PDA

View Full Version : Interesting article from Boston Herald about illegal hits


steelernation77
12-03-2008, 01:16 PM
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1136415&srvc=sports&position=4

NFL defends Wes Welker hit

“A lot of people think it’s a foul to leave your feet,” NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira said yesterday from New York. “Launching is not a foul. There is nothing in the rulebook that states that at all. It’s a misconception people have."

Re: the Clark v. Welker hit

“He does actually lead with the shoulder on a high hit up in the area of the neck, but he left the helmet out of the contact,” Pereira said. “When you look at it and slow it down it probably was not an illegal hit. You might have to factor in that it was deflected early and does that make it become late. But the actual hit itself is probably OK.”

"Next we come to the fact the ball still was live. It had not hit the ground and it still was in front of Clark. In fact, a teammate to his left, had he reacted quicker, might have intercepted it. As for Welker being defenseless, he was running across the defense in Clark’s direction. If he didn’t see him it was because he wasn’t looking, and if he wasn’t looking it was because he was looking back for the football. What he was doing was slowing up in the middle of a highway, a decision that defies common sense and is one he is not likely to repeat."

“The actual hit itself is probably OK but the officials are told to err on the side of safety,” Pereira said. “That was a tough call to make in real time but we want to lean toward safety. The rule clearly states if you don’t lead with your helmet it’s not a foul, but we threw the flag and I’m happy we did because I think we need to do it when in real time it looks so tough. It looked like a decleater type hit.”

I know other posters have been lambasted for frequent posts about officiating, but I just want to make it clear I am not talking about the Clark/Welker collision, merely using it as an example. What I am more concerned about is the bolded part of the quote from Pereira. Should officials be throwing flags instictively for any hit that looks "tough?" If so, should there be replay of these hits to see if they're actually illegal? What's the limit here? I'm just looking for a discussion more than anything else.

ChezPower4
12-03-2008, 01:20 PM
stop the fines

Geo
12-03-2008, 01:28 PM
I thought it was acceptable.

Clark supposedly said in the locker room post-game that the ref told him he was flagged for launching, but that doesn't strike me as an offense in this particular case. Or at all, really, because that's football as long as the hit isn't illegal, ex. helmet-to-helmet.

Had the ball not been tipped, there absolutely would have been no penalty there, I believe. But as that article says, it wasn't much of a late hit because the ball was still live really. Welker giving up on it or not doesn't matter if it's still live as opposed to dead.

It was a crunch of a hit. But penalty-wise, I'm not so sure. Pereira says he supports the refs at the end, but up to that point, pretty much says they were wrong in this case.

FlyingElvis
12-03-2008, 01:29 PM
I thought it was a great hit.

I also thought the penalty call was ok. The league obviously wants these type of hits to stop, which I think sucks. But, like the overly cautious "protect the QB" calls, every violent hit is now subject to a penalty.

I hate it, but the fact is they will call penalties on plays that no penalty exists.

FlyingElvis
12-03-2008, 01:31 PM
I thought it was acceptable.

Clark supposedly said in the locker room post-game that the ref told him he was flagged for launching, but that doesn't strike me as an offense in this particular case. Or at all, really, because that's football as long as the hit isn't illegal, ex. helmet-to-helmet.

Had the ball not been tipped, there absolutely would have been no penalty there, I believe. But as that article says, it wasn't much of a late hit because the ball was still live really. Welker giving up on it or not.

It was a crunch of a hit. But penalty-wise, I'm not so sure. Pereira says he supports the refs at the end, but up to that point, pretty much says they were wrong in this case.

The ball was not tipped, IIRC, it was just off target. The on-field call by the head official was the "defenseless player" BS. Which is why I am ok with the call. I don't really agree with it, but all calls of this type are relatively subjective.

steelernation77
12-03-2008, 01:34 PM
I thought it was a great hit.

I also thought the penalty call was ok. The league obviously wants these type of hits to stop, which I think sucks. But, like the overly cautious "protect the QB" calls, every violent hit is now subject to a penalty.

I hate it, but the fact is they will call penalties on plays that no penalty exists.

But is this right? Players are taught to be physical, but clean. If a player makes a tough but clean play, isn't that football at its best? It's ultimately a violent sport, I think those that play it understand the inherent risks. What happens if refs start flagging any violent collision? Games could be decided on plays that were clean but tough.

FlyingElvis
12-03-2008, 01:45 PM
No, it's not right. It sucks donkey wang. But if they are going to call crap penalties I'm ok with it when they benefit my favorite team. ;)

j/k - I don't think it's right, and the league needs to do a serious evaluation of the out of control late/violent hit calls & fines and correct it. But, in the meantime, I will accept that stupid penalties will be called even though I don't like it.

I think hits like that one are exactly what the DB is supposed to do every time. Even the helmet to helmet calls are out of control.

bored of education
12-03-2008, 02:03 PM
launching is not a flagable offense

the patriots are bitches complainign about how they seen Clark in films do dirty hits. EVEN VINCE WILFORK is on record complaining that Clark is dirty!

Geo
12-03-2008, 02:23 PM
LOL, Vince Wilfork is forbidden from speaking about (il)legal hits. Give me a break.

Mr. Stiller
12-03-2008, 02:48 PM
My only issue with this entire article is...

“The actual hit itself is probably OK but the officials are told to err on the side of safety,” Pereira said. “That was a tough call to make in real time but we want to lean toward safety. The rule clearly states if you don’t lead with your helmet it’s not a foul, but we threw the flag and I’m happy we did because I think we need to do it when in real time it looks so tough.

I understand they wanna err on the side of safety, but, being happy they threw the flag when there's no penalty, that can cause problems, especially for 15 yard instances.

steelernation77
12-03-2008, 03:22 PM
My only issue with this entire article is...



I understand they wanna err on the side of safety, but, being happy they threw the flag when there's no penalty, that can cause problems, especially for 15 yard instances.

That's what I found most shocking as well.

Paranoidmoonduck
12-03-2008, 04:58 PM
Inherently, the hit bugs me somewhat. It just shows how preferential the "safety" treatment of players are. Welker was paying attention to the ball and Clark wasn't. He was going to hit Welker regardless of what happened.

If some hit the quarterback like that and the ball was that far away from the passer, the guy might've ejected from the game immediately, if not fined and possibly suspended. That strikes me as wrong, because we've made a prone player who isn't neccesarily even in the pocket sacred and unhittable while making a prone player 15 yards upfield fair game.

Mr. Stiller
12-03-2008, 07:00 PM
Inherently, the hit bugs me somewhat. It just shows how preferential the "safety" treatment of players are. Welker was paying attention to the ball and Clark wasn't. He was going to hit Welker regardless of what happened.

If some hit the quarterback like that and the ball was that far away from the passer, the guy might've ejected from the game immediately, if not fined and possibly suspended. That strikes me as wrong, because we've made a prone player who isn't neccesarily even in the pocket sacred and unhittable while making a prone play 15 yards upfield fair game.

But thats in the line of the rules.. the ball was tipped, and I'll see if I can find it but someone did a frame by frame analysis (Between ball tip and Welker's hit) and it was something like .4-.6 seconds between to 2 occurrences.

And I agree, If quarterbacks want to play they should be allowed to be hit. I want to see the "Landing on the QB" part of roughing gone. when you're coming off the edge or through the middle on a blitz, it's incredibly hard to not land on the QB.

Paranoidmoonduck
12-03-2008, 07:35 PM
I'm more questioning the rules than the officials interpretation of them. My main issue with Clark is that he wasn't even playing the ball, he was playing Welker and it caused him to make an unnecessarily violent hit.

If we constantly penalize defensive linemen and linebackers for "unnecessarily" bringing down the quarterback with force or for playing the quarterback instead of the ball, then I think we should at least have a similar rule pertaining to defenders outside the box. I understand Clark's perspective, because if that ball had made it to Welker, it would have likely been a perfectly timed shot that would have separated the ball. But half a second would have been more than enough for Clark to not hit Welker all out had he bothered to notice that his teammate had tipped the ball and all he had to do was keep Welker from making a move for the tip.

Mr. Stiller
12-03-2008, 11:05 PM
I'm more questioning the rules than the officials interpretation of them. My main issue with Clark is that he wasn't even playing the ball, he was playing Welker and it caused him to make an unnecessarily violent hit.

If we constantly penalize defensive linemen and linebackers for "unnecessarily" bringing down the quarterback with force or for playing the quarterback instead of the ball, then I think we should at least have a similar rule pertaining to defenders outside the box. I understand Clark's perspective, because if that ball had made it to Welker, it would have likely been a perfectly timed shot that would have separated the ball. But half a second would have been more than enough for Clark to not hit Welker all out had he bothered to notice that his teammate had tipped the ball and all he had to do was keep Welker from making a move for the tip.

Go outside, run at full speed, and just stop instantaneously. Clark was playing Welker, but if that wasn't tipped, thats a reception and Clark levels him with the ball.

Which is why the Tip rule is in place, because if we put a halo around receivers as well, then it doesn't matter because you'll have many a Kiwi-VY exchanges between safety and the Wide Receivers they're afraid to hit.

I understand what you're getting at, but I think it's more that they should loosen the QB penalties, than enforce them on other offensive players.

You do that soon it's going to be illegal to play defense.