- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
WHY it was the right call ....
Posted on 11/18/13 at 9:27 am
Posted on 11/18/13 at 9:27 am
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?
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?
This post was edited on 11/18/13 at 9:29 am
Posted on 11/18/13 at 9:29 am to MMauler
People don't like penalties/rules deciding the outcome of games.
Posted on 11/18/13 at 9:33 am to MMauler
We got lucky why don't you just say that instead of it being the right call.
Posted on 11/18/13 at 9:36 am to MMauler
meh if Cam Jordan got called for that everyone on here would be crying goodell refs
Posted on 11/18/13 at 9:41 am to MMauler
The dumbest thing I keep hearing on ESPN is "it was the right call but it shouldn't have been called"
Posted on 11/18/13 at 10:00 am to MMauler
The slow mo showed clearly why it was the best, right and proper call...it wasn't like he pushed him down by his upper chest/front shoulders area ( ), you could see the force whipping Brees' head against his helmet, which is supposed to be the exact type of contact they're trying to eliminate. I'm just glad Brees is okay.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News