WHY it was the right call ....

In the aftermath of the "tuck rule" N.E. v. Oakland game, there had been almost nonstop talk of changing the rule. No one liked it. Everyone KNEW it was the rule, and "accepted" it, but for years every time it was called, people got pissed off. And, after the N.E. fiasco it would be called from time to time. Finally, they changed the rule last year.

Now, you have all of these announcers/"experts" saying that yesterday's call was "technically" the right call, but they don't like the rule.

Now, how much clamoring do you think there will be to change a rule that would allow defensive players to cloth line QBs?

As I mentioned in another string, one of the problems people are having is that you RARELY ever see a QB get cloth lined like that. I've NEVER heard a referee call that penalty and refer to the "neck area".

Almost all of the calls on Article 9(c) involve "blows" to the head. In fact, the rule says that the defensive player cannot "hit the passer forcibly in the head or neck area."

We've all seen defensive players get called for barely touching a QBs helmet and it's gotten to the point where it's just accepted.

But, do you really think anyone in the offseason is going to be calling for Article 9(c) to be amended to eliminate the "or neck area" language so that defensive player have free reign to cloth line quarterbacks?

Hell no. THAT is the reason the rule in in there in the first place. It's rarely called because it rarely occurs. And, for good reason.

If as the "experts" say it was "technically" the right call (like the former "tuck rule") but shouldn't have been called, then why will there be no one calling for the rule to be changed?