There are 58 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

WHY NO FLAG I was so pissed.

TBH, i don't have an issue with the no call...... i just have an issue with the consistency that the call is being made.
F**K the zebras !!!!
If you're a stationary high profile QB you will get the call. One good thing about Kaep is that he somehow avoids the big hit.
Originally posted by dara:
Nothing the defender could really do, Kap pretty much ran right into him.

This too.

Felt like Kaepernick tackled himself. I'll need to watch the play again, but of all the bad calls throughout the game and the rest of the season, this definitely isn't the first one I would complain about.
[ Edited by Fanaticofnfl on Dec 28, 2013 at 4:39 PM ]
Originally posted by KegBert:
Haha what are you talking about? When did stating your opinion become trolling in the webzone?I'm in no way under the delusion that my opinion of the rules effects how the refs call them, nor do I think i get to make up the rules lol.

I feel like that was a good no call for the same reason I think the Brooks penalty was a bad call. The defenders, in both instances, where just doing their jobs, which is to come off the edge and get to the QB. Neither of those hits looked malicous, just good clean football and I simply don't believe that we should be flagging players for doing their job.

So yes, I like the no call and hope that refs start to heir on that side of things instead of throwin a hanky every time an offensive player gets sneezed on.

Okay I can get this your explanation makes a bit more sense to me now.
But here are the issues:


The intent is not considered in the rule.


It seems alot of the ninerzone just don't have a grasp on the rule. So I looked it up to make sure I was not wrong.
http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf


(8) When the passer goes outside the pocket area and either continues moving with the ball (without
attempting to advance the ball as a runner) or throws while on the run, he loses the protection of the
one-step rule provided for in (1) above, and the protection against a low hit provided for in (5) above,
but he remains covered by all the other special protections afforded to a passer in the pocket
(numbers 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7), as well as the regular unnecessary-roughness rules applicable to all player
positions. If the passer stops behind the line and clearly establishes a passing posture, he will then be
covered by all of the special protections for passers.


Unless he advances the ball scrambling inside the pocket does not make him a "runner" This shows this clearly.

earlier it shows:

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.

The reason brooks was not a penalty was it was incidental after the hit brees face was hit. If your argument is there was no avoiding because he turned into it I can understand that but completely disagree. Take another look at the hit: This shows three views of it. Take a close look.




If you can't see he intentionally lowered his head here we respectfully disagree. But there was no shoulder involved. I was taught to hit "heads up" and only learned to lower my head when I intended to do a little extra damage. This is exactly what it looks like to me. As you can see he lowers his eye level and goes head first. So I guess the truth is I "do" believe it was intentional.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by Need4Speed:



None of the commentators even said anything about this hit. It was obviously helmet to helmet. He was in the pocket scrambling. If this was Manning he would be getting a letter in the mail. Against Colin it's well he might of ran so....

This is a perfect example of what Colin needs to stop doing. Running around in a circle and turning his entire back on the field of play. He seems to like this technique quite a lot more than other QB's I see. Find your check down man, throw it away, go to a 2nd or 3rd read (not just 1 read), or throw it away. Spinning like a top backwards with your back to the field won't accomplish much.

And it will get you punched in the mouth sometimes just like this play.

This play is a bad example and not a perfect example to criticize his spinning around. He had no where else to run. Other than throwing it away. Watch the play, if you think he has a window to run thru on the front right, you are sorley mistaken. Neither was his front left or side right lane was available. Kaep is not like Wilson in that he is tall and a long stride that makes him deceptively fast, he is not shifty or has quick feet.

This was just a well played by the Atlanta Defense, instead put the blame where it should really be, the OL did not keep a nice pocket and creat throwing/running lanes which go hand in hand.

But back to the original post, this should be a penalty I think. I also don't think it has anything to do with race as one poster put in, but more because he is labeled as running QB, so the league maybe giving more leeway or the opponent coaches may be saying to the refs, hey remember he is a running qb, so if he is going to take off we are going to hit him so don't penalize us for tackling him, but none the less, they should be more consistent with the rules.
[ Edited by WildBill on Dec 31, 2013 at 3:43 AM ]