Savage Beatings Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Instead of taking a sack, Brees threw to his lineman, got a 5 yards penalty for illegal touch, but no loss of down. Result... 1st and 15, instead of 2nd and 17. That's a pretty convenient penalty. One I hope that Tarvaris Jackson learnes to exploit this entire season as defenses blitz him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I agree it should be loss of down but its rarely seen and QBs should avoid trying to do that...may result in 7 points the other way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Instead of taking a sack, Brees threw to his lineman, got a 5 yards penalty for illegal touch, but no loss of down. Result... 1st and 15, instead of 2nd and 17. That's a pretty convenient penalty. One I hope that Tarvaris Jackson learnes to exploit this entire season as defenses blitz him. I think it would have been ruled "intentional grounding", except that Bush was apparently behind that lineman who was hit (which was what the officals were dicussing after the play). With that in mind, the only ruling possible was "ilelgal touching". But I agree, it looked awfully convenient for Brees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I think it would have been ruled "intentional grounding", except that Bush was apparently behind that lineman who was hit (which was what the officals were dicussing after the play). With that in mind, the only ruling possible was "ilelgal touching". But I agree, it looked awfully convenient for Brees. yup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I think it would have been ruled "intentional grounding", except that Bush was apparently behind that lineman who was hit (which was what the officals were dicussing after the play). With that in mind, the only ruling possible was "ilelgal touching". But I agree, it looked awfully convenient for Brees. IMO this was the best play he did all night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 It also has something to do with the direction the player is facing. The OLineman (who was not an eligible reciever at the snap of the ball) was turned around and facing the QB. Brees threw and the ball hit him. The penalty goes against the OL guyfor and "illegal touch", but is really the fault of the QB. Who knows what was going through Brees mind when he pulled the trigger. If he was smart enough to figure that out in .356 seconds, Brees is in a timewarp. The funny thing is that if the lineman was facing downfield and got hit in the ass, there would probably have been no flag thrown at all! Just an incomplete pass and loss of down. Now if the ball hit an eligible receiver or defensive player, the O-lineman could have caught the ball in the air and advanced it. Go figure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 The funny thing is that if the lineman was facing downfield and got hit in the ass, there would probably have been no flag thrown at all! Just an incomplete pass and loss of down. Nope, still would have been "Illegal touching". Ball cannot strike an ineligible reciever first, in any way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heydave76 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Nope, still would have been "Illegal touching". Ball cannot strike an ineligible reciever first, in any way... I could be wrong, but I think I just saw on NFL network the other day that they changed that rule this year. If it hits an offensive lineman in the back, it is no longer illegal touching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I could be wrong, but I think I just saw on NFL network the other day that they changed that rule this year. If it hits an offensive lineman in the back, it is no longer illegal touching. that is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I could be wrong, but I think I just saw on NFL network the other day that they changed that rule this year. If it hits an offensive lineman in the back, it is no longer illegal touching. If any guy hits me in the back I am going to call illegal touching But I also think they changed the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Oh, based on the title I thought this was a Michael Jackson thread, sorry . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Nope, still would have been "Illegal touching". Ball cannot strike an ineligible reciever first, in any way... You are technically correct. The flag is RARELY throw though in this instance. I thought of clarifying this at posting, and should have known one of y'all would have jumped me for it. I don't know if I personnally have EVER see the flag thrown when the lineman is facing away. How many balls have you seen bounced off the back of some dudes helmet w/out a flag? This penaly still does not pre-empt an intentional grounding call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 You are technically correct. The flag is RARELY throw though in this instance. I thought of clarifying this at posting, and should have known one of y'all would have jumped me for it. I don't know if I personnally have EVER see the flag thrown when the lineman is facing away. How many balls have you seen bounced off the back of some dudes helmet w/out a flag? This penaly still does not pre-empt an intentional grounding call. I have seen this called at least 15+ times over the years, and it is called on at least 95% of all plays where the ball hits a lineman first. It is blatantly obvious to see when it happens, and is illegal, thus it is called correctly nearly every time. The only times where it is not called is if there is kind of a big group of linemen in one particular place and the refs couldn't tell if it hit an offensive lineman or defensive. I'm not sure about the rule change, but if it did in fact get changed, I view it as a bad change as it will be even easier to abuse now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 I'm not sure about the rule change, but if it did in fact get changed, I view it as a bad change as it will be even easier to abuse now. +1 If this indeed is the new rule, they are essentially saying a QB can fire the ball into the line while be sacked, and if it strikes his own lineman, no foul. For the few times it happens inadvertantly, it will be abused that much more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 You are technically correct. The flag is RARELY throw though in this instance. I thought of clarifying this at posting, and should have known one of y'all would have jumped me for it. I don't know if I personnally have EVER see the flag thrown when the lineman is facing away. How many balls have you seen bounced off the back of some dudes helmet w/out a flag? This penaly still does not pre-empt an intentional grounding call. I have seen this called at least 15+ times over the years, and it is called on at least 95% of all plays where the ball hits a lineman first. It is blatantly obvious to see when it happens, and is illegal, thus it is called correctly nearly every time. The only times where it is not called is if there is kind of a big group of linemen in one particular place and the refs couldn't tell if it hit an offensive lineman or defensive. I'm not sure about the rule change, but if it did in fact get changed, I view it as a bad change as it will be even easier to abuse now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.