kcmast Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 (edited) 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 November 8, 2010 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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? Peyton has a history of getting his WRs wrecked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 8, 2010 Author Share Posted November 8, 2010 Warranted, because there was no completed pass , 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Actually it's the same, since the Collie play was also incorrectly called incomplete. Also fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 8, 2010 Author Share Posted November 8, 2010 Then why wasn't it challenged? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 8, 2010 Author Share Posted November 8, 2010 (edited) 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 November 8, 2010 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 8, 2010 Author Share Posted November 8, 2010 No it's not? And I agree with what the refs and Andy Reid thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Because Reid had already used and lost both of his challenges. Wow, you really aren't good at this, huh? Classic. Having not watched the entire game I didn't know this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 8, 2010 Author Share Posted November 8, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 8, 2010 Author Share Posted November 8, 2010 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? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 8, 2010 Author Share Posted November 8, 2010 (edited) 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. 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 November 8, 2010 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 8, 2010 Author Share Posted November 8, 2010 (edited) 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. link Edited November 8, 2010 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 I have heard plenty of radio guys today say it was not a dirty hit, but technically against the rules. You "got" nothing. 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? 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.