mannc Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 1. -'As soon as he released the ball' doesn't really mean anything. The rule says : '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 (1) above' 2. -'Outside the pocket' doesn't take away the subsection 2 protections afforded passers, which I quoted above. 3. -'On the run': doesn't really have any bearing here. 4. -'Didn't drive him into the ground at all'...I guess that's a judgement call, but Barr's pretty clearly in violation of '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 or cradle the passer with the defensive player’s arms.' It's very clear to me this was roughing the passer. Absolutely correct. And don't forget the other important part of the rule: When in doubt, the referee should be call roughing the passer. Neither 26, nor Blandino/Pereira mention that part of the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 That's the main issue for me, and it really looks like an obvious violation in that Barr clearly 'drove him down after he had thrown the ball' and also 'landed on top of him with all or most of his weight'...right? This is why it should have been a penalty. Barr continued so he would land on top of Rodgers and drove him into the ground. That was unnecessary and deliberate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 If your standard for a missed roughing the passer call is 'no subsequent fine or suspension', I can see why this conversation isn't going anywhere. Finishing a tackle isn't the same thing as 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Finishing a tackle isn't the same thing as 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. He was not "finishing a tackle". Rodgers did not have the ball, and had not had it for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Absolutely correct. And don't forget the other important part of the rule: When in doubt, the referee should be call roughing the passer. Neither 26, nor Blandino/Pereira mention that part of the rule. That's just the clincher. I agree, but I think it's roughing regardless. You're very right, though, in that the 'when in doubt' clause should be invoked, especially when we can't agree on whether or not 'driving the QB' or 'landing (on top of the QB with) all or most of the defender's weight' came into play. Again, pretty obvious roughing call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 He was not "finishing a tackle". Rodgers did not have the ball, and had not had it for some time. How many steps did Barr take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 This is why it should have been a penalty. Barr continued so he would land on top of Rodgers and drove him into the ground. That was unnecessary and deliberate. Correct. How many steps did Barr take? Not relevant. 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 (1) above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 If I'm reading it right, you can't tackle the passer in the manner Barr did regardless of whether the passer is in or out of the pocket, or even if he initiated contact DURING a throw' I think that's right, especially since the rule expressly applies even when the "one step rule" is complied with, but the key is whether the action was "uneccessary". In this case, when the ball was clearly away, it was unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 That's just the clincher. I agree, but I think it's roughing regardless. You're very right, though, in that the 'when in doubt' clause should be invoked, especially when we can't agree on whether or not 'driving the QB' or 'landing (on top of the QB with) all or most of the defender's weight' came into play. Again, pretty obvious roughing call. If you're correct (you aren't) there should be an upcoming fine or suspension for Barr for unnecessary roughness as there often is even if a player isn't penalized during a game. Correct. Not relevant. 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 (1) above. Exactly what DID NOT happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 If you're correct (you aren't) there should be an upcoming fine or suspension for Barr for unnecessary roughness as there often is even if a player isn't penalized during a game. Maybe. Maybe not. If that's the standard, can you quote me the rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 That's just the clincher. I agree, but I think it's roughing regardless. You're very right, though, in that the 'when in doubt' clause should be invoked, especially when we can't agree on whether or not 'driving the QB' or 'landing (on top of the QB with) all or most of the defender's weight' came into play. Again, pretty obvious roughing call. One thing this episode shows is that we can safely ignore what the talking heads and former referees say to try to convince us that the refs on the field made the right call (or no-call). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 If you're correct (you aren't) there should be an upcoming fine or suspension for Barr for unnecessary roughness as there often is even if a player isn't penalized during a game. Exactly what DID NOT happen. And if we can't agree on what happened, because of a difference in judgement, it should be called roughing on the clause mancc brought up. Really, really simple. If you're correct (you aren't) there should be an upcoming fine or suspension for Barr for unnecessary roughness as there often is even if a player isn't penalized during a game. Exactly what DID NOT happen. Sorry to quote again, but are you saying Barr did NOT 'drive him down after the passer had thrown the ball'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Can these refs see anything? This is not a clear fumble out of bounds. He clearly regained control and his left knee was down just before he hit he pylon and the ground(endzone) inside the pylon. This was a TD. The refs said he lost control again when he hit the ground therefore it was a fumble out of end zone. This is BS. I believe this was an improper judgement call on if he controlled the ball when he hit the ground to complete the play. (which by the way I have never heard of before except in cases of incomplete or complete passes)You can see him change the ball from his left hand to his right hand when he hits the ground. In my judgement that is not a fumble as the ball never came out and this is not a juggle. He clearly still controlled the ball throughout the process. Players change hands all the time and it is never considered out of his control or a fumble. NFL screwed this up big time. At the very least it is inconclusive so original TD call stands. All day except when you play the Cheats. Fact check for any fan and NFL........if this was ruled a TD there would be no one talking about any controversy at all. NO ONE. First bolded, did not see that in a picture (I did not see it live) so if that is the case then I agree Second bolded, I agree if that is what was said Also, on the Rodgers hit, I don't think he hit him unnecessarily. He was going for the tackle when Rodgers released, how is Barr supposed to stop trying to tackle him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 And if we can't agree on what happened, because of a difference in judgement, it should be called roughing on the clause mancc brought up. Really, really simple. Sorry to quote again, but are you saying Barr did NOT 'drive him down after the passer had thrown the ball'? That's right. He hit Rodgers and wrapped him up as he brought him to the ground. The was no deliberate driving Rodgers into the ground as described in the following: 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. Exactly why no flag was thrown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Also, on the Rodgers hit, I don't think he hit him unnecessarily. He was going for the tackle when Rodgers released, how is Barr supposed to stop trying to tackle him? According to the rule, he's supposed to do this: ' 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 or cradle the passer with the defensive player’s arms. That's right. He hit Rodgers and wrapped him up as he brought him to the ground. The was no deliberate driving Rodgers into the ground as described in the following: 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. Exactly why no flag was thrown. We can disagree about whether what Barr did qualifies as 'driving him down' (I think he did), but what about must not unnecessarily 'land on top of him with all or most of the defender's weight'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 According to the rule, he's supposed to do this: ' 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 or cradle the passer with the defensive player’s arms. Rodgers wasn't thrown down at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Rodgers wasn't thrown down at all. Then how did he end up on the ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 Then how did he end up on the ground? Tackled and wrapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) According to the rule, he's supposed to do this: ' 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 or cradle the passer with the defensive player’s arms. We can disagree about whether what Barr did qualifies as 'driving him down' (I think he did), but what about must not unnecessarily 'land on top of him with all or most of the defender's weight'? Is that even physically possible in this instance? Guy is running full speed at a QB who is known to run with the ball, goes in for the tackle to bring him down, and is somehow supposed to just let up without even knowing if he threw the ball? My point is I don't think he did anything that was unnecessary which would be why the rule you are stating doesn't apply Edited October 17, 2017 by Bray Wyatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Is that even physically possible in this instance? Guy is running full speed at a QB who is known to run with the ball, goes in for the tackle to bring him down, and is somehow supposed to just let up without even knowing if he threw the ball? If it's a QB, yes. They've been harping on this for at least 5 years now. I can see in this situation, you're playing the division leaders, younger guy trying to make a play...I get it. I totally do. But it was still roughing IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts