hit square in the chest. His eyes were on the play and he was in pursuit of play. UNDENIABLY IN PURSUIT OF PLAY.

He was nonchalantly pursuing it, but he should know better.

Look, Baker targeted him. It was definetely in the realm of the play. And it was almost certainly called because it was the QB and one of the new faces of the league.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point isn't valid cause we have all seen a quarterback get blocked on an interception return. Obviously, anyone that has watched football at all has seen different types of blocks.

And we've all seen QBs try to make tackles. Tom Brady tried one on the sideline in week one...  he missed as badly as usual, but occasionally they bring a man down or make him move into someone else.

If they can do that, they have to be fair game.

 

I can understand wanting to protect them when they're vulnerable throwing. But when they are in the play after that, they're a player like anyone else...  like the slide rule, if they willingly give themselves up, OK, but if they don't..  it's ridiculous that they can't be touched.

 

One of the greatest plays and always near the top of the 'greatest hits' lists that the NFL itself compiles for network shows and DVDs ..  old fans will remember,, the 49ers vs the Giants in the playoffs.. Montana throws an INT to Lawrence Taylor..  Jim Burt absolutely crushes Joe montana on a block,, knocks him 5 yards through the air.

 

result: Game winning touchdown, giants go to the Super Bowl, lots of the guys in the play go to the Hall of Fame.

 

and absolutely no one complained of a 'defenseless player" or anything.

 

FTR, i think the hit Baker put on Foles was clean, but stupid.  Of course it's going to get called. Lawyers are in charge of the game.

 

~Bang

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quarterback can be hit during a return, we've covered this ground here a few pages ago. And continue to do so.

 

 

i have a question. 

 

you posted part of this earlier- (7 and 8)

 

A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; 

(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to 
protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or 
warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player; 
(3) A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; 
(4) A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; 
(5) A player on the ground at the end of a play; 
(6) A kicker/punter during the kick or during the return; 
(7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession, and 
(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. 
(B) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is: 
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or 
shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless 
player by encircling or grasping him; and 
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of 
the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body. 
Note: The provisions of (2) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a 
conventional tackle on an opponent.
 
 
these specific offenses are all listed under the general heading "unnecessary roughness".
 
how do you know which subset of rules the ref is using to make his call if he only says 'unecessary roughness' without further explanation?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...