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.
(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.