Week 12: Thoughts after re-watching the game....

Originally posted by Natewillis2252:
There are actually two different types of chop blocks, both of them illegal. In one instance, an offensive player will use his shoulder or helmet to block an opponent below the knee either from the side or from behind. A chop block can also be called when this same hit is made while a defender is being blocked by another offensive player and thus can't see the hit coming. The last part is what was called that game. Personally I felt it was bs. 1st gore never blocked below the knees, 2nd Gore had already finished his block before Chilo got there to finish the defender off. I guess technically you could say it happened so fast it was hard to tell, I say this is why certain penalty's should be reviewable.

From Rule 12 Section 1 Article 16

"A chop block is a foul by the offense in which one offense player (designated as A1 for purposes of this rule) blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower while another offensive player (A2) occupies that same defensive player in one of the circumstances described in subsections (1) through (10) below." [note that I am only including the qualifying subsections, and I will refer to A1 as Gore and A2 as Rachal.] "

(1) On a forward pass play, Gore chops a defensive player while the defensive player is physically engaged by the blocking attempt of Rachal.

(2) On a forward pass play in which Rachal physically engages a defensive player with a blocking attempt, Gore chops the defensive player after the contact by Rachal has been broken and while Rachal is still confronting the defensive player.

(3) On a forward pass play, Gore chops a defensive player while Rachal confronts the defensive player in a pass blocking posture but is not physically engaged with the defensive player (a "lure").

(4) On a forward pass play, Gore blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower, and Rachal simultaneously, or immediately after the block by Gore, engages the defensive player high."

Originally posted by YungAce:
i can't help but think that terrell suggs and a few other ravens respect the niners more than other teams because of our head coach. we didn't see any of the usual arguing and fighting between players.

i hope we bounce back and score a few TDs against st. louis

That is an interesting point. The Ravens certainly are a bit chippy and the New Niners still haven't liberated themselves from that sort of garbage. Nonetheless, they both hunkered down and played a no baloney workman-like game. In a lot of ways it reminded me of a classic Rams/Niners game: two hard-nosed teams playing for a grudge and unwilling to let anything other than the game get in the way--through rose tinted glasses and via contemporary standards.

At the end of the day, it wasn't the best football game. But it sure *felt* like a much better game than it was. It felt like a much older game, and I think you put your finger right on it.

Originally posted by BrianGO:
From Rule 12 Section 1 Article 16

"A chop block is a foul by the offense in which one offense player (designated as A1 for purposes of this rule) blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower while another offensive player (A2) occupies that same defensive player in one of the circumstances described in subsections (1) through (10) below." [note that I am only including the qualifying subsections, and I will refer to A1 as Gore and A2 as Rachal.] "

(1) On a forward pass play, Gore chops a defensive player while the defensive player is physically engaged by the blocking attempt of Rachal.

(2) On a forward pass play in which Rachal physically engages a defensive player with a blocking attempt, Gore chops the defensive player after the contact by Rachal has been broken and while Rachal is still confronting the defensive player.

(3) On a forward pass play, Gore chops a defensive player while Rachal confronts the defensive player in a pass blocking posture but is not physically engaged with the defensive player (a "lure").

(4) On a forward pass play, Gore blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower, and Rachal simultaneously, or immediately after the block by Gore, engages the defensive player high."

I understand the rule as I have stated in my post, I was making the argument that Rachal came in after the block was already made upon further review BUT with it being such a bang bang play its almost impossible to see this, that's why i think on curtain plays like this they should be reviewable.

Whats funny is Pollard looked like he tried to dive into Gore. After watching this vid several times, again its a bang bang play there is no doubt that Rachal came in to finish the block but when the block was made already by Gore Rachal just had his hands on Pollards ass, then when the block was finished by Gore Rachal gives a push. I think if that play was reviewable it would have been over turned, especially since Pollard tried to throw himself at Gore.

http://www.49ers.com/media-gallery/videos/Highlights-49ers-vs-Ravens/11c521a8-a921-4720-943d-55aee97e3009

Edwards should have tackled the defender and taken the PI. Its almost like Edwards wasn't even trying to stop the defender from catching the ball.

Originally posted by RDB4216:

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:

You could have put #6 as number #1 and ended it right there.

Because away teams never win on a short week?

Away teams on a short week that had to fly clear across the country into the eastern time zone.
A team with the same core of players from the past few losing seasons that is winning this year due to the ability of this new coaching staff to gameplan week to week before each weekend game. Gameplanning time which the coaching staff did not have for this game.

Let's continue to minimize or underestimate how crucial (the lack of) TIME was to the outcome of this game.

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:

Originally posted by RDB4216:

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:
You could have put #6 as number #1 and ended it right there.

Because away teams never win on a short week?

Away teams on a short week that had to fly clear across the country into the eastern time zone.
A team with the same core of players from the past few losing seasons that is winning this year due to the ability of this new coaching staff to gameplan week to week before each weekend game. Gameplanning time which the coaching staff did not have for this game.

Let's continue to minimize or underestimate how crucial (the lack of) TIME was to the outcome of this game.

Agree BF and let's not forget that game planning to cover for the OLine has been necessary all year. The Detroit game being an excellent example. Suh was so confused he just stood and looked around to see who was going to hit him and from where.

With no time to plan the OLine looked their young, inept selves with a steep learning curve (especially on the rt). With time that would have been different.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:

Originally posted by RDB4216:

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:

You could have put #6 as number #1 and ended it right there.

Because away teams never win on a short week?

Away teams on a short week that had to fly clear across the country into the eastern time zone.
A team with the same core of players from the past few losing seasons that is winning this year due to the ability of this new coaching staff to gameplan week to week before each weekend game. Gameplanning time which the coaching staff did not have for this game.

Let's continue to minimize or underestimate how crucial (the lack of) TIME was to the outcome of this game.

Agree BF and let's not forget that game planning to cover for the OLine has been necessary all year. The Detroit game being an excellent example. Suh was so confused he just stood and looked around to see who was going to hit him and from where.

With no time to plan the OLine looked their young, inept selves with a steep learning curve (especially on the rt). With time that would have been different.

Spot on, dtg. The O-line is what I specifically had in mind. It would have taken a lot of time to study film, game-plan, "choreograph", and practice what the O-line needed to do to specifically counter that heavy Ravens blitz. Among everything else they had to prepare for, and the time they lost just to do all the admin and logistics tasks to travel back east, they did remarkably well enough in that game. Pretty much, all the level-headed professional experts in the NFL see that.

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:

Originally posted by RDB4216:

Originally posted by Bluefalcon61:

You could have put #6 as number #1 and ended it right there.

Because away teams never win on a short week?

Away teams on a short week that had to fly clear across the country into the eastern time zone.
A team with the same core of players from the past few losing seasons that is winning this year due to the ability of this new coaching staff to gameplan week to week before each weekend game. Gameplanning time which the coaching staff did not have for this game.

Let's continue to minimize or underestimate how crucial (the lack of) TIME was to the outcome of this game.

Agree BF and let's not forget that game planning to cover for the OLine has been necessary all year. The Detroit game being an excellent example. Suh was so confused he just stood and looked around to see who was going to hit him and from where.

With no time to plan the OLine looked their young, inept selves with a steep learning curve (especially on the rt). With time that would have been different.

Spot on, dtg. The O-line is what I specifically had in mind. It would have taken a lot of time to study film, game-plan, "choreograph", and practice what the O-line needed to do to specifically counter that heavy Ravens blitz. Among everything else they had to prepare for, and the time they lost just to do all the admin and logistics tasks to travel back east, they did remarkably well enough in that game. Pretty much, all the level-headed professional experts in the NFL see that.

What do they know?

Hey Marvin, I haven't had a chance to chime in and tell you how much I enjoyed reading your weekly observations this week.

I'll do so now: Great job!

I really hope that the back and forth you have in this thread with a certain poster doesn't adversely affect your enthusiasm for posting your weekly thread.

There are lots of us who read and enjoy your thoughts on the game each week.

Please keep it up!

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:
What is the rule on chop block? Isn't it that a DL must be engaged and THEN hit below the waste for it to be illegal?

It was a bad call because the DL was hit below the legs first and engaged to no other player on that contact.

I still can't believe they made our offense look average without Ray Lewis. Imagine if we didn't have Willis. Can't say we would do the same.

The way I've always understood just how you described it. It's illegal for a second blocker to chop below the waist AFTER a blocker has already engaged the defender high. From what I can gather since Thursday is that it can be an either/or scenario and chop block enforcement has been emphasized this year. As somebody pointed out we got the benefit of a similar call against Detroit which I can only vaguely recall.

That said it was a "good" call as in technically correct, but it would have been a better non-call.

It doesn't matter when someone engages when. The rule states basically one cannot go low and the other go high. Gore went low which is okay, but the minute Chilo puts a hand on him, it is ruled a chop block. This was stated in a report after the game, can't recall who wrote about it. If Chilo stayed off, then touchdown.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by prime21:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
3) Edwards:


Edwards said he was trying to set the cornerback up with an inside move and then go outside. Smith said he thought Edwards had committed to the inside and threw the ball there. "He saw one thing and I saw another," Edwards said. Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2011/11/edwards-says-hes-been-dealing-with-shoulder-sprain-for-three-weeks.html#ixzz1f2e4HZSJ

So Braylon ran the route as designed. Don't know why Alex wouldn't throw it to the outside.

First part. How did you get that from that quote?
Second part. Uh read the quote again he tells you why

Key word "...set the CB up..." That means it was designed to go outside but he was setting the CB up prior to getting into his actual route.

Sounds to me like it was an option route.

I heard Harbaugh said Alex was supposed to throw to the back shoulder(outside) on that specific route.

This leads me to believe that Edwards does not always run the routes as they are designed. Usually, you would trust the receiver to run it properly unless they have a tendency to commit to doing something else.

You want the wr to run precise routes, but you also have to allow the receiver
a) let the route develope
b) expect the receiver to set up the db.

If you watch, many receivers will sell the db, sometimes they even do a double move. The QB and wr have to study the db together and notice the same tendencies of the db, the QB has to trust his wr to be where the route is supposed to go. Unless you run a certain type of offense like the spread or run and shoot, you usually don't have option routes. The niners run a pro set w/modifications, to run an offense with option routes part time is a receipe for failure since they most likely won't have that chemistry needed that is only developed when you pass a lot like the saints.

However, the receiver has the option to break off when after he has run his route and it is not there-like in the red zone with a short field or when the play breaks down.

Originally posted by oldninerdude:
Hey Marvin, I haven't had a chance to chime in and tell you how much I enjoyed reading your weekly observations this week.

I'll do so now: Great job!

I really hope that the back and forth you have in this thread with a certain poster doesn't adversely affect your enthusiasm for posting your weekly thread.

There are lots of us who read and enjoy your thoughts on the game each week.

Please keep it up!

LOL. Nah, no worries. If you come into the 'zone and don't expect people to disagree with you then you are in the wrong place.

Originally posted by smithgdwg:
Edwards should have tackled the defender and taken the PI. Its almost like Edwards wasn't even trying to stop the defender from catching the ball.

Easy to see and do from a sofa or whereever it is you are sitting. Another thing when you are playing the game and things happen in a flash, fans forget that. Like watching an opponent watching a Mike tyson fight -the guy should have ducked.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by oldninerdude:
Hey Marvin, I haven't had a chance to chime in and tell you how much I enjoyed reading your weekly observations this week.

I'll do so now: Great job!

I really hope that the back and forth you have in this thread with a certain poster doesn't adversely affect your enthusiasm for posting your weekly thread.

There are lots of us who read and enjoy your thoughts on the game each week.

Please keep it up!

LOL. Nah, no worries. If you come into the 'zone and don't expect people to disagree with you then you are in the wrong place.