shrader Posted January 8, 2020 Report Posted January 8, 2020 22 minutes ago, PASabreFan said: “...if a player initiates a block when he is moving toward or parallel to his own end line and makes contact to his opponent with his helmet, forearm or shoulder.” I'm sure they had their reasons, but that looks like an awkward definition for a blindside block. I feel like we've seen plenty of RBs back in pass protection make blocks that would violate this rule. I know the exact type of block they're trying to eliminate, but unless there's extra verbiage in there that you left out, I don't see how that rule does it. I can also dream up a few more completely realistic scenarios that while completely clean, would violate that rule as written. And on that note, I can only find an angle of the block from behind Ford, so it's tough to know for sure. It looks like he's leading with his hands as opposed to forearm or shoulder. But then again, it doesn't say "leading with" the helmet/forearm/shoulder, so that may not even matter. I think they'll be re-visiting the wording of that rule at some point.
LTS Posted January 8, 2020 Report Posted January 8, 2020 1 hour ago, PASabreFan said: What part of the penalty definition do you have a beef with? “...if a player initiates a block when he is moving toward or parallel to his own end line and makes contact to his opponent with his helmet, forearm or shoulder.” What was the league's economic interest in making sure Buffalo did not advance/Houston did? If we go around quoting the rule book as it pertains to this game then the Bills also have a touchdown to start the 2nd half. 2
That Aud Smell Posted January 8, 2020 Report Posted January 8, 2020 2 hours ago, PASabreFan said: What was the league's economic interest in making sure Buffalo did not advance/Houston did? I don't really cotton to these theories, but the arguments I've read here and elsewhere: Houston's a much larger market than Buffalo; Watson is a super duper star that the league would love to have comfortably in the unquestionably elite tier of talents (makes marketing Houston games a cinch); and, maybe more than anything else and perhaps only for the very near term, JJ Watt is the poster boy for everything the NFL wants to be or wants to be thought of as. (Seriously. JJ's almost like an NFL action figure.)
Taro T Posted January 8, 2020 Report Posted January 8, 2020 42 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said: I don't really cotton to these theories, but the arguments I've read here and elsewhere: Houston's a much larger market than Buffalo; Watson is a super duper star that the league would love to have comfortably in the unquestionably elite tier of talents (makes marketing Houston games a cinch); and, maybe more than anything else and perhaps only for the very near term, JJ Watt is the poster boy for everything the NFL wants to be or wants to be thought of as. (Seriously. JJ's almost like an NFL action figure.) Don't forget also, the league didn't want to see all the Cowpoke fans in House-ton turn off the NFL Network until August after their begrudgingly 2nd favorite team ended up bounced unceremoniously from the playoffs yet again. ?
shrader Posted January 8, 2020 Report Posted January 8, 2020 53 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said: I don't really cotton to these theories, but the arguments I've read here and elsewhere: Houston's a much larger market than Buffalo; Watson is a super duper star that the league would love to have comfortably in the unquestionably elite tier of talents (makes marketing Houston games a cinch); and, maybe more than anything else and perhaps only for the very near term, JJ Watt is the poster boy for everything the NFL wants to be or wants to be thought of as. (Seriously. JJ's almost like an NFL action figure.) That seriously beaten up action figure where the arm routinely falls off? 2
That Aud Smell Posted January 8, 2020 Report Posted January 8, 2020 44 minutes ago, shrader said: That seriously beaten up action figure where the arm routinely falls off? Ha. It was frickin' uncanny, though, how he played a key role in turning that game around. Almost as if ... wait a second! ... that's! ... THAT'S JJ WATT'S MUSIC!
Stoner Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 8 hours ago, LTS said: If we go around quoting the rule book as it pertains to this game then the Bills also have a touchdown to start the 2nd half. Yes. But that seems neither here nor there.
tom webster Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 8 hours ago, LTS said: If we go around quoting the rule book as it pertains to this game then the Bills also have a touchdown to start the 2nd half. This is going down as one of the most mis-understood calls in the history of the NFL. The original call was actually going to be illegal forward pass resulting in a safety. Even McDermott referred to it incorrectly. The audio is pretty clear Corrente tells the alternate ref “I have an illegal forward pass” 1
Stoner Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 10 hours ago, tom webster said: This is going down as one of the most mis-understood calls in the history of the NFL. The original call was actually going to be illegal forward pass resulting in a safety. Even McDermott referred to it incorrectly. The audio is pretty clear Corrente tells the alternate ref “I have an illegal forward pass” Didn't he make a touchdown signal? 1
SwampD Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said: Didn't he make a touchdown signal? Well, he did say the most misunderstood call in NFL history.
Stoner Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, SwampD said: Well, he did say the most misunderstood call in NFL history. It's like a lot of debates we have around here about rules. We can't even decide on the facts. Did the man raise both hands in the air or not!?
North Buffalo Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 No but he flippantly gave himself up... Needed to be clear hence call should have beennillegal forward pass... unless he said something... couldnt tell but he might have said here to the ref. Should be a requirement to take a knee.
GASabresIUFAN Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 The guy didn’t take a knee and didn’t raise a hand over his head to signal a fair catch. He did have his arms out at his side like a little kid playing at being an airplane and did toss the ball towards the official. That is a fumble. The rules don’t define a player “giving himself up” Other then a slide, the fair catch signal or taking a knee, I had never seen a played give himself up by playing airplane. It should have been a touchdown. The officials shouldn’t assume a player’s thinking.
SwampD Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 39 minutes ago, North Buffalo said: No but he flippantly gave himself up... Needed to be clear hence call should have beennillegal forward pass... unless he said something... couldnt tell but he might have said here to the ref. Should be a requirement to take a knee. It is. And has been for a hundred years.
shrader Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 1 minute ago, SwampD said: It is. And has been for a hundred years. The rule also includes "making no effort to advance". He was walking forward as he tossed the ball, so that potential defense is killed. An interesting thought comes to mind after reading that one though. Those plays where a player is about to score but instead parallels the goal line in order to run off clock... shouldn't that technically count as giving yourself up? Sure the player does still have the intention of advancing eventually, but there's too much subjectivity in the current rule. They really should require that the player goes to the ground.
Doohicksie Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, shrader said: Those plays where a player is about to score but instead parallels the goal line in order to run off clock... shouldn't that technically count as giving yourself up? Not unless he falls to the ground or takes a knee. There are two parts to the rule with an AND in between. The AND means both parts have to be satisfied. The first part is "falling to the ground, or kneeling" (in that case, one of those two conditions is required to satisfy the rule). Without that condition, the "making no immediate effort to advance" doesn't kick in. So it's (A or B) and C. If you don't have either A or B being the case, then the C part is irrelevant in terms of a player giving himself up; i.e., he's not down. Edited January 9, 2020 by Doohickie 1
North Buffalo Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 1 hour ago, SwampD said: It is. And has been for a hundred years. They have said if player gives himself up the play is over... seen it multiple games... just not the forward flip and no acknowledgement of ok from ref.
SwampD Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, North Buffalo said: They have said if player gives himself up the play is over... seen it multiple games... just not the forward flip and no acknowledgement of ok from ref. Nowhere does that appear in the rule book.
North Buffalo Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 Fair enough, think it was guidance given to refs this year... been happening in some form all year just not the forward flip.
SwampD Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 9 minutes ago, North Buffalo said: Fair enough, think it was guidance given to refs this year... been happening in some form all year just not the forward flip. Find me one example all year of someone not kneeling and I might buy it, but I don't think it was that. I think they confused the new rule where if nobody touches the ball, it is a touchback.
North Buffalo Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 https://sports.yahoo.com/weird-ruling-on-texans-bills-second-half-kickoff-overturned-avoiding-a-major-officiating-controversy-232057016.html Couldnt find video eg... Im pretty sure Ive seen it... here is the explanation though.
Doohicksie Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 (edited) Meh. I don't believe anything on Yahoo news. It's all schlock. I mean, the story starts with, "Thankfully, the NFL allowed common sense to take over..." A lot of the rules don't follow common sense; that's why they constantly change them, to make them more clear. Common sense has nothing to do with it. Edited January 9, 2020 by Doohickie
Doohicksie Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 I hate the dismissive attitude toward what the rule actually states in that story. The signal given by the receiver is not mentioned anywhere in the rules. But there is a "nothing to see here, move along" tone to the story. You're F***ing highly trained, highly paid players. PLAY ACCORDING TO THE RULES or go home. 2
shrader Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, Doohickie said: I hate the dismissive attitude toward what the rule actually states in that story. The signal given by the receiver is not mentioned anywhere in the rules. But there is a "nothing to see here, move along" tone to the story. You're F***ing highly trained, highly paid players. PLAY ACCORDING TO THE RULES or go home. And you know it's only a matter of time now before a teams uses that signal to fake out the coverage team. But hey, common sense now cancels that out. I can't wait until they add that phrase to the rule book.
Taro T Posted January 9, 2020 Report Posted January 9, 2020 1 hour ago, shrader said: And you know it's only a matter of time now before a teams uses that signal to fake out the coverage team. But hey, common sense now cancels that out. I can't wait until they add that phrase to the rule book. Better yet, a guy fakes that signal, thinks better of it for an instant and then gets blown up and the coverage team gets 15 yards and an ejection for unsportsmanlike. This is no different than a player starting his TD celebration a yard too early and dropping the ball in the field of play. Have yet to see the refs say "well, his intent was to carry the ball into the endzone, just give it to 'em." Guy had a major brain fart and got very lucky the refs were still in a Christmas spirit of giving and forgiveness. That play didn't give the home team the game but it would've absolutely buried them. And by the rule (as was mentioned on the Ford 15 yarder) it was not a touchback. 1
Recommended Posts