peterpan Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/8/9693006/ndamukong-suh-should-have-had-a-sack-the-bills-scored-a-touchdown Do people really think Taylor should have been called down here? Progress was not stopped. Suh couldn't have tackled him or "slammed him to the ground" because he had him around the "horse collar" So why are people thinking this should have been a sack? Also, why the Dolphins didn't decline the holding penalty and go to 4th down - thats the reason the Bills had another 3rd down to throw a TD on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thr_wedge Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 To answer your second question, They didn't want Carpenter to kick a FG from the Miami 34.. Score was 19-14, and 3 points would have made it 22-14 so a full 1 possession game. Dolphins figured a 3rd and 14 would not result in a TD. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/8/9693006/ndamukong-suh-should-have-had-a-sack-the-bills-scored-a-touchdown Do people really think Taylor should have been called down here? Progress was not stopped. Suh couldn't have tackled him or "slammed him to the ground" because he had him around the "horse collar" So why are people thinking this should have been a sack? Also, why the Dolphins didn't decline the holding penalty and go to 4th down - thats the reason the Bills had another 3rd down to throw a TD on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 @sportingnews "I'm gonna slam the f— out of him next time." So... Ndamukong Suh disagreed with the refs. http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4660559-ndamukong-suh-referees-officials-penalty-call-tyrod-taylor-dolphins-bills? Suh threatened to do bodily harm next time. He had a good point IMO as the play should have been ruled a sack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) hopefully Suh saves some of that rage for the next time they play NE* Fall on those dinky little WR Suh! Edited November 9, 2015 by TheFunPolice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 The league is protecting the qb's so right or wrong that's the call. There is no horse collar ever...he would have been called for the horse collar if he sacked him anyways. Suh needs to not horse collar tackle him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Good. Slam Brady. Get banned from the NFL as a result. Brady gets slammed (not hoping for an injury, but a good a** kicking); and that idiot Shu gets tossed out. Dirty player. In other news, speaking of dirty, looks like good ol Greggo is paying dirty in St. Louis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Anyone that thinks they'll call that play dead is a total moron. Total and complete moron. They call a QB down when he's in the grasp and controlled. Bottom line: if you can throw the ball away, you aren't in the grasp and controlled. Suh is an idiot, and Miami got what they deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/8/9693006/ndamukong-suh-should-have-had-a-sack-the-bills-scored-a-touchdown Do people really think Taylor should have been called down here? Progress was not stopped. Suh couldn't have tackled him or "slammed him to the ground" because he had him around the "horse collar" So why are people thinking this should have been a sack? Also, why the Dolphins didn't decline the holding penalty and go to 4th down - thats the reason the Bills had another 3rd down to throw a TD on. Absolutely not; Suh never had control of Taylor. The spin around and throw happened in a fraction of a second. In the grasp is for when you have a guy wrapped up but he's still upright. Suh threatened to do bodily harm next time. He had a good point IMO as the play should have been ruled a sack. He has a good point because he threatened bodily harm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Absolutely not; Suh never had control of Taylor. The spin around and throw happened in a fraction of a second. In the grasp is for when you have a guy wrapped up but he's still upright. He has a good point because he threatened bodily harm? No. He had a good point because he had Taylor wrapped up and completely under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I don't think it was a sack in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 No. He had a good point because he had Taylor wrapped up and completely under control. Did you see the video? He wasn't anywhere near having him wrapped up nor did he have Taylor under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Did you see the video? He wasn't anywhere near having him wrapped up nor did he have Taylor under control. IMO he did. If the NFL wants to protect QBs so badly they need to blow the whistle on plays like that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 IMO he did. If the NFL wants to protect QBs so badly they need to blow the whistle on plays like that one. Here's my take: if that's Russell Wilson, would the officials blow that dead? IMO, not a chance they would, because he makes plays spinning out of tackles like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EDinRTP Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Turning point of the game. Should have been a sack and punt. Instead, no call and touchdown on next play. Can't stand the Dolphins, but it Suh had tossed him to the ground, he would have been penalized and probably fined based on his past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Here's my take: if that's Russell Wilson, would the officials blow that dead? IMO, not a chance they would, because he makes plays spinning out of tackles like that. You'd be among the 1st to B word and whine about Suh being dirty if he slams Tyrod and lands on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I think the right call was made, but I can see the issue from Suh's perspective. IMO, he did not have control of him. He had a good grip, but TT never stopped moving and was spinning/pulling away. Suh definitely let up, whether that was because he was worried about the horse collar or another personal foul is hard to say. The NFL has gotten so out of control on these types of calls it makes it almost impossible for a defensive player to make the right the call in the heat of the play. I actually commend Suh for trying to make the right call for his team (can you imagine Hughes doing that??), but he made a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/8/9693006/ndamukong-suh-should-have-had-a-sack-the-bills-scored-a-touchdown Do people really think Taylor should have been called down here? Progress was not stopped. Suh couldn't have tackled him or "slammed him to the ground" because he had him around the "horse collar" So why are people thinking this should have been a sack? Also, why the Dolphins didn't decline the holding penalty and go to 4th down - thats the reason the Bills had another 3rd down to throw a TD on. I have seen much worse, but could have went either way. I don't for one second believe Suh let up because he thought they would blow the whistle, he simply could not get a good grasp of TT. I was planning on watching the kick from the tunnel and and running to the rest room after the kick. When they declined a ran back to my seat thinking "this could be good"...I really can't believe they took that penalty. I understand they were trying to take them out of FG range, but with all the iffy defensive penalties this season, i would have took my chances on a 51 yard FG... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmur66 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) The NFL doesn't like defense anymore. Suh coulda killed him and obviously eased up to avoid a penalty. Edited November 9, 2015 by bmur66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/8/9693006/ndamukong-suh-should-have-had-a-sack-the-bills-scored-a-touchdown Do people really think Taylor should have been called down here? Progress was not stopped. Suh couldn't have tackled him or "slammed him to the ground" because he had him around the "horse collar" So why are people thinking this should have been a sack? Also, why the Dolphins didn't decline the holding penalty and go to 4th down - thats the reason the Bills had another 3rd down to throw a TD on. The in the grasp rule basically doesn't exist anymore -- it led to controversy and never produced the results for which it was intended (keeping the qb upright). So no, he shouldn't have been called down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I have seen much worse, but could have went either way. I don't for one second believe Suh let up because he thought they would blow the whistle, he simply could not get a good grasp of TT. It's impossible to know for sure, but it sure looked like he let up at the end. The problem for him is that he's not the ref. Just because he let up doesn't automatically mean TT wouldn't have been able to get loose and get rid of the ball if he hadn't let up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsfan1972 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Got lucky on that play and the WIlliams TD could have been called a touchback (stupid rule in anycase). Can't complain about the reffing for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) Anyone that thinks they'll call that play dead is a total moron. Total and complete moron. They call a QB down when he's in the grasp and controlled. Bottom line: if you can throw the ball away, you aren't in the grasp and controlled. Suh is an idiot, and Miami got what they deserved. Come on man you are better than that. Because you aren't pinning his arm and he can throw it side armed or underhand like TT did you aren't in the grasp or controlled? Suh has a point, TT was absolutely controlled and his forward progress was stopped. If the league is going to protect the QB, and they should, then they need to call in the grasp as well and not let QB's just heave it any way they can to get out of a sack. Then right after Suh was pissed (and rightfully so) after the non call on the obvious hold on the Watkins TD. With his anger issues I'm not surprised he had an outburst. Mildly surprised he didn't stomp on somebody. The in the grasp rule basically doesn't exist anymore -- it led to controversy and never produced the results for which it was intended (keeping the qb upright). So no, he shouldn't have been called down. Except for the fact that it does. That protects the QB as well from a lineman holding the QB up while another drills him. Edited November 9, 2015 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Come on man you are better than that. Because you aren't pinning his arm and he can throw it side armed or underhand like TT did you aren't in the grasp or controlled? Suh has a point, TT was absolutely controlled and his forward progress was stopped. If the league is going to protect the QB, and they should, then they need to call in the grasp as well and not let QB's just heave it any way they can to get out of a sack. Then right after Suh was pissed (and rightfully so) after the non call on the obvious hold on the Watkins TD. With his anger issues I'm not surprised he had an outburst. Mildly surprised he didn't stomp on somebody. Except for the fact that it does. That protects the QB as well from a lineman holding the QB up while another drills him. Bizarrely, I pay attention to this (a failing, I know), and it is never called. It's a vestigial rule that was already severely weakened in 1991. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Bizarrely, I pay attention to this (a failing, I know), and it is never called. It's a vestigial rule that was already severely weakened in 1991. Could very well be. I certainly wouldn't want to play D in todays NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davspo Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Clearly it was a horse collar that for some reason was not called. I did like what Tyrod did. He showed good football knowledge by realizing he was outside the tackles and throwing the ball to avoid a sack. That's what good players do. Kudos to TT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I have seen much worse, but could have went either way. I don't for one second believe Suh let up because he thought they would blow the whistle, he simply could not get a good grasp of TT. Precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Anyone that thinks they'll call that play dead is a total moron. Total and complete moron. They call a QB down when he's in the grasp and controlled. Bottom line: if you can throw the ball away, you aren't in the grasp and controlled. Suh is an idiot, and Miami got what they deserved. just so you are aware Insulting people and calling names can get you 10 days on suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Come on man you are better than that. Because you aren't pinning his arm and he can throw it side armed or underhand like TT did you aren't in the grasp or controlled? Suh has a point, TT was absolutely controlled and his forward progress was stopped. If the league is going to protect the QB, and they should, then they need to call in the grasp as well and not let QB's just heave it any way they can to get out of a sack. Then right after Suh was pissed (and rightfully so) after the non call on the obvious hold on the Watkins TD. With his anger issues I'm not surprised he had an outburst. Mildly surprised he didn't stomp on somebody. Except for the fact that it does. That protects the QB as well from a lineman holding the QB up while another drills him. Yes, that's correct. If a player isn't tackled, and isn't controlled, then he's not in the grasp according to the rules. Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9, Item (h): "The Referee must blow the play dead as soon as the passer is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler behind the line, and the passer’s safety is in jeopardy." It's a judgement call. You tell me at what point all 3 of those criteria (in the grasp, under control, and in jeopardy) are met: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) I must have not clicked submit earlier or is this a dup thread? or ..... It was a sack. Had Suh been typical Suh then Tyrod would have been thrown to the ground and stomped on. Suh gave that inch of protecting the QB and Tyrod took a foot. Posted Today, 10:14 AM Would you have preferred that Suh have yanked him to the ground and stomped on him instead of showing restraint? This is what happens when you coddle QB's. Give them an inch of extra protection and they take a foot. Edited November 9, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 just so you are aware Insulting people and calling names can get you 10 days on suspension. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 You'd be among the 1st to B word and whine about Suh being dirty if he slams Tyrod and lands on him. Suh created a false dichotomy and you are falling for it. Suh had the option of attempting to finish the play with a normal, legal tackle. In this case it would have been difficult because Suh would've had to release his grip on Taylor's collar, but that is Suh's own damn fault for grabbing the collar in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Yes, that's correct. If a player isn't tackled, and isn't controlled, then he's not in the grasp according to the rules. Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9, Item (h): "The Referee must blow the play dead as soon as the passer is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler behind the line, and the passer’s safety is in jeopardy." It's a judgement call. You tell me at what point all 3 of those criteria (in the grasp, under control, and in jeopardy) are met: Again, it is never called, and if the QB is upright and able to throw it, the call isn't even on the ref's radar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thanks. Learn from my mistake (and mistaken intent). I think the other party is MIA again. Has MetzLives been posting? Again, it is never called, and if the QB is upright and able to throw it, the call isn't even on the ref's radar. Not to bring up the past but .... didn't EJ get a flag when going to a knee on a similar avoid the sack play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Again, it is never called, and if the QB is upright and able to throw it, the call isn't even on the ref's radar. Exactly. And to make my comments clear: that's what I was trying to say when I indicated that anyone that thinks that play is getting called as "in the grasp" is mistaken. Maybe it gets called if it's Brady or Manning or someone totally immobile. There's zero chance it's called with Kaep or Wilson or Tyrod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not at the table Karlos Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Suh threatened to do bodily harm next time. He had a good point IMO as the play should have been ruled a sack. "imma slam the F outta him next time"- Donkeykong Sue over the referee mic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbalaya Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I saw at least one play where we tried to block Suh one on one with John Miller. Suh ate him alive. Didn't make any sense to leave a rookie alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah John Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Suh was trying to wrap Taylor up but couldn't do it. The only way he could have tackled Taylor on that play was to make an illegal tackle involving a horse collar. He'd have hurt his team with a penalty and probably been fined. So he didn't make that illegal tackle. He probably also would have injured Taylor. Suh did the right thing. From a Dolphins perspective, it would have been better if he'd secured a solid grip on Taylor and made a standard, no-fuss sack. But Taylor was too illusive. It isn't Suh's fault that Grimes is a terrible player and Watkins burned him like day-old toast on the next play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Yes, that's correct. If a player isn't tackled, and isn't controlled, then he's not in the grasp according to the rules. Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9, Item (h): "The Referee must blow the play dead as soon as the passer is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler behind the line, and the passer’s safety is in jeopardy." It's a judgement call. You tell me at what point all 3 of those criteria (in the grasp, under control, and in jeopardy) are met: As soon as TT was spun around and moving backwards. No more forward progress, Suh clearly had TT in his grasp and under control, and TT was in jeopardy because Suh could have body slammed TT like a rag doll on the spin and we would be stuck with EJ on Thursday. I mean no offense to you, but if the same play happened and Mario had hold of Tanney instead of Suh and TT, you and many many others would be crying foul and how much the refs hate the Bills. It isn't Suh's fault that Grimes is a terrible player and Watkins burned him like day-old toast on the next play. No, it was the refs for blowing the hold non call. But it was a great pass and even greater catch (just shouldn't have counted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 @YardsPerPass Suh definitely had a point here... if he slams him down it is 15 yards, if you want to protect QBs blow the whistle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badassgixxer05 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 A mobile qb outside the pocket has to be given every right to break a tackle or make a play.. This isnt 2 hand touch. A tackle has to be a tackle and Suh failed. Progress was not stopped as he was still moving laterally. Sure if he slams him off his head it is a pentalty for Unnecessary roughness, but that is Suh's job to be in the right position to make a legal tackle, in this case he wasnt and he got beat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts