Defenseless Receiver????????????
enof
Go Boltage!! :O) Excel Ivey!!!!
badlands420
"enof" <en...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:43E2755BF64840F69EFA1B5A25B5C69B@enoflaptop...
So Fouts and Gumbel were doing the play-by-play on the LA version of the
Bolts game
Falcons are on offense and the receiver catches (I repeat CATCHES) the ball
and gets popped by who??
CROMARTIE . . .
- I was thinking that was great because that is a weakness of Cro's
Fouts is insisting that it is a hit on a a defenseless receiver
he watches the replay at least twice and sticks to his opinion
is he off his nut
or did the rules of how you can tackle the man with the ball change this
season
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said it two weeks ago and I'll say it again. Enforcement of this rule is
going to be a nightmare and a disaster. It's only a matter of time before it
decides a game.
UCLAN
> So Fouts and Gumbel were doing the play-by-play on the LA version of the
> Bolts game
Uh...what is/was the "LA version" of the game?
josh sullivan
He was watching a television broadcast of the game in the city of Los
Angeles. I suppose he was prefacing in the event that the "SD
version" of the game had different announcers.
The fact that they even considered that play a penalty shows that
there is potential for some heart-wrenching, game-changing, calls this
year on plays that historically have given the game its trademark of
toughness. It made me at once sick and saddened to think that a good
hit like that might no longer be allowed in the game.
ScottW
"josh sullivan" <cozm...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:5a80ac2f-d64d-4f47...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agreed, my loudest cheer came when they picked up the flag.
ScottW
Ben M. Schorr
> "josh sullivan" <cozmot...@juno.com> wrote in message
Yes, I agree. I have to say, and I say this as a coach who as
traditionally coached receivers and QBs (though I've done a couple of
stints as a defensive coach too) I don't care for a lot of the new
rules in the NFL game. I don't like that a QB can just ground the
ball if he gets outside the pocket.
I don't like the emphasis on "Helmet to Helmet" contact which is
sometimes taken too far. We always had a rule against
"spearing" (leading with the helmet) and I think THAT rule could be
applied to almost all of the most eggregious offenses. But it's
physically darned near impossible to tackle a player and not touch him
with your helmet. The neck, especially with a helmet on, just doesn't
bend far enough to let you get your head WAAAYYY back out of the way -
and you wouldn't want to anyhow, it's unsafe.
Yes, if a player leads with his helmet in an obvious effort to injure
an opponent then that should draw a flag. But a player making an
otherwise good tackle who happens to make contact with the helmet?
That's just football, fellas. Sorry if your $20 million QB gets a
widdle bruise but that's why they wear pads. Because they're going to
get hit from time to time.
I'm sort of o.k. with the "don't blindside guys above the shoulders"
rule. I understand the issue behind the rule and, honestly, it's a
better play to throw that block at chest level anyhow.
The "defenseless receiver" stuff was always covered by "Unnecessary
roughness" in the past. If the receiver didn't catch the ball,
defenders were expected to pull up, if they could, and not hit him.
Just like a pass rusher going after the QB. When the ball is away
you're supposed to try and pull up. If the ball is away, or the
receiver didn't catch the ball, and you still take two more steps and
then lay him out...yeah, you're going to draw a flag. But if you
arrive when the ball does, or a step later, and put an otherwise clean
hit on a receiver (or QB) then that's just how the game is played.
Pretty soon they're going to be flagging people for giving the QB
dirty looks.
-Coach-
badlands420
I don't like the emphasis on "Helmet to Helmet" contact which is
sometimes taken too far. We always had a rule against
"spearing" (leading with the helmet) and I think THAT rule could be
applied to almost all of the most eggregious offenses. But it's
physically darned near impossible to tackle a player and not touch him
with your helmet. The neck, especially with a helmet on, just doesn't
bend far enough to let you get your head WAAAYYY back out of the way -
and you wouldn't want to anyhow, it's unsafe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trouble with the helmet-to-helmet rule is that it only applies when an
offensive skill position player is on the receiving end and it happens in
the open field. On any short yardage run play, there are at least 10
helmet-to-helmet hits, including the one that brings down the ballcarrier.
How many times do we see a linebacker launch himself through the gap and
spear a running back short of the goal line? Invariably, the initial contact
is helmet-to-facemask, which makes it a personal foul by rule. But it's not
like it ever gets called, and a rule that has to be enforced selectively is
not a good rule.
Ben M. Schorr
Yes, that's certainly true. My complaint is more that sometimes they
throw the flag when there really wasn't any way the defender could
have avoided contact with his helmet and still made the tackle. The
helmet in that case didn't cause a safety issue and the defender
didn't act with any undue malicious intent. And yet they're
(sometimes) throwing the flag on it.
Maybe they should just have all the players wear belts with flags and
when you yank the guy's flag off he's down. <wink>
-Coach-
badlands420
Yes, that's certainly true. My complaint is more that sometimes they
throw the flag when there really wasn't any way the defender could
have avoided contact with his helmet and still made the tackle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It only gets better. Now we've got this other rule that says you can't land
on top of the quarterback after making a legal hit. Just saw it called for
the first time in tonight's Chicago-Denver game. Unreal.
Ben M. Schorr
I don't like that one either. I'm o.k. with the rule that says you
can't drive him into the turf unnecessarily, but just landing on him?
Please.
As a QB's coach I'd have been embarrassed to yell at an official "Hey,
that guy just landed on my QB when he sacked him!"
-Coach-
josh sullivan
>
> The "defenseless receiver" stuff was always covered by "Unnecessary
> roughness" in the past. If the receiver didn't catch the ball,
> defenders were expected to pull up, if they could, and not hit him.
> Just like a pass rusher going after the QB. When the ball is away
> you're supposed to try and pull up. If the ball is away, or the
> receiver didn't catch the ball, and you still take two more steps and
> then lay him out...yeah, you're going to draw a flag. But if you
> arrive when the ball does, or a step later, and put an otherwise clean
> hit on a receiver (or QB) then that's just how the game is played.
>
BINGO! Some of the QB protection rules of late I just shrugged my
shoulders at (no pun intended) but these new rules are a farce.
UCLAN
>>>So Fouts and Gumbel were doing the play-by-play on the LA version of the
>>>Bolts game
>>
>>Uh...what is/was the "LA version" of the game?
>
> He was watching a television broadcast of the game in the city of Los
> Angeles. I suppose he was prefacing in the event that the "SD
> version" of the game had different announcers.
He's *that* unfamiliar with CBS national broadcasts?
badlands420
I don't like that one either. I'm o.k. with the rule that says you
can't drive him into the turf unnecessarily, but just landing on him?
Please.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, because how are you supposed to wrap up and take down a quarterback
without landing on him? The guy never left his feet, didn't even wrap up.
Clean football all the way. If they're gonna start passing out first downs
and 15-yard penalties for something so innocuous and unavoidable, the very
integrity of the game is going to be compromised.
KG
The reason they do that, as always, is money.
At best, maybe half the teams in the league have starting QBs with
whom the team's fans are happy. If half those guys get hurt, it's bad
for ratings.
Remember when Tony Siragusa landed on Rich Gannon in that playoff
game? After Gannon went out, there wasn't any suspense left to the
game. There was no way the Raiders were coming back. Time to watch
something else. Bad for ratings.
Not defending the owners' decision, just explaining their thinking.
It's always about money with them.
Michael T
>
> But it's physically darned near impossible
> to tackle a player and not touch him
> with your helmet. The neck, especially
> with a helmet on, just doesn't bend far enough
> to let you get your head WAAAYYY back out of the way -
> and you wouldn't want to anyhow, it's unsafe.
>
Are you talking about the new "defenseless receiver" rule? Perhaps not.
My interpretation of this new rule is that a flag will only be thrown when
there is initial contact to the head of a defenseless receiver....whether it
is with the forearm, the shoulder pad or the helmet.
The word "initial" seems to be the key allowing for such things as hitting
the receiver in the chest, or shoulder, where it is followed by contact to
the head (or helmet) of the receiver. In this case there would be no
penalty.
As long as the officials understand that it is only an initial hit the
results in a penalty, I really don't see it as an ambiguous rule subject to
a flood of bad calls.
badlands420
> As long as the officials understand that it is only an initial hit the
> results in a penalty, I really don't see it as an ambiguous rule subject
> to a flood of bad calls.
Any ambiguous rule that depends on a judgement call by a back judge or field
judge is subject to a flood of bad calls. It's even worse with new rules,
because the officials have been put on notice by their supervisors that it's
a new point of emphasis and they're expected to call it every time. That
results, invariably, in flags being thrown that shouldn't and the referee
not picking them up when he should.
ScottW2
I'm having a much more difficult time investing 3 hours watching
football look like the NBA with teams running up and down the field,
scoring a lot, with officials air time second only to the moron
announcers
who seemingly want to keep the fans at a very low football IQ level.
I used to watch a lot of games. Now I find when it isn't the Chargers
my hand is reaching for the remote a lot.
The Bears used to be my NFC team but with Cutler there, they disgust
me.
ScottW
Michael T
news:WfLmm.185934$3m2....@newsfe06.iad...
>
>> As long as the officials understand that it is only an initial hit the
>> results in a penalty, I really don't see it as an ambiguous rule subject
>> to a flood of bad calls.
>
> rules, because the officials have been put on notice by their supervisors
> that it's a new point of emphasis and they're expected to call it every
> time. That results, invariably, in flags being thrown that shouldn't and
> the referee not picking them up when he should.
You could be right and this new "defenseless receiver" rule will prove to be
nightmarish for the officials. Only time will tell, right?
I am more optimistic that it will play itself out much like the tuck rule
when it was implemented. This was an example of another rule change that
resulted in much conjecture about it causing a bunch of bad calls.
Ben M. Schorr
Oh yes, of course. Has been for decades. I remember talking with
John Robinson when he was the coach of the Rams and asking him about
why NFL teams didn't use the option even though it was, at the time,
quite successful at the college level. He said "My team owner would
never let me run her $10 million QB at Lawrence Taylor."
I still don't like it, though. :)
-Coach-
Ben M. Schorr
Oh, sorry, I started to rant about all the new "safety" rules of the
last couple of years. Yes, my understanding of the "Defenseless
Receiver" rule specifically is the same as yours, though I'll admit I
haven't read the rule yet.
What concerns me is that if it's made a "point of emphasis" for
officials they're going to be looking for it and every time a receiver
gets hit NEAR the helmet the flags are going to come out. A lot of
the time when you see these big "late hit" or "helmet to helmet" calls
when I look at the replay it looks like a clean hit to me, often the
DB led with the shoulder but the ref thought the head was in there.
They just have to be really careful about trying to legislate every
little movement that happens on a football field. Nobody wants to
watch a game where after every tackle the ref has to explain why the
flags are out.
"Unpleasant roughness, #95 on the defense. He was being mean to that
other boy. 15 yards, automatic, first down."
-Coach-
Ben M. Schorr
> ="badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote in message
I don't like the "Tuck Rule" either. :-) Sorry, but if you have
possession of the football and you drop it, it's a fumble. I don't
care if you're trying to tuck it. If you're throwing the ball (arm
coming forward) that's an incomplete pass, I'm o.k. with that. But if
you're a QB who is not throwing it and you put it on the ground,
that's a fumble.
Refs love me. ;-)
-Coach-
none
>
> I don't like the "Tuck Rule" either. :-) Sorry, but if you have
> possession of the football and you drop it, it's a fumble. I don't
> care if you're trying to tuck it. If you're throwing the ball (arm
> coming forward) that's an incomplete pass, I'm o.k. with that. But if
> you're a QB who is not throwing it and you put it on the ground,
> that's a fumble.
>
> Refs love me. ;-)
>
> -Coach-
Any rule that fucks the Raiders.. I LOVE!!!
When I meet a new Raider fan, I always bring it up.
Listening to their complaints & how they were robbed
of the superbowl, it just gives me the warm & fuzzies!
-Clint
josh sullivan
He must be.
enof
:O) From: josh sullivan
:O) Subject: Re: Defenseless Receiver????????????
:O)
:O)
:O) On Aug 31, 12:43�am, UCLAN <nom...@thanks.org> wrote:
:O) > josh sullivan wrote:
:O) > >>>So Fouts and Gumbel were doing the play-by-play on the
:O) LA version
:O) > >>>of the Bolts game
:O) >
:O) > >>Uh...what is/was the "LA version" of the game?
:O) >
:O) > > He was watching a television broadcast of the game in
:O) the city of
:O) > > Los Angeles. �I suppose he was prefacing in the event
:O) that the "SD
:O) > > version" of the game had different announcers.
:O) >
:O) > He's *that* unfamiliar with CBS national broadcasts?
:O)
:O) He must be.
The world doesn�t revolve around LA (or SD)(or CBS)
Several regulars in here are from other than SoCal
There are different announcers for the other team home viewers
As witnessed in the SD/Seattle Blacked-out game
Where Warren Moon and Curt Menifee sucked up to the Seahawks worse than
Ron Pitts and Billy Ray do to the Spanosi
Or when a game is on NFL channel and they switch at hafltime
15 yards for picking on a defenseless repeater
First down
PS
love the "unpleasant roughness" call
KG
I wish I could feel the same way. I don't like to see any team get
fucked over like that.