mannc
-
Posts
17,685 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by mannc
-
-
@NFLonFOXMike Pereira and Dean Blandino go over some of the most controversial plays in Week 6 of the NFL week - including t…
You can post as many links as you want from so-called experts, but it won't change the rule or the fact that it appeared very much to be an illegal hit and should have been flagged.
-
As anyone can tell from reading the rule, and as GoBills808 pointed out, Pereira has focused on the wrong issue. The fact that Rodgers was out of the pocket does not rob him of the other protections afforded a passer, including the stuffing the passer rule quoted above.
-
It has to do with your false assertion that he drove him into the ground in addition to the one step rule not being applicable outside of the pocket..
Read the rule: although the one-step rule does not apply outside the pocket, the QB retains all other protections afforded a passer, including the "stuffing the passer" rule, which I quoted above and which GoBills808 referred to.
If Barr didn't drive Rodgers into the ground or "land on him with all or most of his body weight" then how did Rodgers break his collar bone?
-
It has nothing to do with the one-step rule.One step rule does not apply outside of the pocket.
-
If a defender can't hit a QB within one step, then it's time to make it touch football.
Yeah, it's obviously a game for sissies.
Here's an excerpt from the actual NFL roughing the passer rule (as opposed to what you posted earlier):
"Because the act of passing often puts the quarterback (or any other player attempting a pass) in a position where he is particularly vulnerable to injury, special rules against roughing the passer apply. The Referee has principal responsibility for enforcing these rules. Any physical acts against a player who is in a passing posture (i.e. before, during, or after a pass) which, in the Referee’s judgment, are unwarranted by the circumstances of the play will be called as fouls. The Referee will be guided by the following principles:
A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball, even if the rusher makes his initial contact with the passer within the one-step limitation provided for in (a) above. When tackling a passer who is in a defenseless posture (e.g., during or just after throwing a pass), a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down and land on top of him with all or most of the defender’s weight. Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap up the passer with the defensive player’s arms and not land on the passer with all or most of his body weight.
...
When the passer goes outside the pocket area and either continues moving with the ball (without attempting to advance the ball as a runner) or throws while on the run, he loses the protection of the one-step rule provided for in (a) above, and the protection against a low hit provided for in (e) above, but he remains covered by all the other special protections afforded to a passer in the pocket (b, c, d, and f), as well as the regular unnecessary roughness rules applicable to all player positions. If the passer stops behind the line and clearly establishes a passing posture, he will then be covered by all of the special protections for passers.
Note 1: When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer."
(Emphasis added.)
What the above illustrates is: (1) it is a judgment call on the part of the official, who may penalize any contact that isn't "warranted under the circumstances", (2) after the QB throws the ball, the defender does not get to drive him into the ground and land on him (like Barr did to Rodgers), and (3) when in doubt, the referee "should always call roughing the passer". Based on these principals, you're bald assertion that Barr's hit on Rodgers was definitely a legal hit under the existing NFL rules is completely unfounded. In fact, under these principals, especially the last one, it definitely should have been called roughing the passer. Whether Barr gets fined/suspended is another matter, but I believe he should be. What he did appears to have been a calculated attempt to injure another player, whose injury (not coincidentally) significantly increases the Vikings chances of making the playoffs.
-
Let's be clear: You did not post the rule. You posted some guy's summary of the rule. Post the actual rule and then tell me why what Barr did was not "stuffing the passer" and hence illegal under subpart (2) of the rule.Right. You read his mind and determined that Barr attempted to injure Rodgers. The referee didn't and that's the right call.
As for the play-through aspect, the distinction is that it must be an intentional act to unnecessarily drive the quarterback to the ground or land on him. Therefore, the referee will favor the defender if the contact is what is normally part of a conventional tackle by two players at full speed and absent any deliberate act to stuff the quarterback.
In addition, Rodgers is protected by the standard unnecessary roughness calls afforded to any runner. He is also considered in a defenseless posture upon releasing the pass, but that protection is only for forcible blows to the head or neck area, which do not apply here.
-
It's not a fact, no matter how many times you or the league says it. It's a judgment call. In my opinion, it should have been flagged and I explained why, in the context of the rule.There was no flag on the play and there shouldn't have been per NFL rules. Those are the facts. Despite your vociferous objection, you remain incorrect.
-
Posting the rule is not the same as explaining how it applies to a certain set of facts.Nothing to back it up? I posted the rule in the OP of this thread. Not my fault you haven't read it.
-
Go watch the replay and show me where Barr lets up. He doesn't.I don't believe he intended (nor did he) "drive rodgers to the ground". He clearly let up, and yes he landed on rodgers, but that is definitely a clean play. No question.
-
You're the one who made (and keeps repeating) a statement, with nothing to back it up. In this world, we infer intent all the time from people's actions. Well after Rodgers threw the pass, Barr, who could easily have pulled up, tackled Rodgers (who was totally defenseless) and drove his shoulder into the ground with all of his body force. If it was not roughing the passer, it was clearly unnecessary roughness.Blah blah blah. Still not an illegal hit and since when can you get into a defenders mind to determine intent. Type it was illegal 100 times if you like. You'l still be wrong.
-
Sorry, not that simple. It was an intentional act to drive the QB into the ground and injure him, well after the ball was away. Hence, illegal. Compare it to the two garbage roughing the passer calls in last night's game, where incidental contact, with no intent to injure (or even any real possibility of injury) were flagged.No. I don't because NFL rules say you are wrong.
-
Actually, it was a 100% illegal hit.Incorrect per NFL rules. It was a 100% legal hit.
See how that works?
-
Looked like a definite incomplete in real time. SloMo made it look closer.I thought that could have easily been called a fumble, 2 steps plus a turn up field, and the call was a fumble. Eh, the only thing I know is I don't know what a catch is.
-
Has to be Kupp. Curtis Samuel had a few nice plays Thursday...i would say so. Who has been the best one? Cooper Kupp?
Mike Williams had a nice catch yesterday for LAC. First game he's even been active though.
-
WR class pretty disappointing so far, eh?i asked that earlier and was told he had a hammy. Seriously I've had him on my fantasy bench this whole time thinking he would play at some point. Just assumed it was that ankle injury he came in with. Must be a pretty bad tear because if he's played at all it was very early on.
-
What happened to the WR from W Michigan? Didn't he get drafted by TEN? Davis?
-
How is that roughing the passer, but not what Barr did to Rodgers?
-
Still more credible than the White House colluding with Russia.
Yeah, no evidence of that!
-
In your last sentence, which you omit here, you say there is "zero" merit to Kaep's grievance.I never wrote that i did, here is my quote, " has zero merit unless the NFL really did collude.", note the term unless. But common sense suggests to me they most likely didnt collude.
-
Roy, you truly have no idea whether the owners colluded, so you don't have a clue whether Kaep's grievance has merit. I'll admit, I don't either, but the idea that the owners did collude is not as improbable as many seem to think. They do have a history of it..,1) As I already stated, read some lawsuits and the wild things alleged
2) As stated above there is no such thing as a right to have a job in the NFL
Believe what you want but this lawsuit, besides the media blowing it wildly out of proportion has zero merit unless the NFL really did collude. Gonna be really tough to prove since the Ravens wanted to sign him until Cap "sweetheart" compared the owner to a slave owner,
Now please dont come back and tell me the Ravens violated Cap's girlfriends first amendment rights because they didnt sign him. Actually that lawsuit would have as much merit as does Cap, as in zero.
-
Well, if the President of the United States orchestrated a campaign to prevent owners from hiring him because of his expression of his political views, then yes, he has had his First Amendment rights infringed. That's one of the allegations in the grievance.As I stated prior, there is absolutely no way CK had his first amendment rights infringed, zip zero zilch. Did anyone stop him from kneeling? Answer is a simple no. And has has been beat to death already why he isnt on a team is not relevant, the only relevance is if teams colluded. CK has first amendment rights do and and say what he wants...there is no right to get a job in the NFL..
-
You have absolutely no idea whether or not this is true.it was individual business decisions made by private citizens owning said business. not rocket science.
-
Wrong. This topic is covered above. Kaepernick is alleging that the owners have colluded against him "in retaliation for [his] leadership and advocacy for equality and social justice ...". He also alleges that the owners "have retaliated against [him] in response to coercion and calculated coordination from the Executive Branch of the United States government." I suspect he may try to show that this alleged state action directly brings the First Amendment into play. Interesting...And that is actually not the basis of his grievance, nor is it even close to the basis of his grievance. His position is that the NFL owners are colluding against him. Whether it's over his "stance", style of play, general attitude, or haircut is immaterial. The only question is whether there was collusion.
-
Hence, my use of the word "perceived".To characterize the totality of the behavior people find offensive as a stance against racial injustice is beyond disingenuous. That's like saying Ray Rice is out for standing up to his wife.
Controversial Calls from Week 6: NYJ TD and Rodgers Hit
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by mannc
Pereira has already demonstrated that he doesn't know the rule, so I don't put much stock in his opinion. The video clip you posted also demonstrates this.