Jump to content

You do learn something new every day - you can interfere within one yard of the line of scrimmage?


Recommended Posts

Posted

I'm pretty sure the rule - no interference within a yard of the line of scrimmage came into existence to preserve for the DBs the ability to chuck the receiver as he comes off the line.  Especially in the old days, when guys played true bump and run, it would have been a way to get an automatic first down by throwing at the receiver immediately upon the snap, while the DB was still making contact.  The rule essentially means the receiver has to get off the line of scrimmage if he wants the protection of the interference rules.  

 

The Bills did nothing all game to force the Bills to back off.  It was tight coverage all day. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Soda Popinski said:

contact is contact within 1 yard.   

 

The two hits to Peterman's head that were not called, those mattered more IMO than this.  

I was pissed about the hits to the head, especially the second one, which was more than incidental.  It was like a stiff arm.  

 

And I wasn't happy about the intentional grounding call, either.   Those three calls show the extent to which as called, the rules only protect the QBs with a reputation.   Brady would have gotten all three calls.  

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
Just now, billrooter said:

Fair enough, played football 9 years myself and it just looked like interference to me.

 

It's no different than when receivers rub out (AKA pick) DBs within 1 yard of the LoS. It's all fair game.

Posted
1 minute ago, billrooter said:

Fair enough, played football 9 years myself and it just looked like interference to me.

It WAS interference, except that the rule makes the 1-yard exception.  Jones was within one yard.  

Posted

I've finally figured out why that play looked so hinky live.    I've never seen an entire O-line driven back seven yards from the LOS on a pass play.   That's why it seemed like Jones was way past one yard down field.

 

LOL.   We suck...

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

It WAS interference, except that the rule makes the 1-yard exception.  Jones was within one yard.  

Got ya, and what a stupid ass rule. Rbs behind the line of scrimmage on a screen just mug him then right?

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
17 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

You have to live the 1 yard hitch on 3rd and 3. The Bilks really should run more routes short of the marker. ?

 

Running routes short of the marker has been an offense staple of this team for more than 15 years

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

So you can just tackle a receiver within one yard of the LOS? 

 

Thats what the defender was was attempting to do - he was attempting to tackle the WR.

 

If that’s the rule. Should just tackle the WR as he attempts to release or any RB going out for a pass before they hit the magic 1 yd line.

Posted
15 minutes ago, KennyDavisEyes said:

So you can just tackle a receiver within one yard of the LOS? 

 

Thats what the defender was was attempting to do - he was attempting to tackle the WR.

 

If that’s the rule. Should just tackle the WR as he attempts to release or any RB going out for a pass before they hit the magic 1 yd line.

 

all kinds of pick plays are set up in this one yard zone, the Pats have perfected it with 2 TEs doing the work

 

how are fans on here just finding out about this?

 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm pretty sure the rule - no interference within a yard of the line of scrimmage came into existence to preserve for the DBs the ability to chuck the receiver as he comes off the line.  Especially in the old days, when guys played true bump and run, it would have been a way to get an automatic first down by throwing at the receiver immediately upon the snap, while the DB was still making contact.  The rule essentially means the receiver has to get off the line of scrimmage if he wants the protection of the interference rules. 

 

Ah, now that makes some sense! 

2 hours ago, billrooter said:

I didn't think it was tipped and wasn't it a yard over? I realize since it was tipped he could be hit but did not realize it was tipped?

 

He's been missing since somebody put the actual play up.

Posted
22 hours ago, Steptide said:

It's a stupid rule Imo. Chances are the defender wouldnt have time to realize the reciever is only within 1 yard of the line. If a team had a 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1, why would a defense not just blow up every reciever immediately? It's legal right? The rule seems stupid 

They do. It's called jamming the receiver. It's very risky because if you miss, he' gone!! Only a few guys have the skillset to pull it off.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, CoachT said:

They do. It's called jamming the receiver. It's very risky because if you miss, he' gone!! Only a few guys have the skillset to pull it off.

Ya but if it's in within 1 yard, why not just tackle all the recievers to the ground? If it's not pass interference, why not? 

Posted
On 11/4/2018 at 8:04 PM, Ray Finkel said:

Richard Sherman knocked Robert Woods on his butt by the end zone at the end of the game when we played Seattle in a night game a few years ago.  Same type of play except the ball was not thrown to Woods.

It wasn't Robert Woods and that had something to do with the QB being outside the pocket.

Posted

Why the hell would anyone do a 1 yard pattern,? Makes perfect sense to clobber a receiver and maybe get a deflection INT.  Could not have worked out more perfectly for the Bears.

Posted
5 hours ago, Steptide said:

Ya but if it's in within 1 yard, why not just tackle all the recievers to the ground? If it's not pass interference, why not? 

Still would be defensive holding 

Posted
14 hours ago, bbb said:

 

Ah, now that makes some sense! 

 

He's been missing since somebody put the actual play up.

Here I am so, so your looking for me to say I was wrong?

Posted
20 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

I'm aware of the rule and the intention of that rule. It was NOT intended to allow a defender to hit a person in the back.  This is the ONLY instance in the rulebook that allows for a player to legally contact the back of a player.

 

I am fine with the rule, but there needs to be an exception for contact through the players back.  This exception brings the rule back into conformity with the rest of the rulebook.

×
×
  • Create New...