There are 58 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Media and the 49ers

Originally posted by GNielsen:
I don't see any take-down language in the rule book. Here's what I see:

"Use of Hands, Arms, and Body No player on offense may assist a runner except by blocking for him. There shall be no interlocking interference. A runner may ward off opponents with his hands and arms but no other player on offense may use hands or arms to obstruct an opponent by grasping with hands, pushing, or encircling any part of his body during a block. Hands (open or closed) can be thrust forward to initially contact an opponent on or outside the opponent's frame, but the blocker immediately must work to bring his hands on or inside the frame. Note: Pass blocking: Hand(s) thrust forward that slip outside the body of the defender will be legal if blocker immediately worked to bring them back inside. Hand(s) or arm(s) that encircle a defender—i.e., hook an opponent—are to be considered illegal and officials are to call a foul for holding. Blocker cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an opponent in a manner that restricts his movement as the play develops. Hands cannot be thrust forward above the frame to contact an opponent on the neck, face or head."

If anyone can find this take-down requirement, I'd like to see it.

Its not there - he misinterpreted 'close line play', which is defined as the immediate area between the tackles
  • BobS
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,813
What the NFL calls holding seems to evolve by the day. What I seem to see is an offensive lineman can grab and hold a player at first engagement, as long as he doesn't pull the defender down, or grab him again after he breaks free. So you can run up and hug a guy, but if he breaks loose you can't do it again. So it is like you can hold a guy once, but not twice. It is a freakin joke, and allows too much interpretation by the ref on what is holding and what is not. If you changed the holding rules back to 30 years ago they were well defined and very black and white. Too much gray area now, but if you enforced the old rules that were easier to call we wouldn't have a bunch of 38-35 games and 4,000 yard passers that most of the fans want.
pretty apparent the refs f**ked up. Not just on that play, but just about the entire game.
[ Edited by ChazBoner on Feb 11, 2013 at 9:23 AM ]
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Can somebody explain what Peter King is trying to say here? I've never heard of such a 'take-down' requirement in my life

Quote:
... The reason officials called no hold as two Ravens mugged 49er special teamer Bruce Miller on the 108-yard kickoff return for touchdown by Jacoby Jones in the Super Bowl: Miller would have had to be taken to the ground for it to be a penalty. Dumb, dumb rule. Miller was surrounded and held by two Ravens just as Jones sprinted by. The Competition Committee has to change that rule in 2013/

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130211/monday-morning-quarterback-peter-king-offseason-week-1/

If that is the case, are you also telling me that the player has to be taken down to the ground in order to be an obvious hold, even its a lineman, a receiver, or even a corner?

A hold is a hold no matter what.
Originally posted by BobS:
What the NFL calls holding seems to evolve by the day. What I seem to see is an offensive lineman can grab and hold a player at first engagement, as long as he doesn't pull the defender down, or grab him again after he breaks free. So you can run up and hug a guy, but if he breaks loose you can't do it again. So it is like you can hold a guy once, but not twice. It is a freakin joke, and allows too much interpretation by the ref on what is holding and what is not. If you changed the holding rules back to 30 years ago they were well defined and very black and white. Too much gray area now, but if you enforced the old rules that were easier to call we wouldn't have a bunch of 38-35 games and 4,000 yard passers that most of the fans want.

right, but none of those standards apply to the play in question. That's always been flagged.
Sounds like the saving face is not working because it is obvious the refs cost us the Super Bowl.
Originally posted by robniner:
Sounds like the saving face is not working because it is obvious the refs cost us the Super Bowl.

The reality is that the NFL blew it by putting in a lower-tier crew in for the Super Bowl. there wasn't any 'fix' or anything like that, but the blown calls were heavily-skewed.
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by BobS:
What the NFL calls holding seems to evolve by the day. What I seem to see is an offensive lineman can grab and hold a player at first engagement, as long as he doesn't pull the defender down, or grab him again after he breaks free. So you can run up and hug a guy, but if he breaks loose you can't do it again. So it is like you can hold a guy once, but not twice. It is a freakin joke, and allows too much interpretation by the ref on what is holding and what is not. If you changed the holding rules back to 30 years ago they were well defined and very black and white. Too much gray area now, but if you enforced the old rules that were easier to call we wouldn't have a bunch of 38-35 games and 4,000 yard passers that most of the fans want.

right, but none of those standards apply to the play in question. That's always been flagged.

Agreed. And let's not forget, this was a kick-off return. A holding (even on the defensive team) and/or block-in-the-back is called on a mass majority of these plays. Nobody would have even thought twice about it if this was called esp. given how obvious it was (esp. given the ref was standing there watching the entire play/hold).
[ Edited by NCommand on Feb 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM ]
  • cciowa
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 25,236
28 for us whiffed a tackle that would have made all this non call blather,,,, blather, just ran right past the returner which we have seen before with our special ed teams... had we tried to run it into the end zone on second and third down, it never would never have come down to a fourth down no call ,, besides the ball was going out of bounds to crabtree anyway.
Originally posted by nickbradley:
The reality is that the NFL blew it by putting in a lower-tier crew in for the Super Bowl. there wasn't any 'fix' or anything like that, but the blown calls were heavily-skewed.

I've gotten questions at work of what happened to Ed Hoculi and why?
Originally posted by cciowa:
28 for us whiffed a tackle that would have made all this non call blather,,,, blather, just ran right past the returner which we have seen before with our special ed teams... had we tried to run it into the end zone on second and third down, it never would never have come down to a fourth down no call ,, besides the ball was going out of bounds to crabtree anyway.

Dude,

The Ravens were prepared to go on a run defense near the goaline so odds of a stuff would have been great.
  • Jcool
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 13,690
Are we really still on this???
Originally posted by cciowa:
28 for us whiffed a tackle that would have made all this non call blather,,,, blather, just ran right past the returner which we have seen before with our special ed teams... had we tried to run it into the end zone on second and third down, it never would never have come down to a fourth down no call ,, besides the ball was going out of bounds to crabtree anyway.

returns are called back every game almost.
Originally posted by robniner:
Originally posted by cciowa:
28 for us whiffed a tackle that would have made all this non call blather,,,, blather, just ran right past the returner which we have seen before with our special ed teams... had we tried to run it into the end zone on second and third down, it never would never have come down to a fourth down no call ,, besides the ball was going out of bounds to crabtree anyway.

Dude,

The Ravens were prepared to go on a run defense near the goaline so odds of a stuff would have been great.

They were playing the run on 1st and 7 and lil tiny James still got 2 yards.
Originally posted by Jcool:
Are we really still on this???

new news