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

I mentioned that in some later points: 

 

 

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?

 

 

I don't, which is why I later said it would have been better for the official to cite the specific infraction as they some times do. But I *think* that they would have called roughing the passer if they were trying to protect Foles because he was a QB. Why #7 lives in both the roughing and roughness rule sets - one without the "defensive position" clause and one without the other I don't know. I tweeted Mike Periera asking that question and will let you know if he responds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why quibble... The guy laid out a QB who wasn't paying attention. No sympathy from league.

What we are arguing is moot and only applies to the game circa 20 years ago. But also, Bakers integrity.

For Bakers integrity it is so easily defensible. Breeland nearly ran through that last tackle and Foles was one of a couple guys that were next up. Both him a Breeland are tumbling at same time so it certainly wasn't late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

The NFL has official play-by-play logs released after games. For instance, officially Baker was cited for unnecessary roughness on hitting a defenseless QB, but he was thrown for fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned that in some later points: 

 

 

I don't, which is why I later said it would have been better for the official to cite the specific infraction as they some times do. But I *think* that they would have called roughing the passer if they were trying to protect Foles because he was a QB. Why #7 lives in both the roughing and roughness rule sets - one without the "defensive position" clause and one without the other I don't know. I tweeted Mike Periera asking that question and will let you know if he responds.

 

ok, then it seems like it could have been because of #7 on the list (which has been my main gripe in this thread). 

 

it actually appears to be the one that would make the most sense. 

The NFL has official play-by-play logs released after games. For instance, officially Baker was cited for unnecessary roughness on hitting a defenseless QB, but he was thrown for fighting.

 

ok, so then it appears that rule 7 above was why he was called for UR, meaning a QB is considered in a 'defenseless posture' on a change of possession.  

 

unless theres a section in the rules i've missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, then it seems like it could have been because of #7 on the list (which has been my main gripe in this thread). 

 

it actually appears to be the one that would make the most sense. 

 

ok, so then it appears that rule 7 above was why he was called for UR, meaning a QB is considered in a 'defenseless posture' on a change of possession.  

 

unless theres a section in the rules i've missed?

 

You might be right, I wonder if they said "defensless player" or "defenseless qb". Where can I find the game log?

 

I found this, but it doesn't specify what the penalty was: http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/56211/PHI_Gamebook.pdf

 

It just says: Penalty on WAS-C.Baker, Disqualification, offsetting. Interestingly, all the other penalties noted in the pdf have the specific infraction. But this one doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, then it seems like it could have been because of #7 on the list (which has been my main gripe in this thread). 

 

it actually appears to be the one that would make the most sense. 

 

ok, so then it appears that rule 7 above was why he was called for UR, meaning a QB is considered in a 'defenseless posture' on a change of possession.  

 

unless theres a section in the rules i've missed?

Yeah, that rule probably won't be changed until we get lot more Can Newtons and Andrew Lucks at QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Dude...that brought tears to my eyes. So true. So freaking true. Bravo, Bang, bravo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that rule probably won't be changed until we get lot more Can Newtons and Andrew Lucks at QB.

 

Hey, where can I find the game log? For some neurotic reason I'm a dog with a bone on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that rule probably won't be changed until we get lot more Can Newtons and Andrew Lucks at QB.

 

now we are back to my original gripe with the rule, which is, the QB cannot both be able to tackle the ball carrier, and be 'in a defenseless posture'.

 

specific to the play last night, foles was moving toward the play. he was hit about 5.5 yards from the play, at nearly the exact moment the runner was being tackled. 

 

contrast this to sapps hit on clifton a few years ago. that was helmet to helmet, he launched, and it was nowhere near the play. 

 

once again, i think the NFL needs to amend this rule to make the QBs take themselves out of the play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so fast. I don't think we *know* it was the QB rule necessarily. In fact PFT said in this article that the rule being cited was a blind side block, (ie., not specific treatment being given to a QB, but rather a blind sider that applies to any player on the field):

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/21/jason-peters-chris-baker-ejected-after-brawl-in-philly/

 

Redskins defensive lineman Chris Baker laid out Foles with a blindside block during an interception return

 

... but they could be confused on this point as we are. What I can't get my head around is why the roughing the passer rule has the "defensive position" clause but the "unnecessary roughness" rule doesn't (for changes of possession). That seems like a big gap between the two that needs some explaining.

 

Add: CBS also called it a 'blind side block'

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/09/21/redskins-game-revenge-injuries-and-ejections/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baker said the same thing happened to him earlier in the game, but because he's a defensive lineman, no flag.

I don't doubt it.

 

~Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blind side part, in this case, is still dicey, as baker hits his front. Its problematic, as it potentially takes into account and protects a player who just isnt paying attention.

The reason you aren't allowed to hit someone from the back or side is because they probably won't see it coming, whereas making contact with their front should virtually ensure they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this even a conversation? There were missed calls on both sides of the field. The Hit on Foles was absolutely a cheap shot! Anyone that states otherwise is either clueless, or blinded by homerism. The Hit on Cousins should have been called, Djack should have been called. Great Game looking forward to the next one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this even a conversation? 

 

Its just for fun. Its an NFL message board.

The blind side part, in this case, is still dicey, as baker hits his front. Its problematic, as it potentially takes into account and protects a player who just isnt paying attention.

The reason you aren't allowed to hit someone from the back or side is because they probably won't see it coming, whereas making contact with their front should virtually ensure they do.

 

The blind side rule doesn't say the contact has to be somewhere other than the front of the player for it to be a blind side. It talks about approaching the player from the back or the side but no mention of where the contact takes place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL has official play-by-play logs released after games. For instance, officially Baker was cited for unnecessary roughness on hitting a defenseless QB, but he was thrown for fighting.

Was gonna point that out to folks.

Whether you think the hit on Foles should have been legal or not, he deserved ejection anyway, for what he did during the fight.

So, whether the hit was legal or not, makes zero impact on the game.

Y'all are arguing about whether he should have been thrown out for Rule 1, or Rule 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this even a conversation? There were missed calls on both sides of the field. The Hit on Foles was absolutely a cheap shot! Anyone that states otherwise is either clueless, or blinded by homerism. The Hit on Cousins should have been called, Djack should have been called. Great Game looking forward to the next one!

Called for what?  At worst, it should have been offsetting personal fouls for the pushes.  The right call was the late cheap shot to DJ's shoulder after he was clearly down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this even a conversation? There were missed calls on both sides of the field. The Hit on Foles was absolutely a cheap shot! Anyone that states otherwise is either clueless, or blinded by homerism. The Hit on Cousins should have been called, Djack should have been called. Great Game looking forward to the next one!

Nobody I see is adamant it wasn't a PF. But how is it conversation?

Because about ten years ago it was a legal hit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Called for what?  At worst, it should have been offsetting personal fouls for the pushes.  The right call was the late cheap shot to DJ's shoulder after he was clearly down.

 

correct. djax only shoved williams cuz it was late and on his bad shoulder. refs probably should have flagged it. the fact that joe buck had no clue what jackson was responding to doesnt mean it was a bad call. 

 

the methodology may have been flawed, but the call was ultimately correct. no reason jackson should have been flagged there. 

 

Its just for fun. Its an NFL message board.

 

The blind side rule doesn't say the contact has to be somewhere other than the front of the player for it to be a blind side. It talks about approaching the player from the back or the side but no mention of where the contact takes place.

 

i hear ya. 

 

but the rule 'theoretically' is supposed to make all (or most) hits foreseeable. 

 

i get that foles didnt see it coming. i get why he didnt see it coming (hes looking at breeland). but that doesnt make bakers hit 'dirty'. its ultimately (imo) foles responsibility to know his surroundings in that scenario, and, if hes unable to do so, get out of the way, which he did not. 

 

this is why i'm in favor of amending the rule. 

 

i'm not in favor of getting players hurt, in case that wasnt clear. i get why the rule is there. i just dont believe in making the defensive player responsible for making sure the opposing QB knows what hes doing. its just not his job, nor should it be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't really mind the hit on Foles.  Those D Linemen will want to take that shot when they can.  I would lay more blame to Foles for just jogging around on the field and not keeping his head on a swivel.  Just like boxing, protect yourself at all times.

 

The most important call in my opinion was on the last drive of the first half.  The Eagle were somewhere around their own 30 yd line.  Foles threw an out to the sideline, the receiver caught the ball and turned upfield, he was then hit by our DB and tackled out of bounds.  His forward momentum had been stopped and he was going backwards when he fell out of bounds.  The refs stopped the clock.  The rule says that the offensive player must be moving forward or at least sideways when he goes out of bounds.  He was going backwards.  This saved them a timeout and at least a few seconds on the clock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't really mind the hit on Foles.  Those D Linemen will want to take that shot when they can.  I would lay more blame to Foles for just jogging around on the field and not keeping his head on a swivel.  Just like boxing, protect yourself at all times.

 

.

 

this brings up a thought- how many times will a QB do what foles did - which is throw an (alleged) pick, then go to make the tackle without thinking about getting blocked and get hit because they are not protecting themselves at all times, which is a result of the rule changes that have been made to protect the QB. 

 

youre so used to being protected, that you let your guard down, just for a moment.

 

perhaps there is too much being asked of defensive players, and the offensive players may suffer as a result?

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.

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.

Griffin was crushed like that in the Seattle Playoff game right after he tweaked his knee running to the sideline. Threw the TD and got leveled blindside, no call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was gonna point that out to folks.

Whether you think the hit on Foles should have been legal or not, he deserved ejection anyway, for what he did during the fight.

So, whether the hit was legal or not, makes zero impact on the game.

Y'all are arguing about whether he should have been thrown out for Rule 1, or Rule 2.

 

Nobody's arguing we're having a conversation.  And its not about him being thrown out or what impact it had on the game. We're discussing whether the officials got the call right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This was a disgusting display of officiating and the call that ticked me off the most. If you miss the call, you miss the call. I'm all for major flags being reviewable, but currently they are not so to screw us like that was unreal. That might be the first time I've ever seen something like that happen and of course it went against the redskins. Why not look at the replay board on the PI call where the WR wasn't even touched on a crucial third down and pick that one up? If you use the board once, they should of kept doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He looked over, saw Foles there and realized he had a golden opportunity to lay out the opposing QB. That's all it was. It's indefensible IMO.

Sorry that's a dirty hit every time in my book.

It was a hard contact but it wasn't a dirty hit. It was unfortunate that Foles fell on his shoulder and seemed to injure it but the hit was clean. QBs are always targeted if they try and make a play in the open field like throw a block or make a tackle on a return. That's been going on forever and it's long since been a normalized part of the game.

I think it's debatable whether or not Foles was really trying to make a play on the ball carrier. But he opened himself up to getting leveled by moving toward the ball carrier and getting so close to him. If you're a QB and you're going to do that, then you need to be aware of the defensive players around you, or you need to be more aggressive and actually run down the play rather than just lackadaisically trot over to the ballcarrier like Foles did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.