Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Collie is out cold.


CaptainHook
 Share

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???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 372
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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."

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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:

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information