NFL Week 15 Thread

[fantom1979]

Was just refreshing my memory on William Clay Ford Sr, and saw (on wikipedia) that he bought the Lions on November 22nd, 1963. I have no clue how I didn't know that already. Maybe it is something only I find fascinating.

[Passacaglia]

From what I recall, the Millen hire was controversial, but not completely mocked. The Mornhinweg hire was, though. The 3WRs were mocked of course, but I don't think the idea of drafting 3 WRs in a row is a bad choice, but the fact that they sucked was the bigger deal.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Try living in Toledo, to the north you have Detroit and to the east you have Cleveland.

My condolences. No, seriously.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Try living in Toledo, to the north you have Detroit and to the east you have Cleveland. Not too many quality games on Sunday afternoon.

It is the crossroads of pure NFL suck (among other things)

My mom is from Cleveland, so we ended up spending a lot of time there as kids. As a result, and because of Bernie Kosar, my brother became a big Cleveland Browns fan. So, his favorite NFL teams are the Browns and the Lions.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

From what I recall, the Millen hire was controversial, but not completely mocked. The Mornhinweg hire was, though. The 3WRs were mocked of course, but I don't think the idea of drafting 3 WRs in a row is a bad choice, but the fact that they sucked was the bigger deal.

This is similar to what I remember. The 3 WRs were mocked but it wasn't like the team didn't NEED a WR since the first two stunk.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

the Browns and the Lions.

In what will surely be the last Super Bowl matchup in human history...

[miami_fan]

Indianapolis Colts punter Pat McAfee -- Defenseless label a setback - ESPN

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Indianapolis Colts punter Pat McAfee -- Defenseless label a setback - ESPN

In my opinion, if they're "defenseless" then they need to run off the field as soon as they kick the ball and not be allowed to make tackles.

I've seen the Huber hit from other angles and it was an illegal hit, but the Steeler could have leveled him in a legal manner that could have also led to a serious injury. Punters take a chance of getting injured when they start mingling with the bigger boys.

[JediKooter]

Stupid Norv Turner!!!!


Oh wait...never mind.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

In my opinion, if they're "defenseless" then they need to run off the field as soon as they kick the ball and not be allowed to make tackles.

I've seen the Huber hit from other angles and it was an illegal hit, but the Steeler could have leveled him in a legal manner that could have also led to a serious injury. Punters take a chance of getting injured when they start mingling with the bigger boys.

Well, your opinion is stupid.

And no, the Steeler could not have leveled him in a legal manner since punters are considered "defenseless" throughout the entire play, whether or not they see the block coming or are trying to make a tackle. Same with QBs on an INT return.

[Logan]

Guess I'm stupid too. If you're allowing the kicker/punter to make a play that would be beneficial to their team and detrimental to the opponent, I cannot using any sort of logic comprehend how they can be considered "defenseless".

A receiver who has gone up for a ball thrown high becomes "defenseless" because he cannot counteract the physics involved in doing so...he can't magically anchor himself to the field and protect himself from potential injury, he can't alter his own flight path, he can't bring his arms and shoulders in to brace for impact, etc. A kicker who is chasing the play on his own merit is not defenseless because his "defense" is to not chase after the ball carrier.

There's nothing that bugs me more than the internet meathead view of the "pussification" of football that we hear about with every rule change, but on this I completely agree that if you want to protect kickers, they need to hang out way behind the play or just turtle on the field. And that's fine. I wouldn't want to chase after those monsters and put myself at risk either.

I caught Mike and Mike yesterday and heard Golic joke that they should run off the field and a designated tackler could then come on to the field, and I thought that was the best solution if you really want to protect these players.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Logan

Guess I'm stupid too. If you're allowing the kicker/punter to make a play that would be beneficial to their team and detrimental to the opponent, I cannot using any sort of logic comprehend how they can be considered "defenseless".

Is there really no middle ground between having to have a replacement tackler on the field for the punter, and blocking them in such a manner that they have a fractured jaw and vertebra? I mean, put a hand in the guy's chest and push him to the fuckin' ground. It can't be that hard for any of the 11 players on the return team to just get in the punter's way and keep him from making a tackle without taking his head off, if that's really the goal of the blocker.

[Bobble]

Couldn't we have just called this unnecessary roughness? Isn't it obvious that it's unnecessary to jack the PUNTER? A simple 1950's, closed-fists-to-chest, elbow-out, bump-block would have done the job.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Is there really no middle ground between having to have a replacement tackler on the field for the punter, and blocking them in such a manner that they have a fractured jaw and vertebra? I mean, put a hand in the guy's chest and push him to the fuckin' ground. It can't be that hard for any of the 11 players on the return team to just get in the punter's way and keep him from making a tackle without taking his head off, if that's really the goal of the blocker.

I'm not arguing there's not. But isn't just pushing him to the ground still going after a defenseless player? So you'd have to remove that designation in the first place which is what I was arguing for.

I also don't know how hard it is for a guy who is running near full speed while also coiled up to knock the shit out of a 240 lb beast of a man to suddenly let up and "only" push down the 160 lb kicker if he materializes from behind another player in the blink of an eye. Maybe throw a red beanie on them; that'll help.

[Dr. Sak]

Defenseless players can be hit/blocked. It is just a matter of where the contact initiates.

Take for instance the WR going high over the middle for the ball...if the defender makes initial contact in the head/neck area you will have a penalty. However, if the defender goes lower with his point of contact (like in the stomach, hips region) then nothing will be called.

Same can be applied for a punter or a hit on a QB. Just because they are defenseless doesn't mean they can't be blocked. It is the manner in which they are blocked. Again going lower (below shoulders and above the waist because blocks below the waist are illegal on punt returns and INT returns) will allow the player to be blocked legally.

[Logan]

As always, thanks for the clarification. I thought the rule we were talking about was quite different, so my fault on that. I was incorrectly assuming that you can't make contact with the head/neck of any player, which is why I thought the kicker/punter "defenseless" distinction meant going much further.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Logan

As always, thanks for the clarification. I thought the rule we were talking about was quite different, so my fault on that.

No problem and I'm sure you aren't the only one confused...Mr. Golic on Mike and Mike would do himself some to learn the rules good instead of spouting off on his soap box a lot of incorrect knowledge and have other who listen believe him.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Logan

As always, thanks for the clarification. I thought the rule we were talking about was quite different, so my fault on that. I was incorrectly assuming that you can't make contact with the head/neck of any player, which is why I thought the kicker/punter "defenseless" distinction meant going much further.

Here's an excerpt from the NCAA book on Targeting and defenseless players. Although the NFL does not carry the same penalty (ejection) the main fundamentals are the same:

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul

Note 2: Defenseless player
•A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
•A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
•A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
•A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
•A player on the ground.
•A player obviously out of the play.
•A player who receives a blind-side block.
•A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
•A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

Of course the NFL probably has a few more definitions for defenseless player but you get my drift.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm not arguing there's not. But isn't just pushing him to the ground still going after a defenseless player? So you'd have to remove that designation in the first place which is what I was arguing for.

I also don't know how hard it is for a guy who is running near full speed while also coiled up to knock the shit out of a 240 lb beast of a man to suddenly let up and "only" push down the 160 lb kicker if he materializes from behind another player in the blink of an eye. Maybe throw a red beanie on them; that'll help.

Huber is 6'1" 212, i.e., much bigger than a lot of cornerbacks. The hit was dirty and illegal. Don't know why the punter thing has to come into since it would have qualified as illegal against anyone on the field.

[Berger]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Huber is 6'1" 212, i.e., much bigger than a lot of cornerbacks. The hit was dirty and illegal. Don't know why the punter thing has to come into since it would have qualified as illegal against anyone on the field.

Much bigger than most CBs, I agree, but definitely not NFL bigger. lol

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Huber is 6'1" 212, i.e., much bigger than a lot of cornerbacks. The hit was dirty and illegal. Don't know why the punter thing has to come into since it would have qualified as illegal against anyone on the field.

I was speaking about the rule in general, not this particular play. I know it was an illegal helmet to helmet hit.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Huber is 6'1" 212, i.e., much bigger than a lot of cornerbacks. The hit was dirty and illegal. Don't know why the punter thing has to come into since it would have qualified as illegal against anyone on the field.

What I learned from that clip is that Adam Vinatieri is old.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Defenseless players can be hit/blocked. It is just a matter of where the contact initiates.

Take for instance the WR going high over the middle for the ball...if the defender makes initial contact in the head/neck area you will have a penalty. However, if the defender goes lower with his point of contact (like in the stomach, hips region) then nothing will be called.

Same can be applied for a punter or a hit on a QB. Just because they are defenseless doesn't mean they can't be blocked. It is the manner in which they are blocked. Again going lower (below shoulders and above the waist because blocks below the waist are illegal on punt returns and INT returns) will allow the player to be blocked legally.

I believe on the other hand, if a player is not defenseless they can be blocked in the head/neck area.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by henry296

I believe on the other hand, if a player is not defenseless they can be blocked in the head/neck area.

You are correct...it's what happens every down when the offensive and defensive line engage.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Is there really no middle ground between having to have a replacement tackler on the field for the punter, and blocking them in such a manner that they have a fractured jaw and vertebra? I mean, put a hand in the guy's chest and push him to the fuckin' ground. It can't be that hard for any of the 11 players on the return team to just get in the punter's way and keep him from making a tackle without taking his head off, if that's really the goal of the blocker.

The challenge becomes SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS.
If we are returning a punt I am trying to light up every player in an opposing jersey. Its impossible to expect someone to find a guy to block, quickly read his number aand then remember if he is the punter/kicker and then adjust his hit trajectory and still successfully get off a block.

At a minimum we need to put florescent pink jerseys on the punters.

FWIW I dont like either team and thought it was a GREAT and VIOLENT football hit.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Is there really no middle ground between having to have a replacement tackler on the field for the punter, and blocking them in such a manner that they have a fractured jaw and vertebra? I mean, put a hand in the guy's chest and push him to the fuckin' ground. It can't be that hard for any of the 11 players on the return team to just get in the punter's way and keep him from making a tackle without taking his head off, if that's really the goal of the blocker.

I'm sorry, but I think this is dumb. You're expecting the blocking team in the chaos of a kick return to properly identify every single player to ensure that player isn't the kicker before initializing contact. I think that's an entirely unreasonable request.

If the NFL doesn't want these guys to get hit, then they shouldn't be on the field. Or at the very least make them wear a different color jersey and have them run off the field once they kick the ball.

---

The rules, as written, are just absurd. If the kicker goes to make a tackle on the returner and any head contact results from that, it's technically a penalty on the returner! Yep, you get penalized 15 yards because the kicker lowered his head to make the tackle. After all, that's "head/neck contact" on a "defenseless player". Wait until that gets called sometime...probably in the playoffs when it rescues New England from a certain loss.

Another example (and this happened a couple of weeks ago) - the runner at the goal line gets hit in the head. His helmet pops off and he falls into the endzone. But wait! It's not a touchdown. Because he is considered down at the spot where his helmet was dislodged. So the moral of the story is that defensive players should headhunt at the goal line and do everything to rip off the ball carrier's helmet because then he can't score.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

---

The rules, as written, are just absurd. If the kicker goes to make a tackle on the returner and any head contact results from that, it's technically a penalty on the returner! Yep, you get penalized 15 yards because the kicker lowered his head to make the tackle. After all, that's "head/neck contact" on a "defenseless player". Wait until that gets called sometime...probably in the playoffs when it rescues New England from a certain loss.

Another example (and this happened a couple of weeks ago) - the runner at the goal line gets hit in the head. His helmet pops off and he falls into the endzone. But wait! It's not a touchdown. Because he is considered down at the spot where his helmet was dislodged. So the moral of the story is that defensive players should headhunt at the goal line and do everything to rip off the ball carrier's helmet because then he can't score.

Okay so I know I am not going to change your mind on this, however, just for a second compare what you just wrote in those two potential situations to the one where the punter in the Cincy game got smashed.

In the Cincy game you have a punter in persuit of a runner who gets blindsided and hit in the head/neck area. I understand you don't want to protect the punter extra, but technically you can also say he was blindsided which in fact is another seperate category of a defenseless player which applies to every person on the field.

Now for the two situations you described, the reason they are different than the one that happened is because in the case where you said the Punter makes an attempt at the tackle, he is the one who makes the attempt for the tackle and puts his head down to make the tackle. He is the initiater of the contact, unlike in the situation with the blindside block.

In the second situation where you had the runner at the goalline getting his helmet knocked off. You have a runner who potentinally lowers his point of contact and a defender already committed to his direct line at the runner. You cannot expect him to be able to change that line in a split second and also the runner is not considered defenseless, he is able to defend himself in that situation.

This is not a black and white, cut and dry situation. There are rules but there are also philosophies behind the rules. No where in the rules does it talk about taking into account whether or not the defender committed to the tackle before or after the runner lowers his head, but it is something you have to consider.

[Dr. Sak]

Just for a point of debate is this play a foul or not? Why or why not?

(If you all want me to shut up just tell me, I am bored and miss football and enjoy the discussion)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Just for a point of debate is this play a foul or not? Why or why not?

(If you all want me to shut up just tell me, I am bored and miss football and enjoy the discussion)

Yes. Helmet to helmet, leading with the helmet too.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Just for a point of debate is this play a foul or not? Why or why not?

Foul, put the top of his helmet into the lower jaw of Lee. He basically led with the helmet.

I don't know if it is by the rules, but I think it should be a penalty.

[Logan]

I'd say no foul. He led with his helmet but initial impact appeared to be the chest. But then again, I can't keep track of when it's okay to lead with the helmet and when it isn't.

[Dr. Sak]

Is Sean Lee defenseless by rule (see my post above) and does Tate's block exhibit any of the following acts?:

•Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
•A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
•Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
•Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet

[Logan]

Seems like he'd be defenseless based on it being a blind-side block, but even that seems pretty subjective.

He launched upward, but as I said, to me initial contact appears to be the chest but my eyes suck these days...I could see his helmet also making contact with the facemask simultaneously.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Logan

Seems like he'd be defenseless based on it being a blind-side block, but even that seems pretty subjective.

He launched upward, but as I said, to me initial contact appears to be the chest but my eyes suck these days...I could see his helmet also making contact with the facemask simultaneously.

You can argue about the initial point of contact whether it be the chest shoulder or head. But that blocker loses any leeway when he launches...so that will fall under the category of when in doubt it is a foul. And yes he is defenseless because it is a blindside block.

Now on the other hand...same situation...instead of Tate launching, he lowers his shoulder into the chest/abdomen...same result with the block...no foul.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Okay so I know I am not going to change your mind on this, however, just for a second compare what you just wrote in those two potential situations to the one where the punter in the Cincy game got smashed.

In the Cincy game you have a punter in persuit of a runner who gets blindsided and hit in the head/neck area. I understand you don't want to protect the punter extra, but technically you can also say he was blindsided which in fact is another seperate category of a defenseless player which applies to every person on the field.

Now for the two situations you described, the reason they are different than the one that happened is because in the case where you said the Punter makes an attempt at the tackle, he is the one who makes the attempt for the tackle and puts his head down to make the tackle. He is the initiater of the contact, unlike in the situation with the blindside block.

In the second situation where you had the runner at the goalline getting his helmet knocked off. You have a runner who potentinally lowers his point of contact and a defender already committed to his direct line at the runner. You cannot expect him to be able to change that line in a split second and also the runner is not considered defenseless, he is able to defend himself in that situation.

This is not a black and white, cut and dry situation. There are rules but there are also philosophies behind the rules. No where in the rules does it talk about taking into account whether or not the defender committed to the tackle before or after the runner lowers his head, but it is something you have to consider.

First of all, the punter was NOT blindsided. He was hit in the numbers on the front of his jersey. He wasn't ear-holed. It's not the fault of the blocker that he wasn't watching where he was going.

Secondly, there is nothing in the rules about the "initiation of contact" when it comes to the defenseless player rule. Contact with the head/neck area of any "defenseless player" - and it seems a punter is always "defenseless" - is an automatic penalty. Hence a punter who ducks their head to make a tackle - that's 15 yards on the returner! At some point, that WILL be called. Just you wait.

Thirdly, you say that "you cannot expect him to be able to change that line in a split second", yet it's expected LBs and DBs to do this on a whim when the WRs duck their heads at the last second because they're cringing in anticipation of contact. It's expected that defensive linemen somehow magically know the QB might duck their head so they don't accidentally bump their heads when making a sack (or, goodness knows, hit them in the knee even though you're being blocked from behind because you know Tom Brady might get hurt). So you require it for some bang-bang plays and then say it's not possible on others?

Lastly, the point was that the rule, as written, encourages head-hunting because it rewards the defense for knocking the helmet off. So much for player safety.

The rules don't even make sense anymore. And frankly, the game isn't as interesting anymore either. I'm all for player safety, but I'm also for consistency and fairness. I don't like rules where player A can blow up player B, but player B can't blow up player A. I don't like the two-hand touch game you see against today's QBs. I don't like WRs being able to run routes freely over the middle with impunity, turning games into track meets. Shit, I'd be all for some of these rules if they'd just bring back the bump-and-run. Even things up for the defense.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Is Sean Lee defenseless by rule (see my post above) and does Tate's block exhibit any of the following acts?:

Where did you get those? Because I don't see that definition in the NFL rule book, but it's possible I missed that page.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Where did you get those? Because I don't see that definition in the NFL rule book, but it's possible I missed that page.

Check the AR's in the NFL rule book (A.R. 12.62.a), also I know that the "defenseless" definitions in the NCAA have been passed down from the NFL.

Edit: Here are the defininitons from the NFL book

Article 7: Players in a Defenseless Posture. It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in
a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:
OFFICIAL NFL PLAYING RULES 67
RULE 12, SECTION 2, ARTICLE 4
(1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass;
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or
has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending
contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
(3) A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped;
(4) A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air;
(5) A player on the ground;
(6) A kicker/punter during the kick or during the return (Also see Article 6(g) for additional restrictions against a
kicker/punter);
(7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession (Also see Article 8(f) for additional restrictions against a
quarterback after a change of possession);
(8) A player who receives a ―blindside‖ block when the offensive blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own end
line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side, and
(9) A player who is protected from an illegal crackback block (see Article 2);
(10) The offensive player who attempts a snap during a Field Goal attempt or a Try Kick.
(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even
if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the passer’s neck, and regardless of
whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;
or
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/‖hairline‖ parts of the helmet
against any part of the defenseless player’s body; or
(3) Illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to
contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet (including the
top/crown and forehead/‖hairline‖ parts) to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body. Note:
This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered to be a defenseless player,
as defined in Article 7 above.
Note1: The provisions of (2) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle or
block on an opponent.
Note 2: A player who initiates contact against a defenseless opponent is responsible for avoiding an illegal act. This includes
illegal contact that may occur during the process of attempting to dislodge the ball from an opponent. A standard of strict
liability applies for any contact against a defenseless opponent, even if the opponent is an airborne player who is returning
to the ground or whose body position is otherwise in motion, and irrespective of any acts by the defenseless opponent,
such as ducking his head or curling up his body in anticipation of contact.

[Blackadar]

Dr. Sak, what you posted from the NFL rule book is not the same thing that you posted in your response to Logan. So why are you using this to define a launch:

•Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
•A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
•Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
•Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet

When that is not the NFL rule?

[A-Husker-4-Life]

I know a fix, have the Punter/kicker run off the field after the kick/punt..

[BillJasper]

I am pro player safety at the NFL level.

But I think they need to figure out how to become more consistent with on the field calls. My understanding was that a defenseless player wasn't allowed to be hit or blocked and that comes more from watching the games on the field. If that's not the case then the NFL needs to retrain their refs. They also need to add more refs because the game at the NFL level has simply become too fast for the current amount of refs to keep up.

If the NFL is serious about taking players leading with their head into the head and upper bodies of other players then they need to do two things: eject players who commit the infraction from games (like the NCAA) and also make the infraction reviewable under instant replay.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I am pro player safety at the NFL level.

But I think they need to figure out how to become more consistent with on the field calls. My understanding was that a defenseless player wasn't allowed to be hit or blocked and that comes more from watching the games on the field. If that's not the case then the NFL needs to retrain their refs. They also need to add more refs because the game at the NFL level has simply become too fast for the current amount of refs to keep up.

If the NFL is serious about taking players leading with their head into the head and upper bodies of other players then they need to do two things: eject players who commit the infraction from games (like the NCAA) and also make the infraction reviewable under instant replay.

This is all fine by me.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Dr. Sak, what you posted from the NFL rule book is not the same thing that you posted in your response to Logan. So why are you using this to define a launch:



When that is not the NFL rule?

I would point you to my posts above which say: These are from the NCAA rule book which have been pass down from the NFL. I know this because my boss in officiating is an NFL Referee who during one of our meetings this year told us what I just told you and the others about it being passed down. He teaches us the NFL philosophies in college football when dealing with player safety, targeting, and hits on defeneless players.

I'll debate you on this all day, I am very comfortable in doing so because this is something I spend a lot of time watching film and studying rules. So if you want to nitpick me on this, I welcome it.

Edit: And if you want to get technical (and by reading your posts you like to), you can find each one of those items bulleted in the NFL rules that I posted in one way or the other.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

You can argue about the initial point of contact whether it be the chest shoulder or head. But that blocker loses any leeway when he launches...so that will fall under the category of when in doubt it is a foul. And yes he is defenseless because it is a blindside block.

Now on the other hand...same situation...instead of Tate launching, he lowers his shoulder into the chest/abdomen...same result with the block...no foul.

Wasn't that the play that Tate got fined for (but wasn't penalized)? Or was this from a different game (sorry, I'm at work, so limited on what I can and can't look up right now)?

NFL fines Golden Tate $21,000 for block on Sean Lee

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Travis

Wasn't that the play that Tate got fined for (but wasn't penalized)? Or was this from a different game (sorry, I'm at work, so limited on what I can and can't look up right now)?

NFL fines Golden Tate $21,000 for block on Sean Lee

Right so it should have been a foul and I the official who missed it got a "MC" missed call on this grade report. When the NFL fines a player when no foul was called, you can bet the official got a downgrade becaues of the missed call.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I would point you to my posts above which say: These are from the NCAA rule book which have been pass down from the NFL. I know this because my boss in officiating is an NFL Referee who during one of our meetings this year told us what I just told you and the others about it being passed down. He teaches us the NFL philosophies in college football when dealing with player safety, targeting, and hits on defeneless players.

I'll debate you on this all day, I am very comfortable in doing so because this is something I spend a lot of time watching film and studying rules. So if you want to nitpick me on this, I welcome it.

Edit: And if you want to get technical (and by reading your posts you like to), you can find each one of those items bulleted in the NFL rules that I posted in one way or the other.

•A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground

That is not the NFL launching rule. The NFL launching rule is leaving your feet OR leading with your head. It's not impacting the opposing players' head, which is an entirely different rule and therefore subject to different circumstances. There is no rule in the NFL that says you can't crouch and thrust upwards into the head or neck area. Period. There are rules that say you can't hit a defenseless player in the head. There are rules that talk about illegal hands to the face. There are rules regarding head slaps. But there aren't any rules about "launching" under that definition.

In the Golden Tate hit falls under the definition of the Hines Ward rule - a blindside block from the blocker's helmet, forearm or shoulder that lands to the head or neck area of the defender. It's not an illegal "launch".

Had fun discussing this, but I'm getting on a plane now so you'll get the last word. Merry Christmas to all!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

That is not the NFL launching rule. The NFL launching rule is leaving your feet OR leading with your head. It's not impacting the opposing players' head, which is an entirely different rule and therefore subject to different circumstances. There is no rule in the NFL that says you can't crouch and thrust upwards into the head or neck area. Period. There are rules that say you can't hit a defenseless player in the head. There are rules that talk about illegal hands to the face. There are rules regarding head slaps. But there aren't any rules about "launching" under that definition.

In the Golden Tate hit falls under the definition of the Hines Ward rule - a blindside block from the blocker's helmet, forearm or shoulder that lands to the head or neck area of the defender. It's not an illegal "launch".

It's really cute that you think you know more than someone who is an official (even if he's an NCAA official I'd still put money on him having a better grasp of things than you).

[Dr. Sak]

Okay I'll play your game. Launching is not a "rule" it is not a foul, launching is an act. The act of launching towards an opponent is one ingrediant to the foul. You can launch at an opponent, however, if the opponent is not defenseless, there is no foul. You see defensive backs launch all the time against a runner (and to help you out, a runner by definition is a player in possesion of the football). A wide receiver becomes a runner when he catches the ball, establishes possession, and makes a move upfield.

The definition of a launch from the NCAA rule book below pertains to the foul of targeting (which the NFL does not have). Which is why there is a difference in the last sentence about making contact to the head or neck area.

•Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area

Now in the NFL rule book, the definition of a launch is the similar (wording is different but the end result is the same), but the contact area is expanded a bit lower. Again this is on a defenseless player. However if you read my post on the block on Sean Lee I said "Now on the other hand...same situation...instead of Tate launching, he lowers his shoulder into the chest/abdomen...same result with the block...no foul." The defenseless player aspect is there, however, there is no launching. You have to have both parts to have the foul.

Illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/‖hairline‖ parts) to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body.

[Logan]

One thing that the great MMQB series on Steratore's (sp?) crew taught me is that there is a lot more nuance involved in these calls than I thought, and there is also a lot of gray where situation/gravity of a potential foul comes into play.

The things I can't stand are the non-judgmental issues that have cropped up a bit, like application of the rules. I can certainly forgive bang-bang plays but something like what happened at the end of that Washington game with the 1st/3rd down, as well as the terrible overturn of that BJGE TD at the goal line...those are unforgivable. Everything else, they just need to be held accountable for and hearing how seriously these refs can get dinged by missing even a single PI or roughing call tells me they're doing so, even if it's in a non-transparent way.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Right so it should have been a foul and I the official who missed it got a "MC" missed call on this grade report. When the NFL fines a player when no foul was called, you can bet the official got a downgrade becaues of the missed call.

Thanks for the clarification, as a Seahawks fan I remember the uproar about that play/ensuing fine and was curious if it was a rule change or something of that nature when you brought it up as an example of a clean play (or if you were referencing a different play entirely, Tate does like to get physical when given a chance).

[jbergey22]

As far as the Golden Tate play doesn't the defender have to take some responsibility on a play like that and "keep his head on a swivel?" These guys have playing football long enough that they should realize a crackback block is likely on a situation like that. I guess I am trying to figure out what exactly Golden Tate did wrong. Should he have warned Lee that he was coming? Should he have let the block go?

I guess maybe I am at a loss for what defenseless even means. If you put yourself in a bad situation does that make you defenseless? I feel much of the defenseless stuff is all about the players messing up and putting themselves in them situations.

Linebackers dont need to be running with tunnel vision towards the sidelines. Quarterbacks dont need to be trying to fit passes into small windows with two head hunting safetys waiting to put a knockout blow on the receiver. If a wide receiver doesnt want to get hit he should just give up on the ball or otherwise expect the safety might try to keep them from catching it.

I dont like the defenseless excuse at all because the defenders arent the ones making them defenseless for the most part. It is their own actions that are making them defenseless.

Prevent the helmet on helmet stuff but ease up on this defenseless rule.