As a packer/tarheel fan when I had Favre and hansbrough I was a happy guy. Two guys you hated on the other team but loved when they were on yours
NFL 2023-24
- Thread starter gteeitup
- Start date
Or dick pics sent to sideline reporters.
Whatever. I'm a huge Brett Favre fan. Love that guy. I remember that Monday night game after his dad died when he went off. He was 100% football.
I was a big fan as well, but with the drama of his on again off again retirement or going to another team, I finally got thinking just hang it up already and let that backup have his shot. Turned out to be a hell of a shot.
I would have a hard time deciding in hindsight whether I wanted Favre or Rodgers as my QB. Emotionally and enjoyment wise I go with Favre. Getting the job done I'd probably pick Rodgers by a very small margin..
I love how you consistently have the worst takes with uni looks. It's your thing and you own it well.
why the F is that a penalty? You pull off the awesome fake, you get the awesome consequence. Next play.
I don't think that applies. The player that Sapp took out was defenseless because he was out of the play and had no reason to expect Sapp's brutal hit. The QB in question here was carrying out a fake...he was still actively acting like he had the ball...so he was NOT out of the play and he should have been expecting contact from someone he might have been effectively faking out. If the QB still had the ball and was standing exactly how he was, the defensive player would be completely expected to do exactly what he did and no flag would be thrown unless the contact was unnecessarily rough.
And I don't mean just because we saw how well the fake worked, it's because he was actively making himself a target by continuing to fake. If the QB still had the ball, there would have been no penalty. It's bullshit that a player making what he thinks is actually a legit hit due to the actions of his target should be penalized for it.
If the QB had dropped his arms and turned his body upfield, I would be agreeing with the call, as long as he did so in time for the defensive player to recognize that he didn't have the football.
What if the QB is passing and the outside linebacker is bearing down on him hard. He throws the pass and just a split second after he releases the football, he gets hammered. There's no flag because the OLB wasn't required to not hit the QB even though he was in a defenseless position, because the QB was still active in the play and the OLB couldn't be expected to stop his momentum that quickly. And the same should apply to a faked out defensive player when the faker is still faking, not because of the defensive player's momentum but because the QB was making himself a legit target.
No flag should be thrown when the victimized player was making himself subject to being a victim, and the flagged player was only doing exactly what he was supposed to do.
I put this into the bucket of football watering-down the product with all these protective rules that wind up helping O and hurting D. At this rate they might as well institute two-hand touch on QBs. Or have them wear a flag.
ETA: in this case the O deserves all the yardage they got (from penalty and play) due to fantastic execution.
yeah, I have imagined exactly that, eliminating hard contact from pro ball and instead having flag football. It sucks.
On the other hand, I do agree with some of the softening. At this point though, it's more the idiocy of interpreting the new rules without the understanding that it is still a contact sport.
Zero chance I'm reading beyond the first sentence. In today's NFL a QB is considered a defenseless player right after he is drafted. He can't be touched at that point. So, when that guy hit him after the fake, it was a penalty.
but are you agreeing that in reality the call was a good one? If so, I'm saying you and the ref are wrong. Because if you had read further, you would have to address the issue of the QB sometimes legitimately getting creamed without a flag being thrown.
Going by the rule, it was an ok penalty to call. Do I think it was something that should be a penalty? No.
I have to admit that I don't know the letter of the rule other than you can't hit a defenseless player. What I'm trying to point out is that the interpretation of that is off base in this case. If the QB is always defenseless, why aren't flags being thrown every time one is sacked or otherwise tackled? I know that was an exaggeration on your part, but the question is valid. If a QB is involved in a play by carrying out a fake, he should not be considered defenseless any more than when he runs or has just thrown a pass.
the only thing changing or moving toward change, are kicking game rules…kickoffs aren’t even a thing anymore, if you’ve noticed.
i’m personally fine having a different rule for the qb in the pocket…once he’s out, he’s just a dude…the punter and fg kicker also have zero protection at impact, but nobody complains about that, and you know why.
i’m personally fine having a different rule for the qb in the pocket…once he’s out, he’s just a dude…the punter and fg kicker also have zero protection at impact, but nobody complains about that, and you know why.
I'm not sure what you're saying regarding the bolded in your post. Could you be more specific?
no sorry, not even sure what game you're talking about. Tell me the game and maybe a little info on the hit and I'll see if I can find a vid or some other content.
so for me, i don’t feel like the qb can brace himself from any contact at all unless he’s running or he’s delivered the pass…similar to a punter punting and a kicker kicking a fg or xp.
san fran/ nygiants
yes and no. It IS roughing the passer in a factual sense, but it isn't by rule, IMO. Because it was too close to call. In other words, if he had a bit more of a run into the QB, or if he had been more brutal in his takedown...if it had been more blatant...I would have flagged him myself. In that play, IMO, the ref has no way of knowing if the player's momentum took him into the QB, and he also has no way of knowing if there might have been a less punishing way to take him to the ground. I understand the need to stop maiming the most important player on the team, but if the game is to be taken seriously and not turned into theater, you shouldn't have the outcome influenced by the whim of a ref making a pure judgement call. The game is currently afflicted with refs being asked to skew their judgement toward softening the game, IMO. Refs are graded, and I have to assume that with the emphasis being on safety and protection, that's the way calls are going to tend to go.
I'm the guy who would rather see a penalty called instead of letting one slide; it pisses me off more to see a foul not called than to see one called too tightly. But a ref should give the benefit of the doubt on calls that could go either way, even if it does involve the QB, like the one here,. And they shouldn't fail to grasp the intent on a given play like the one I'm arguing about.
Protect the QB with reasonable rules, but don't protect him beyond what those rules intend.
it’s by rule now because of the weight of the player forcibly landing on the qb…if he hits him from the side or behind as he’s throwing and doesn’t land on him, it’s not a penalty…also, extending the arms to shove the qb is also not likely to draw a flag In that scenario.
as long as we’re on this penalty bit, someone has to do something about illegal contact…i still don’t know how it’s called because it’s different week to week haha.
as long as we’re on this penalty bit, someone has to do something about illegal contact…i still don’t know how it’s called because it’s different week to week haha.
but the tackler can't necessarily avoid a straight on landing. In this case I thought he could have, but as I indicated it was too close to call, IMO. Does the rule state that landing on the QB is a penalty regardless?
ETA...I just looked up the NFL guide to the rules, and it is a judgement call as to whether the defender lands too forcibly on top of the player. But I was surprised to see that it is flat out dictated that any benefit of the doubt in a roughing or unsafe action has to go toward throwing the flag.
Last edited:
he cannot avoid, fact…the problem for me is they can’t when they are that close…for instance, a 300lb dude trying to dip around another 200lb man while running forward would unquestionably destroy 300lb man’s knees and whatever else is torqued during such movement.
it’s better for both involved, and more fun for us, to just shove the qb…everyone wins, message is sent, both move on.
can’t recall the lineman right now, but two years ago he tried to avoid landing on the qb and actually hurt himself.
Sam stunk-it-up about as bad as you could possibly make it stink today! That was a HORRIBLE performance. Buffalo just abused the Skins an Sam made some TERRIBLE decisions.
g, if you saw the Col./Col. St. game last weekend (great game), you saw the TD robbing penalty at the end of the game in OT. It was called a blindside block and it sent Col. St. back, and they threw a pick to end the game. That call was crucial to the outcome. I have an opinion and I wonder if you might concur.
I am trying to provide a clip, which isn't as complete a view as was provided in the game...but still I wonder what your opinion of the call is.
There was also a QB hit in that game that was VERY similar to the one we have been talking about. It was flagged.
Yeah, I'm sure everyone in the media will overreact and act like he should be released and then killed.
i would deem that a foul, an illegal blindside block…five years ago, that is legal.
So you're saying it was a good call by the current rule and interpretation.
I don't know if you're going by the clip I provided or if you saw the game, where they showed it from behind the end zone at ground level...but I don't think it was a blindside block at all, and it had a huge impact on the game. I think the ref reacted to the way the defender flew off to the side; and when you see the other view, you can see that he turned at the last fraction of a second because he saw the block coming, and that made the block come from more of an angle to him, and that's what made him go off sideways...but it was still pretty much a straight on block; and first and foremost, it did not come from outside the defender's field of vision.....and you can't blame the blocker for the target turning..
But I will say that it was a play that a good ref might pick up on, but then I think it's an example of what I'm talking about. It wasn't clearly a foul (at least to me and others), so hang on to the flag. It took away a TD to tie the game (which they cut off in that clip before it happened). Again, I'm the guy who wants to see a flag thrown any time there is a foul, but when it isn't clearly a foul, don't call it or at least talk it over with the other refs. It isn't subject to review, but any personal foul should be.
I think Col. St. got screwed. Oh well, I guess.
i had long past hit the rack by that time…do you recall which official threw the flag?…if the ref or side judge threw it, then his angle would be different than say the back judge(that’s assuming the he saw what you saw from your tv camera angle)…was there a review or a conference after the hit?
unfortunately, or fortunately for health reasons, these are the trends with what would initially be seen as violent contact.
i could complain about certain calls that happened yesterday…i saw two illegal contacts/pi’s in the dallas game, one was flagged then the ref decided to pick it up…not saying that’s why they lost, but they were both on end zone throws.
eta: here’s the one called then ref picked it up
I don't know which official threw the flag, and I don't remember the officials discussing it...which doesn't mean much considering my worn out noggin. And a blindside block penalty is not subject to review, although many times they are reviewed due to the coincidence of possible targeting, which of course is always reviewed..
And don't get me started on the hand-to-hand combat that takes place between a receiver and his defender at this point in time. It has become more than ridiculous, and that isn't intended hyperbole. It is bad enough when actual interference is allowed, but much worse when it is allowed inconsistently. It's a tough call to make in many instances, but it's a blatantly allowed foul in many others. People tend to complain about bad calls when the game is on the line without considering that ANY bad call during the game can affect the outcome of the game.
Something to point out that I think many people don't understand. From playing on both sides, I can attest to the fact that a player sent flying by an angular collision (like a pool shot that isn't straight in), can look pretty spectacular; but that player usually suffers little more than some momentary disorientation, because the force of the impact is partially deflected. It's the full speed head on stuff that imparts maximum momentum and hurts..
Similar threads
