Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

While the call for the blow to the head of Manning is legit.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • While the call for the blow to the head of Manning is legit.

    I see everyone is saying that it should not have been called. I say it should have. No, it didn't endanger him. But there's a more practical reason why the rule exists. The QB is TRYING TO PASS THE FOOTBALL. A blow to the head of a QB, just as with an OT, is going to cause one to blink and loose focus for a split second unlike they regain their faculties. That's not part of the game. A defender can sack, strip the ball, bat passes down, but he can't be allow to smack a QB in the back of the head, especially when he still has the ball in his hand and is looking to pass! I find it amazing that no one else is looking at it from this angle. I will say I don't know about an entire 15 yard penalty, though. Thoughts?

  • OzTitan
    replied
    Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
    I wonder if the same contact happened against Charlie Whitehurst or Matt Cassel or Jason Campbell if the refs would have called it. Did Manning get more protection based on his status? I'm not accusing anything, just trying to see what others think.
    VY was picked up and dumped on his head by 3 Steelers defenders without a peep from the refs.

    Yes, status matters.

    Leave a comment:


  • wogitalia
    replied
    If that is the spirit behind the rule then you may aswell just say that on pass plays the offensive and defensive lines leave the field and we go to no pass rush because that is pathetic.

    I understand if it is a club to the head, but that was not even close to that. There absolutely needs to be an intent and a sufficient force element to that flag, a brush of the helmet, especially whilst being blocked into him, is just not a flag, or shouldn't be.

    All that said, the QB is not a defenseless player, they should be treated like a RB whilst the hold the ball, in my opinion. The second the ball is released they should become a defenseless player and institute the additional protection, no problem with that, but, imo, if you are holding the ball you should have no special protection at all.

    Maybe I'm biased because I'd rather watch running plays, tackles and the like then watch glorified flag football but I don't really care!

    Leave a comment:


  • Stranger
    replied
    I doubt the league would introduce an incidental contact penalty. The whole reason they got rid of the 5 yard facemask was to make it so the refs didn't have to make that sort of subjective call.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Bolt
    replied
    Originally posted by Bucs_Rule View Post
    Any knocking into the QB affects his play. That is the purpose of a pass rush, to affect the QB, the best way is to strip or sack him.

    No defender would go to tap the head. It doesn't stop the QB, he will step up or if the DE is being pushed by a linemen just stand and throw.

    A strip is huge, a sack is really big, taping the helmet barely makes a difference. Any DE went for it would get cut.
    And if a strip or a sack is not possible, why would a defender NOT do the next best thing and punch the QB in the head if there was no rule preventing it?

    Leave a comment:


  • killxswitch
    replied
    I understand the rule and don't pretend to know the perfect solution, but the severity of the penalty was not commensurate with the infraction. Cole brushed Manning's helmet. It didn't deserve a 15 yard penalty. Good call, bad overall rule.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bucs_Rule
    replied
    Any knocking into the QB affects his play. That is the purpose of a pass rush, to affect the QB, the best way is to strip or sack him.

    No defender would go to tap the head. It doesn't stop the QB, he will step up or if the DE is being pushed by a linemen just stand and throw.

    A strip is huge, a sack is really big, taping the helmet barely makes a difference. Any DE went for it would get cut.
    Last edited by Bucs_Rule; 11-08-2010, 02:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Bolt
    replied
    And what I started off saying what that it isn't JUST about injury, it's about how that action affects a football play. He didn't just "brush" his helmet like so many people are saying, he actually moved the QB's head forward which could affect the play being made. If this allowed, then instead of trying to go for the strip from th opposite side, people would just pop the QB in the back of the head.


    Originally posted by umphrey View Post
    It's important to make a distinction, are you debating precedent or the play in question? The rule they write, I would agree that it is a delicate issue how it is interpreted and enforced. However, on the play that happened, I saw incidental contact that wasn't even close to causing injury.



    Well first Deacon Jones played in the 70s, and he was a beast, probably the greatest DE of all time. A lot of film on him is going to involve illegal hits under modern rules. But he couldn't have hurt anybody by bringing his arm down on somebody's head while his feet were giving out underneath him. Go back and watch the play - in the position he was in, the defender couldn't generate any kind of damaging power. He didn't even make a fist IIRC. Whatever force hit Manning's head was a fraction of what players endure when they hit the ground or a shoulder pad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Bolt
    replied
    Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
    The refs made the right call based on the rule, but I don't love the rule. That kind of more incidental contact happens on a lot of plays without being called. Actually, if the ref position was the way it was in 2009, they might not have seen it, and the play stands...
    It was more than incidental, it AFFECTED THE PLAY, or could have. That's why it has to be called. Now, when a QB has THROWN the ball and there is come followthrough by the defender that happens to graze the helmet, that is incidental.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Bolt
    replied
    Originally posted by umphrey View Post
    Are you serious? The defender was trying to strip the ball while getting knocked around by an offensive tackle. Also the goal is exactly to hit the quarterback to confuse him, make him nervous, etc. You're right, the goal isn't to knock him out like a prize fighter, but that wasn't even close to what happened. Are you suggesting they should let the quarterback sit comfortable in space so he doesn't lose focus? That isn't football.

    The QB is trying to pass, offensive tackles are trying to block, running backs are trying to run, receivers are trying to catch. You don't stop them with words and scary gestures. You hit them, or you call it a different sport.
    Yet DEs can't headslap OTs.

    Leave a comment:


  • bearfan
    replied
    The intent of the rule is good, but the severity of the penalty for plays like that is way too high. T. Cole was trying to strip the ball from Manning while being blocked, Manning holds the ball high...how else is he supposed to strip it? Underhand?

    They need to differentiate what is a personal foul and what is not. I don't think the 1st down should be given on an incidental contact like that either. The call almost cost the Eagles the game, and Peyton's head barely moved at all. If he was clubed that would be a different story and I dont think we would be having this debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Watchman
    replied
    I don't like the rule, but according the the rule the call was correct. I also don't like PI being marked at the spot of the foul, but that's the way it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • bsaza2358
    replied
    The NFL is trying to protect its stars. QB's are generally the biggest stars. That's why they changed the rules after the unlucky hit knocked Brady out. It hurts the product on the field. The Eagles won that game by 9, but they had a chance to lose it because of a really unfortunate execution of a poorly written and taught rule.

    Leave a comment:


  • yourfavestoner
    replied
    The intent of the rule is great. But, like with most NFL rules, the application of it is a complete abortion.

    They really, really, really need to do an extensive review and possible overhaul of the rulebook this offseason, especially if the competition committee is sitting with their thumbs up their asses waiting for a new CBA to pass.

    Leave a comment:


  • bsaza2358
    replied
    Originally posted by MidwayMonster31 View Post
    I think it should depend on what kind of hit it is. If the pass rusher is trying to swat the ball and ends up slapping the quarterback in the head, then that should be 5 yards. If he's leading with the helmet and smacks the quarterback in the chin, then that should be 15 yards.
    Leading with the helmet is a personal foul already. I don't thank anyone would debate anything related to that.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X

Debug Information