Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Couple of points on the Ref calls in the game


Havenless

Recommended Posts

I don't understand why fans aren't happy when the refs help them out and admit it?

 

RG3 has been the recipient of a few awful roughing the passer calls in his career, and I'm always the first one to admit it and thank the officials for the help. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only that, but that late hit was on his bum shoulder. A conspiracist might suggest that the Eagles DBs were targeting that injury.

 

What about the late hit frmo cox when the whistle blew and the oline and cousins gave up on the delay of game??? is that not fineable? even if so blantanlty missed?

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.

 

 

 

 

was the shot frmo cox on cousins when the whistle blow not a cheap shot? and dont justify well he didnt hear it... when common sense tells you once you see a qb and the oline give up the play is dead...

Link to post
Share on other sites

jtown even the late hit on cousins after the play was called dead?? did you miss that one? that to me is what made me finally post. im just shocked and i dont get how that can be allowed and be justified by anyone let alone eagle fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no ****, dummy.

 

the only one lacking understanding is you. 

 

the problem is with the rule- the QB shouldnt be moving towards the play, get himself five and a half yards away from the play, and still be protected.

 

why are you in here crying after a W anyway?

self affirmation society.   

 

so we all agree, the Baker hit was a legit penalty, and would be considered dirty by any fanbase in the league if it happened to their QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

whos this douche in kornheiser?

"the play was over" (concerning the baker hit) "it was a cheap shot"

really? the play was over cuz breelands knee hits a fraction of a second before foles gets hit?

gtfoh

It was a cheap shot whether the play was 10 seconds from being over or not. And it would

Be a cheap shot on any other player as well not just the QB.

In this case though, Baker clearly realized that Foles was a serious threat to Breeland and decided that in this instant, he didn't need to be blocked, or delayed or any one of 10 different ways Baker could have stopped Foles.

No, Baker decided that he should absolutely crush the opposing QB from his blind side as that was the only way to stop the tackling machine that is Nick Foles. It's obvious that's all he cared about when he went over and celebrated blasting Foles...not as he would any normal block.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

jtown even the late hit on cousins after the play was called dead?? did you miss that one? that to me is what made me finally post. im just shocked and i dont get how that can be allowed and be justified by anyone let alone eagle fans.

Again, they didn't miss it.   No one heard the whistle.   The Skins were still running the play, the oline was still blocking, the D line was doing their thing...why is that so hard to understand.    This kind of thing happens a lot - and is rarely called a penalty.   Maybe refs should have blow horns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

jtown even the late hit on cousins after the play was called dead?? did you miss that one? that to me is what made me finally post. im just shocked and i dont get how that can be allowed and be justified by anyone let alone eagle fans.

 

To be honest that thing happens all the time.  Refs called the play dead, but even on the tv u couldn't hear the whistle.  Troy and buck said the same thing.  Yeah it sucked to see cox get a free shot on cousins but there is nothing you can do about that.  

 

It's not like the refs did not see it they were right there but that is one of those things no one has control over.  I dont know if cox is dirty but he doesnt have a rep like suh or anything.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a cheap shot whether the play was 10 seconds from being over or not. And it would

Be a cheap shot on any other player as well not just the QB.

In this case though, Baker clearly realized that Foles was a serious threat to Breeland and decided that in this instant, he didn't need to be blocked, or delayed or any one of 10 different ways Baker could have stopped Foles.

No, Baker decided that he should absolutely crush the opposing QB from his blind side as that was the only way to stop the tackling machine that is Nick Foles. It's obvious that's all he cared about when he went over and celebrated blasting Foles...not as he would any normal block.

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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

when cousins gave himself up on the play and the oline did as well... then something has to come up in your brain that hey.. what happened and movement stops...its common sense once again. to justify or say they didnt hear the whistle when the oline and cousins gave up. shows your biased. there is no excuse for that. and if it was a redskin player i would say the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

self affirmation society.   

 

so we all agree, the Baker hit was a legit penalty, and would be considered dirty by any fanbase in the league if it happened to their QB.

 

 

It was a cheap shot whether the play was 10 seconds from being over or not. And it would

Be a cheap shot on any other player as well not just the QB.

In this case though, Baker clearly realized that Foles was a serious threat to Breeland and decided that in this instant, he didn't need to be blocked, or delayed or any one of 10 different ways Baker could have stopped Foles.

No, Baker decided that he should absolutely crush the opposing QB from his blind side as that was the only way to stop the tackling machine that is Nick Foles. It's obvious that's all he cared about when he went over and celebrated blasting Foles...not as he would any normal block.

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.

 

 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets be real. Baker's block was a penalty. it has been that way for years and it was a blatant cheap shot. This is not the issue

 

Here is the issue

 

When a play is whistled dead, and is dead for over a second and no one is playing, Kirk is just mosying around, yet Kirk gets DRILLED RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE REF, and no call is made. Why? Why was no flag thrown? I dont want to hear the excuse he didnt hear the whistle because A) I heard the whistle on tv and B- just because he didnt hear the whistle, that doesnt make it LEGAL to hit whoever you want.

 

Double standards. Thats my issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets be real. Baker's block was a penalty. it has been that way for years and it was a blatant cheap shot. This is not the issue

 

Here is the issue

 

When a play is whistled dead, and is dead for over a second and no one is playing, Kirk is just mosying around, yet Kirk gets DRILLED RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE REF, and no call is made. Why? Why was no flag thrown? I dont want to hear the excuse he didnt hear the whistle because A) I heard the whistle on tv and B- just because he didnt hear the whistle, that doesnt make it LEGAL to hit whoever you want.

 

Double standards. Thats my issue.

 

 

This happens all the time.  Literally.  It has happened to rg3 so many times.  It sucks but there is nothing u can do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

The roughing the passer portion of the rule set covers this:

 

PASSER OUT OF THE PLAY 

(7) 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. However, at any time after the change of possession, it is a 

foul if an opponent forcibly hits the quarterback’s head or neck area with his helmet, facemask, 

forearm, or shoulder, or if an opponent lowers his head and makes forcible contact with the 

top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of his helmet against any part of the quarterback’s body. This 

provision does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or the helmet in the course of a 

conventional block. 

 

But they didn't call roughing the passer. Which could mean that the refs considered Foles in a defensive position as you do. They called unnecessary roughness, which reads:

 

(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. 

 

In summary, I believe they made the right call explanation of "unecessary roughness" based on what they saw as a blind side hit.

 

Add: Lots of times you'll hear the ref cite the rule AND the article. They'll say "Roughing the passer (rule) hands to the face (article)". This allows you to know which subset of the rule is being cited. In this case they just said "roughing the passer" but didn't cite the particular article. 

 

I'll tweet Mike Pereira and see what he says :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The roughing the passer portion of the rule set covers this:

 

PASSER OUT OF THE PLAY 

(7) 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. However, at any time after the change of possession, it is a 

foul if an opponent forcibly hits the quarterback’s head or neck area with his helmet, facemask, 

forearm, or shoulder, or if an opponent lowers his head and makes forcible contact with the 

top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of his helmet against any part of the quarterback’s body. This 

provision does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or the helmet in the course of a 

conventional block. 

 

But they didn't call roughing the passer. Which could mean that the refs considered Foles in a defensive position as you do. They called unnecessary roughness, which reads:

 

(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. 

 

In summary, I believe they made the right call explanation of "unecessary roughness" based on what they saw as a blind side hit.

 

 

 

i understand that there are provisions in the rules that indicate that this was an illegal hit. i dont believe ive attempted to argue otherwise. (though i would argue that the rules are still too ambiguous- is he in a defensive position, am i approaching him from the front or the side, is he close enough to the play where it wont be seen as dirty, etc..)

 

my problem is that the rule needs to be amended. if you want to protect the QB, thats fine. make it so he has to not be involved in the play. to allow him to still try to tackle the defender while protecting him is asking for trouble. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

my problem is that the rule needs to be amended. if you want to protect the QB, thats fine. make it so he has to not be involved in the play. to allow him to still try to tackle the defender while protecting him is asking for trouble. 

 

 

I get what you're saying and I'm responding by saying the rules already account for it. He is not protected and allowed to tackle at the same time. They say that he is protected unless he tries to become a defender (roughing the passer). Another rule says you can't blind side hit a guy (unnecessarily roughness). And in this case they cited the rule that has the blind side hit as part of it (unnecessary roughness). The problem is that they didn't say blind side hit when giving the explanation so we're left to assume (or guess) that it was a blind side hit that they saw.

 

Said another way, they didn't cite the rule about whether he was or wasn't a defender so debating what he was doing doesn't matter. They cited unnecessary roughness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry you are right. Can't believe I have never seen that call ...ever.

 

I really hate to put it this way, but you don't watch much NFL football.  People land in the endzone with just one knee all the time to score touchdowns.  It's just that it often isn't a play that draws much attention because its just so commonly known.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying and I'm responding by saying the rules already account for it. They say that he is protected unless he tries to become a defender (roughing the passer). Another rule says you can't blind side hit a guy (unnecessarily roughness). And in this case they cited the rule that has the blind side hit as part of it (unnecessary roughness). The problem is that they didn't say blind side hit when giving the explanation so we're left to assume (or guess) that it was a blind side hit that they saw.

 

 

ok, but youre still asking a defender in the heat of a play- made more chaotic by the fact that its a turnover and offensive players are now asked to become defenders- to say to himself 'ok, its the qb in front of me, so i'll just put my hands on him- or better yet, run in front of him so i can make sure i dont get flagged........

 

we already have defender complaining how they have to change the way theyve been taught to tackle since they were kids just so they dont make inadvertent contact with the players helmet.

 

ive heard b mitch, trevor matich, and smoot all come out in defense of this play (and none of them have any problems criticizing players). they dont like the rule either and all said exactly what im saying about amending the rule so the QB has to get out of the way. only cooley has said it might have been a cheap shot. 

 

if this block happens 20 yards from the play, i have no problem saying its cheap. 

 

the proximity of foles to the play - and him moving towards it- is what bothers me.

 

i think amending the rule to make it more clear cut would make it not only safer- which is what they are going for,  but also remove even the perception of ambiguity or confusion over it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

PASSER OUT OF THE PLAY

(7) 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.

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.

 

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.

 

They were.

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...