NFL 2012

[skeptik]

QBs get hit all the time after the ball is released with no penalty. If the difference is merely that contact of some part of the player was made with the QBs head, this is just part of the sad state of affairs in NFL overprotection of QBs.

I could not give less of a shit if you think it should be fine for defenseless players to be hit in the head. That is still what the rule is and has been for a long time, and if you don't actually know the rule, then it's your own damn fault and you're the one looking dumb for not knowing it. You might as well stop watching the NFL, because it's only going to become even more "player safety-conscious". They'll probably ban stiff arms and all hits to the head, even of runners and of defensive players. They're already doing away with cut blocks next year.

 

[Dak]

You are failing to distinguish between helmet to helmet and contact with the head. Secondly, it's selectively enforced (h2h), which is absurd because it's pretty obvious when it happens. Thirdly, there would have been no foul on the play if Ben still had the ball in his hands, so it had nothing to do with contact with the head.

As far as the direction of the NFL, I'm sure it is going in that direction, and it's a shame. Improving gear and stopping leading with the head is one thing, working towards an outcome where everyone plays in an invisible straight-jacket is going to eventually kill the game.

 

[skeptik]

Wow, you are so blatantly wrong.

HITS TO PASSER’S HEAD AND USE OF HELMET AND FACEMASK
(3) In covering the passer position, Referees will be particularly alert to fouls in which defenders impermissibly use the helmet and/or facemask to hit the passer, or use hands, arms, or other parts of the body to hit the passer forcibly in the head or neck area (see also the other unnecessary-roughness rules covering these subjects).

As far as your equally blatantly wrong claim that you can hit a quarterback in the head as long as he still has the ball confused: !):

Any physical acts against passers during or just after a pass which, in the Referee’s judgment, are unwarranted by the circumstances of the play will be called as fouls. The Referee will be guided by the following principles:

Obviously, one of those "following principles" is the above quoted, under the heading "HITS TO PASSER’S HEAD AND USE OF HELMET AND FACEMASK".

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Here's my power rankings of the top half of the NFL

Not gonna wait for the result of Jets-Titans?

Steelers should put Batch back in.

That was a great system comeback by the Pats last night. Cassell totally would have done the same thing.

 

[Dak]

As far as your equally blatantly wrong claim that you can hit a quarterback in the head as long as he still has the ball confused: !):

Obviously, one of those "following principles" is the above quoted, under the heading "HITS TO PASSER’S HEAD AND USE OF HELMET AND FACEMASK".

Because quarterbacks heads are never hit in the head area during the process of non-penalized sacks.

The RTP penalty is called for late hits. The ref considered Ware arriving late. I don't think so. If it was a makeup for the lack of an offsides call that's understandable. As far as hits to the head for any position, it's simply a call that's made with no consistency, which is why you have hits with penalties but no fines and then hits with fines but no penalties.

@CF re: Batch. troll much?

 

[Morbus616]

I'm going to make all of you angry people nice again by telling you a joke:

What's the objective of jewish football?

To get the quarter back.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

@CF re: Batch. troll much?

Come on, we all know Big Ben hasn't been the same since he stopped raping women.

 

[Dak]

BTW, here's a question. DG referenced Ware's "gigantic arm" which I just now began to contemplate as I enjoy my evening routine.

Ware and Rofl are basically equal size, Rofl has an inch, Ware has about 10-15lbs. So, if, in the course of attempting a pass, Rofl (or any large QB) manages to accidentally hit someone in the head, shouldn't that be considered unnecessary roughness? After all, it obviously wouldn't be deliberate, but intent doesn't matter. It's striking someone in the head with a "gigantic arm", even if it's your own teammate. Friendly fire still kills.

 

[skeptik]

Because quarterbacks heads are never hit in the head area during the process of non-penalized sacks.

The RTP penalty is called for late hits. The ref considered Ware arriving late. I don't think so. If it was a makeup for the lack of an offsides call that's understandable. As far as hits to the head for any position, it's simply a call that's made with no consistency, which is why you have hits with penalties but no fines and then hits with fines but no penalties.

Ware was flagged for an illegal blow to the head, not for a late hit. The referee said this, specifically. I rewatched it and heard him say it when I grabbed those screenshots. So it literally had nothing to do with the timing of the hit. Roughing the passer is not just for late hits. You just responded to a post in which I quoted in bold an explanation that involved a penalty "during or just after a pass". Obviously you can't have a late hit during a pass, so it's self-evident that roughing the passer pertains to more than just late hits. All you have to do to know better is to click on the link that I provided above.

The lack of consistency is irrelevant to whether or not something is actually a penalty. Officials are human with human limitations. They don't catch everything. They missed an offsides call and a holding call on the same play that they called roughing the passer on.

Again, the relevant data from the rules, easily accessible to all in the link above:

ROUGHING THE PASSER
Article 13 Because the act of passing often puts the quarterback (or any other player attempting a pass) in
a position where he is particularly vulnerable to injury, special rules against roughing the passer apply. The
Referee has principal responsibility for enforcing these rules. Any physical acts against passers during or
just after a pass which, in the Referee’s judgment, are unwarranted by the circumstances of the play will
be called as fouls. The Referee will be guided by the following principles:

HITS TO PASSER’S HEAD AND USE OF HELMET AND FACEMASK
(3) In covering the passer position, Referees will be particularly alert to fouls in which defenders
impermissibly use the helmet and/or facemask to hit the passer, or use hands, arms, or other parts of
the body to hit the passer forcibly in the head or neck area (see also the other unnecessary-roughness
rules covering these subjects). A defensive player must not use his helmet against a passer who is in
a defenseless posture for example, (a) forcibly hitting the passer’s head or neck area with the helmet
or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the passer by
encircling or grasping him, or (b) lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or
forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the passer’s body. This rule does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or non-crown parts of the helmet in the course of a
conventional tackle on a passer. (this is for your hurr hurr qbs are never hit in the head bit)

Note 1: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic on the quarterback, the Referee
should always call roughing the passer.

More:

Article 9 It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless
posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:
(1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass;

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or
shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless
player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of
the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

 

[Dak]

This rule does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or non-crown parts of the helmet in the course of a
conventional tackle on a passer. (this is for your hurr hurr qbs are never hit in the head bit)

I said hit in the head, not with the head. However, I didn't realize the rules had gotten that restrictive (retarded). Regardless of what the rules state, here is the problem:

Note 1: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic on the quarterback, the Referee
should always call roughing the passer.

So anything could be roughing the passer. It's all up to the ref. Guess I can't complain about the call. The ref can't be wrong with this mandate. The rules can be though.

 

[skeptik]

Yes, the referee can be wrong. Every call is evaluated every week and the officials get graded. If the league is being consistent in terms of fines (which would vindicate the official), however, then Ware will probably be fined. You simply can't forearm a quarterback in the back of the head.

The Steelers have been on the butt end of the officials being wrong several times this year, some of which they have admitted to (they said that Emmanuel Sanders' open-field fumble in the Raven's game should have been called an incomplete pass, for example. Another more pertinent example: Ryan Clark was flagged for a hit on a defenseless receiver (blow to the head) on Victor Cruz earlier this year when replays showed he clearly hit him in the ribs, cleanly, before the ball even hit the ground. He was not fined for it). I would argue that twice this year officials have erroneously allowed defensive touchdowns to stand against the Steelers as well, but one has to appeal to the video evidence and the necessity for proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". I say the strip sack of Ben in the Giants game and the lateral/forward pass in the Chargers game should have both been incomplete passes, but it's not like it matters at this point.

 

[Dak]

Except the league generally isn't consistent with fines. I thought you've already said as much in relation to Harrison.

 

[skeptik]

They are far more consistent in terms of yes or no than in terms of amounts. Although the only time Harrison has been subject to punishment in the last couple years since the hit on Massaquoi was the Colt McCoy incident, and he was suspended for that, not directly fined (although it is a loss of a game check).

 

[crimsonfloyd]

So Sunday night's game was probably the best game I've seen all year and Monday night's game was probably the worst I've seen all year. At least the ending was hilarious. It was like a battle to see which team could fuck up worse.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

The Card/Jet game a week or two ago was even worse.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

The Card/Jet game a week or two ago was even worse.

I'm sure. But who actually saw it other than die hard Cardnials and Jets fans?

 

[Dak]

1)Patriots
2)49ers
3)Texans
4)Broncos
5)Packers
6)Falcons
7)Colts
8)Seahawks
9)Redskins
10)Cowboys
11)Giants
12)Vikings
13)Bengals
14)Steelers
15)Bears
16)Ravens

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings/_/year/2012/week/16

I was pretty damn close to ESPN rankings, and have the Texans, Cowboys, Bengals exactly the same. Most are just off by one up or down.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I've come to the conclusion that Eli Manning is a successful Drew Bledsoe.

 

[Dak]

Go ooooonn