JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted October 8, 2019 Author Share Posted October 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said: I think blocked is the problem people have with this. The correct call was made and that is exactly how it should be called. When they talk talk about being blocked into the QBs legs - they are talking about 2 players engaged with one another and the O-line either driving or forcing the defender into the QBs legs. They are not talking about that type of chip block because the guy blocking is not the pushing or moving him toward the QB. Milano blitzed with recklessness straight at the QB. The RB chipped and caught him low, but it was all of Milano’s momentum that forced the contact. It was not dirty and I would not expect it to be fined other than the standard roughing fine, but it was still the correct call. The defender has some responsibility over keeping themselves in control and in this case he was out of control - got flipped - and tried to continue on - which led to the contact - correct call. It is also a penalty (as was seen and correctly called in another game) if you hit and try to sack the QB and the hit starts around the waist - if you slide down and end up below the knees. Sometimes it sucks, but it makes a big difference when these are called. If that were true, they would have used different verbs--e.g. pushed, etc. The fact that they didn't means that is not what they meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said: I think blocked is the problem people have with this. The correct call was made and that is exactly how it should be called. When they talk talk about being blocked into the QBs legs - they are talking about 2 players engaged with one another and the O-line either driving or forcing the defender into the QBs legs. They are not talking about that type of chip block because the guy blocking is not the pushing or moving him toward the QB. Milano blitzed with recklessness straight at the QB. The RB chipped and caught him low, but it was all of Milano’s momentum that forced the contact. It was not dirty and I would not expect it to be fined other than the standard roughing fine, but it was still the correct call. The defender has some responsibility over keeping themselves in control and in this case he was out of control - got flipped - and tried to continue on - which led to the contact - correct call. It is also a penalty (as was seen and correctly called in another game) if you hit and try to sack the QB and the hit starts around the waist - if you slide down and end up below the knees. Sometimes it sucks, but it makes a big difference when these are called. Yeah, this is my exact stance too. So not sure if you were agreeing with me or thought I meant something else, but I fully agree with your post and its my exact opinion as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted October 8, 2019 Author Share Posted October 8, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: Yeah, this is my exact stance too. So not sure if you were agreeing with me or thought I meant something else, but I fully agree with your post and its my exact opinion as well. The problem, Alpha, is you think the work "block" means "push." That is not accurate. If the NFL had meant for the term block to encompass pushing the defender into the QB, they would have used the term "push." The fact that they didn't means they intended something else. Edited October 8, 2019 by JoshAllenHasBigHands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said: They are not talking about that type of chip block because the guy blocking is not the pushing or moving him toward the QB. Milano blitzed with recklessness straight at the QB. The RB chipped and caught him low, but it was all of Milano’s momentum that forced the contact. Instead of requiring defenders to blitz slowly and not directly at the QB, how about requiring blockers behind the LOS to stay upright? I think this makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: If that were true, they would have used different verbs--e.g. pushed, etc. The fact that they didn't means that is not what they meant. Not true for the NFL. "Blocked into" as it has always been used with kicking, means "engaged and pushed into". There are no lawyers on the field arguing semantics (luckily) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted October 8, 2019 Author Share Posted October 8, 2019 1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said: Not true for the NFL. "Blocked into" as it has always been used with kicking, means "engaged and pushed into". There are no lawyers on the field arguing semantics (luckily) Howevvvvver, what you are really talking about is that "engaged and pushed into" is 99% of the examples of being "blocked into." That does not mean that one equals the other. That doesn't preclude that "blocked into" includes other distinct scenarios (such as the Milano hit). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuncha Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, May Day 10 said: The "encroachment" call in the red zone made me a bit more furious to be honest. Yea the "encroachment" on Murphy when two guys were moving on the Tenn line. Total BS. Too many horrible calls in a tight defensive game. Edited October 8, 2019 by Azucho98 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 Just another NFL "judgement call" that went against us. Some do, some don't. You can probably call something on every play. So many rules are subject to interpretation by the ref, this is one of them. Baby Huey was certainly over officious that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: If that were true, they would have used different verbs--e.g. pushed, etc. The fact that they didn't means that is not what they meant. You keep arguing this, and I get it in a real world legal sense. But that just isnt true for the NFL. They have their own Federal laws. Their own economy. And their own language. "Blocked into" has always meant "engaged and pushed into". 3 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: Howevvvvver, what you are really talking about is that "engaged and pushed into" is 99% of the examples of being "blocked into." That does not mean that one equals the other. That doesn't preclude that "blocked into" includes other distinct scenarios (such as the Milano hit). Please understand, you arent arguing against me. I'm just relaying how the NFL perceives it. As evidenced by the calls they have made or havent made. That said, I gotta tap out of this. Managed to kill my afternoon though! Go Bills! Edited October 8, 2019 by DrDawkinstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted October 8, 2019 Author Share Posted October 8, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said: You keep arguing this, and I get it in a real world legal sense. But that just isnt true for the NFL. They have their own Federal laws. Their own economy. And their own language. "Blocked into" has always meant "engaged and pushed into". Maybe, but I can tell you those rules are written by lawyers. People like me that pick apart the words being used. For example, "strict liability" is a legal term. But I gotta run, and I'm gonna try to stay off here until after the bye. But hey, Go Bills! Edited October 8, 2019 by JoshAllenHasBigHands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 38 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: When the blocker initiated contact with Milano, he was blocked into the quarterback. You are saying "forcibly block Milano." That is not what the rule says. By its terms, the rule is saying where a block causes the rusher to make contact, it is not a penalty. Therefore, your first premise is incorrect. Since the block caused the contact, Milano was indeed blocked into Mariotta. Moving to three, he did not hav an opportunity to avoid contact. The problem with the “literal” interpretation of an NFL rule book is that we are not always privy to what they show them as specific examples of fouls and not fouls and why they are called that way. I have seen several times them bring in the “rules experts” and they talk about the rules and how the NFL has bunches of videos of acceptable and not acceptable plays to help guide the Refs. This is one that they talk about a couple of times a year and it always revolves around definition and explanation. Technically Milano is not blocked into the QB because the blocking player is moving away from the QB and therefore his contact and movement would not move Milano into the QB. The momentum and speed of Milano is what causes the contact. Yes it would not occur if the guy did not cut him, but the action of the cut is independent of the outcome. Unfortunately as a lawyer- you are looking at it as a hard and fast rule, but the NFL uses previous plays to guide the refs to better understand the current interpretation of the rules and that can be fluid to some degree. They do not want guys lunging wildly or diving over piles and taking out planted QBs - so the rules are interpreted to ensure that is not the case. They place a ton of emphasis on the defensive player being in control of themselves and maintaining body awareness. It sometimes leads to near impossible things that defenders must do, but the QB should be protected as much as possible - just as defenseless receivers should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 6 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said: It wasnt a trigger word (unless it is for you), it was a description, myself included. What we think is "common sense" isnt always so clear to folks with other perspectives. That's exactly how you intended it. Simply saying "you're just being a homer" is not a good argument. I've offered a better solution, in my opinion. Not just complaining that the Bills got a foul called against them. And not just saying "it is what it is." They can and should improve this rule, as well as the WR pick play rule. I watch all the games and the refs are getting these wrong across the league. The point of the rule book is to prevent one side from having an unfair advantage. They're often losing sight of that and not using common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said: There are no lawyers on the field arguing semantics (luckily) Good thing Ed Hochuli retired... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 11 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: Yeah, this is my exact stance too. So not sure if you were agreeing with me or thought I meant something else, but I fully agree with your post and its my exact opinion as well. No you were exactly right it is just the reason others are disagreeing- the word blocked is causing issues. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 1 minute ago, LeGOATski said: That's exactly how you intended it. Simply saying "you're just being a homer" is not a good argument. I've offered a better solution, in my opinion. Not just complaining that the Bills got a foul called against them. And not just saying "it is what it is." They can and should improve this rule, as well as the WR pick play rule. I watch all the games and the refs are getting these wrong across the league. The point of the rule book is to prevent one side from having an unfair advantage. They're often losing sight of that and not using common sense. Dude, I said OUR homer common sense. Dont take it so personally. Dang, it really DID trigger you. I like your solution. Email Roger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said: Yes it would not occur if the guy did not cut him, but the action of the cut is independent of the outcome. The outcome is dependent on how the blocker acts. The effect on the QB becomes more unpredictable the closer the action is to the QB. So, adjusting the rule to account for the action and proximity to the QB makes perfect sense. 5 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said: Dude, I said OUR homer common sense. Dont take it so personally. Dang, it really DID trigger you. I like your solution. Email Roger. You just don't like that I called your tactic lazy and you have no counter-argument. It's not personal, it's just about winning the debate. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 19 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: If that were true, they would have used different verbs--e.g. pushed, etc. The fact that they didn't means that is not what they meant. The rule was written long ago - which is why they create videos to show the refs every off season and throughout the season how they want these called. The NFL rulebook ends up being super complicated because most rules were written and implemented when blocking was blocking not guys flying through and getting upended. They do do not go through and rewrite every rule as things get updated - they amend some, but use more teaching guides to show what they want and do not want. If you go go through the rule book as a lawyer- you will find tons of things that contradict each other or you can argue against, but in the end they want to protect he guy - they are calling that a foul most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ManRaid Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I reluctantly have to agree here. Reluctantly? Aw dang I thought we were friends... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said: If you go go through the rule book as a lawyer- you will find tons of things that contradict each other or you can argue against, but in the end they want to protect he guy - they are calling that a foul most of the time. Calling this a foul on the defender doesn't protect anyone. That's the problem. This isn't going to prevent blitzing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfanAZ Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 Since the Refs missed Phillips face mask on Mariota while sacking him then it makes up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts