Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 I don't agree that Joekel got beat. Yes, Hughes had outside position on him but the key is Joekel maintained leverage on Hughes and was moving his feet well. Also key is Hughes never tried to change his path (bull rushing) until he turned around after Bortles ran by. He was easily able to turn around but stumbled because he was off balance. Good play by Joekel. The Robey PI was bullcrap and called by the official who was screened by the receiver's body.Being beat off the snap is what I said. Joekel recovered fairly well but because he was beat off the snap had to reach in with his arm to impede Hughes's rush. If he was straight up and facing him, I would surely agree that it was a good block. But he wasn't. Hughes was halfway around him before he recovered. Anyway, like I said I didn't think it cost us the game, I'm not really blaming the Refs for a terrible call. It was, IMO, just a blatant hold by definition and a missed call. Nothing like the Robey one.
GaryPinC Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Being beat off the snap is what I said. Joekel recovered fairly well but because he was beat off the snap had to reach in with his arm to impede Hughes's rush. If he was straight up and facing him, I would surely agree that it was a good block. But he wasn't. Hughes was halfway around him before he recovered. Anyway, like I said I didn't think it cost us the game, I'm not really blaming the Refs for a terrible call. It was, IMO, just a blatant hold by definition and a missed call. Nothing like the Robey one. Hughes was lined up well outside of the tight end (#89) who simply ignored Hughes and ran his pattern. Joekel slid over to block Hughes' path and did so with one hand to the center of Hughes' chest. Yes, Hughes had outside position but he never beat Joekel. How is that illegal? You cannot argue that he was hooking Hughes because Hughes never changed his path until he turned around. Joekel also had leverage and was well balanced further negating the need to hold. Hughes was the one off balance.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Hughes was lined up well outside of the tight end (#89) who simply ignored Hughes and ran his pattern. Joekel slid over to block Hughes' path and did so with one hand to the center of Hughes' chest. Yes, Hughes had outside position but he never beat Joekel. How is that illegal? You cannot argue that he was hooking Hughes because Hughes never changed his path until he turned around. Joekel also had leverage and was well balanced further negating the need to hold. Hughes was the one off balance. Fair enough. We see it similar but a little different. It happens so fast that you may be more right than me. The way I see it, Hughes is outside of him and going to beat him. Joekel sticks his arm out and into Hughes's chest to impede his path to the QB. If he did it directly facing Hughes OR a tenth of a second earlier before Hughes was outside and about to pass him I would call it a legal block, because of what Dave says. It's legal to use your arm like that if you keep them "inside." But to me, he was being beat and that inside allowance of the arm no longer applies. He was just sticking his arm out to stop Hughes and then pretty remarkably regained good position. But again it happens so fast.
BuffaninATL Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 The argument for offensive holding can be made on just about every single play in the NFL. At some point, they have to let them play. And it hardly ever gets called that at that point in the game unless it's totally take-down obvious. Why torture yourselves with this? So was the Phantom PI call "totally take down obvious" as well. There has been a maddening inconsistency on game-deciding calls across the NFL; it's not just the Bills. Belichick is on to something with his call for reviews of all plays; if the Robey PI call had been reviewed it surely would have been overturned. There is too much money & visibility on these games.
3rdand12 Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 I agree. At the time, I thought it was a blatant hold. Having watched it again, looked like a good block to me. Oh, well. the reviews often change my opinion of the game. for better or worse.. That's not holding. The OL's hand is firmly planted in Hugh's chest - within the framework of his body. While doing so, the OL never reaches to his side (that would be holding), he keeps his hands within the framework of his own body too. He just rides with him and keeps him in front of himself. I wish it was holding, but I don't think so. damn and yep I respectfully disagree. That type of holding usually does get called. the play had move beyond where the penalty could have affected the play. why would anyone leave that passing lane open. and he continues to be allowed to do this crap #Hughessucksthis year
vincec Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 If that's holding, then there is holding on every single pass play. That may have been holding 20 years ago. It is not holding today.
Jobot Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Not a penalty. That type of block/play is never called in the NFL as holding.
dave mcbride Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Hughes was lined up well outside of the tight end (#89) who simply ignored Hughes and ran his pattern. Joekel slid over to block Hughes' path and did so with one hand to the center of Hughes' chest. Yes, Hughes had outside position but he never beat Joekel. How is that illegal? You cannot argue that he was hooking Hughes because Hughes never changed his path until he turned around. Joekel also had leverage and was well balanced further negating the need to hold. Hughes was the one off balance. Good post.
Sandy McFiddish Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 If that's holding, then there is holding on every single pass play. That may have been holding 20 years ago. It is not holding today. There is holding by the o line and the d backs on every single play. Hughes was grabbed initially and then just seemed to lean against Luke. 20 years ago that was definitely a hold every time, but now refs pick and choose when to make calls.
GG Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Fair enough. We see it similar but a little different. It happens so fast that you may be more right than me. The way I see it, Hughes is outside of him and going to beat him. Joekel sticks his arm out and into Hughes's chest to impede his path to the QB. If he did it directly facing Hughes OR a tenth of a second earlier before Hughes was outside and about to pass him I would call it a legal block, because of what Dave says. It's legal to use your arm like that if you keep them "inside." But to me, he was being beat and that inside allowance of the arm no longer applies. He was just sticking his arm out to stop Hughes and then pretty remarkably regained good position. But again it happens so fast. Applying basic physics to the play, unless Joeckel has superhuman strength, there's no way he can recover his position without holding Hughes. Hughes had the momentum to the QB, had faster outside speed that Joeckel, yet was suddenly slowed down by an OL off to his side. Sorry, can't happen.
BringBackFergy Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Then I will go back to the Urbik hold in the Giants game. By this standard, that was much less of a hold. I wouldn't care as much about the Hughes non-call if there was friggin consistency across the league. We lost two games because of inconsistent calls like these. I don't want to hear crap that Bills shouldn't be in a position where one play decides the game. In a parity league, one play usually does decide a game. 'Dis
GaryPinC Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Fair enough. We see it similar but a little different. It happens so fast that you may be more right than me. The way I see it, Hughes is outside of him and going to beat him. Joekel sticks his arm out and into Hughes's chest to impede his path to the QB. If he did it directly facing Hughes OR a tenth of a second earlier before Hughes was outside and about to pass him I would call it a legal block, because of what Dave says. It's legal to use your arm like that if you keep them "inside." But to me, he was being beat and that inside allowance of the arm no longer applies. He was just sticking his arm out to stop Hughes and then pretty remarkably regained good position. But again it happens so fast. Yea, you're right. It is a tough play to discern because of the speed and the angles and the first time I saw it I did think it was a hold. I just don't think Joekel stretched his arm out wide to corral Hughes, which I agree would be holding. He turned his body to Hughes and tried to ride him outside best he could, for me he kept that left arm in front of his body and bent, showing me he had some degree of control. Applying basic physics to the play, unless Joeckel has superhuman strength, there's no way he can recover his position without holding Hughes. Hughes had the momentum to the QB, had faster outside speed that Joeckel, yet was suddenly slowed down by an OL off to his side. Sorry, can't happen. You sure can, it's called moving your feet, taking a good angle, having good leverage and keeping your balance. And he didn't recover his position, he cut off Hughes' deep line to the quarterback, not by stopping Hughes but by cutting off his angle until Bortles scrambled forward.
Webster Guy Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 that is vintage hughes... single blocked, turns his back, doesn't set the edge. another one solo tackle, zero sack, zero qb hit, zero TFL performance. When we traded up for the Sammy pick, i thought we were going for Khalil Mack. Imagine if we had, and we just let hughes and all his undisciplined play and huge contract go away this past offseason. We would be a totally different defense.
GG Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 You sure can, it's called moving your feet, taking a good angle, having good leverage and keeping your balance. And he didn't recover his position, he cut off Hughes' deep line to the quarterback, not by stopping Hughes but by cutting off his angle until Bortles scrambled forward. But he didn't, because he'd be defying the laws of physics if he did what you're claiming he did.
dave mcbride Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 I'm watching the Bengals-Steelers game right now and focusing on these types of blocks. In 5 series (all three and outs), I counted five of them, and none were called holds. There were no complaints from defenders either. All were just as "extreme" as the block on Hughes. I'm not exaggerating either.
firemedic Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 The argument for offensive holding can be made on just about every single play in the NFL. At some point, they have to let them play. And it hardly ever gets called that at that point in the game unless it's totally take-down obvious. Why torture yourselves with this? It's one thing if it doesn't affect the play, this was a sack in the making and was obvious.....maybe Hughes should have "fallen down" like their opponents DL did, drawing TD negating penalties.......
Recommended Posts