CaptainHook

Collie is out cold.

Recommended Posts

Denver challenged that the receiver possessed the ball and became a runner, thus making the helmet-to-helmet contact legal.

Aren't all helmet to helmet hits illegal now? So it would be a penalty no matter what and a challenge would be useless???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't all helmet to helmet hits illegal now? So it would be a penalty no matter what and a challenge would be useless???

 

No. Only on receivers in a defenseless posture and on QBs. Helmet to helmet contact is virtually impossible to avoid when considering running plays and the NFL has recognized this. In addition, you'd have a very difficult time figuring which player, the runner or the tackler, initiated the contact in many instances.

 

That said, leading with the crown of the helmet in striking an opponent no matter what the circumstances are is dangerous to both parties as well as being chicken#### and terrible form.

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't all helmet to helmet hits illegal now?

 

Nope. There are plenty of times helmets collide...think about it. How many times do you see a RB jump over a pile to gain a yard for a 1st down? He is airborn. If all helmet-to-helmet hits were illegal, there'd be literally no way to stop that play. There are dozens and dozens of times every weekend that helmet-to-helmet collisions occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
second cheap shot delivered to a Colts WR in as many weeks.

 

Did Peyton lead him into a zone or was the Eagles's gameplan to triple Collie? :wacko:

 

Peyton has a history of getting his WRs wrecked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Warranted, because there was no completed pass :wacko:, which the naked eye and replays confirm.

 

The Collie hit was a different type of play, since the pass was completed (which replay confirms).

Actually it's the same, since the Collie play was also ruled incomplete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. There are plenty of times helmets collide...think about it. How many times do you see a RB jump over a pile to gain a yard for a 1st down? He is airborn. If all helmet-to-helmet hits were illegal, there'd be literally no way to stop that play. There are dozens and dozens of times every game that helmet-to-helmet collisions occur.

 

fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it's the same, since the Collie play was also incorrectly called incomplete.

 

Also fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko: Then why wasn't it challenged?

 

So your standard for officiating is whether or not the coach challenged the play? Whether or not the coach thought the play was worth a challenge (or potentially losing a time out) is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to the question of whether or not the correct call was made. Irrelevant.

 

If that's your best argument, you lose. Sorry, but whether or not a call is challenged is not a valid method for verifying a call. In fact, whether or not a challenge is won or lost is a poor argument. Maybe the ref knows what he saw and will not change it. Maybe he's trying to make a point. Maybe the video is "inconclusive." Even if the call had been challenged and the challenge was denied, I'd still say the call was incorrect according to the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I think NFL coaches and refs know the rules far better than some guys on a ff message board.

 

If the refs defended the call afterwards and the Eagles coaches also decided not to challenge it, I'm gonna say they understand the rule. Plus, I have seen this exact situation a few years ago with the Clark/Lynch hit and the NFL defended that one as well.

Edited by CaptainHook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I think NFL coaches and refs know the rules far better than some guys on a ff message board.

 

Wow. Great comeback. It doesn't address my point at all, but it is every bit as witty as "no, but your face is." By the way, you also qualify as "some guy on a FF message board."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not?

 

And I agree with what the refs and Andy Reid thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it's not?

 

And I agree with what the refs and Andy Reid thought.

 

So you know for sure that Andy Reid thought the hit was illegal? When you talked to him and asked him why he didn't challenge, is that what he told you? Because there are lots of reasons to not challenge a call, even if you think they got it wrong. Also, Andy Reid and the refs saw it at full speed on the fly. You have the benefit of having seen the reply. So your entire argument is based on what one game official and a guy who was 50 yards away thought they saw at full speed? I understand you're so far out on this limb that you can no longer just admit you're wrong, but your arguments are getting ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko: Then why wasn't it challenged?

 

Because Reid had already used and lost both of his challenges.

 

Wow, you really aren't good at this, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Reid had already used and lost both of his challenges.

 

Wow, you really aren't good at this, huh?

 

:wacko: Classic. Having not watched the entire game I didn't know this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko: Classic. Having not watched the entire game I didn't know this.

 

 

They said that on NFL channel, but I looked it up and it's not true. At the time of the play I wondered why he didn't challenge, I figured cause it looked like collie had just been killed on a completely legal hit, and he was afraid of polians lawyers who would sure seek him out after the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They said that on NFL channel, but I looked it up and it's not true. At the time of the play I wondered why he didn't challenge, I figured cause it looked like collie had just been killed on a completely legal hit, and he was afraid of polians lawyers who would sure seek him out after the game.

 

Doesn't really matter, it's an incredibly dumb argument anyway. Since you can't challenge a flag, you would have to challenge that the catch was made and then fumbled, thus making the receiver a ballcarrier and no longer defenseless, and then the official could still rule the hit illegal if he wanted to. After all, the league has acknowledged that they made it clear to the refs that if there was any doubt at full speed err on the side of throwing the flag. There were just too many variables, I don't blame Reid for not challenging the play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Reid had already used and lost both of his challenges.

 

Wow, you really aren't good at this, huh?

Oops!

 

Reid had all the time in the world to see the replay due to the injury.

 

And like I said earlier, it's been challenged, and lost, before.

 

I love you guys high fiving how ya "got me" and then found out u were wrong. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it's the same, since the Collie play was also ruled incomplete.

 

And since both plays were ruled incomplete, both drew a flag.

 

The difference is, after being able to see it in slow-motion, everyone except you and the Colts coach has said it was a catch. Which is why now it is clear that while one play involved hitting a defenseless WR, the other did not.

 

I am sure the league will comment on it this week. And I'll bet you whatever you want that no suspension or fine is levied because it's pretty easy to see with the advantage of instant replay that the hit was clean, and legal.

 

I'm willing to back it up...are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oops!

 

Reid had all the time in the world to see the replay due to the injury.

 

And like I said earlier, it's been challenged, and lost, before.

 

I love you guys high fiving how ya "got me" and then found out u were wrong. :wacko:

 

We still "got you" because your argument is ludicrous to begin with. And the reason the other one was lost was because on replay it was obviously not a catch. This one obviously was. I still find it amazing that your defense is that since Reid didn't challenge it, that means the call was correct. All it means is that for whatever reason, Reid didn't think the challenge was worth risking, because they are unpredictable. Laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And since both plays were ruled incomplete, both drew a flag.

 

The difference is, after being able to see it in slow-motion, everyone except you and the Colts coach has said it was a catch. Which is why now it is clear that while one play involved hitting a defenseless WR, the other did not.

 

I am sure the league will comment on it this week. And I'll bet you whatever you want that no suspension or fine is levied because it's pretty easy to see with the advantage of instant replay that the hit was clean, and legal.

 

I'm willing to back it up...are you?

:wacko: I HAVE ALREADY SAID HE SHOULD NOT BE FINED

 

But I would be surprised if the league came out and said the ref made an incorrect ruling.

 

The key here is "defenseless". I guess I'd like to see the NFL rules on this. Clearly it involve more that just possession for the referees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We still "got you" because your argument is ludicrous to begin with. And the reason the other one was lost was because on replay it was obviously not a catch. This one obviously was. I still find it amazing that your defense is that since Reid didn't challenge it, that means the call was correct. All it means is that for whatever reason, Reid didn't think the challenge was worth risking, because they are unpredictable. Laughable.

I have heard plenty of radio guys today say it was not a dirty hit, but technically against the rules. You "got" nothing. :wacko:

 

You can hate the helmet-to-helmet rule. Just like I think the high five to back of Manning's helmet is a bad rule. But it's there.

Edited by CaptainHook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko: I HAVE ALREADY SAID HE SHOULD NOT BE FINED

 

But I would be surprised if the league came out and said the ref made an incorrect ruling.

 

The key here is "defenseless". I guess I'd like to see the NFL rules on this. Clearly it involve more that just possession for the referees.

 

Got news for ya' bub. If the league thinks the hit was illegal, he will be fined. As big a deal as they have made about head shots they have no choice. If they choose not to fine him, it means they don't think the hit was illegal. I agree with you that I doubt they actually come and say it, but if they don't levy a fine, what they're saying is that the official did the best he could under the circumstances, but he blew the call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't really matter, it's an incredibly dumb argument anyway. Since you can't challenge a flag, you would have to challenge that the catch was made and then fumbled, thus making the receiver a ballcarrier and no longer defenseless

it's been done before. :wacko:

 

link

Edited by CaptainHook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have heard plenty of radio guys today say it was not a dirty hit, but technically against the rules. You "got" nothing. :wacko:

 

You can hate the helmet-to-helmet rule. Just like I think the high five to back of Manning's helmet is a bad rule. But it's there.

 

Again, what the hell does that have to do with your argument that since Reid didn't challenge it, that means it was legal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.