envirojeff Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 I'm not one of those "The refs hate us" guys, but OMG! There were a couple of late hits that were just ridicules. There was also the intentional grounding call that wasn't made that we will get a nice apology fax from NFL HQ's that will make it all better. Lets focus on the late hits, In Vicks case, When is a QB a RB? Think about it! When does a QB magically become a RB. IMO Mike Vick is a RB/QB and should be looked at that way by the ref's. This straddling the line crap was one of the factors that cost us the game. Just MHO Jeff
nick in* england Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 I'm not one of those "The refs hate us" guys, but OMG! There were a couple of late hits that were just ridicules. There was also the intentional grounding call that wasn't made that we will get a nice apology fax from NFL HQ's that will make it all better. Lets focus on the late hits, In Vicks case, When is a QB a RB? Think about it! When does a QB magically become a RB. IMO Mike Vick is a RB/QB and should be looked at that way by the ref's. This straddling the line crap was one of the factors that cost us the game. Just MHO Jeff 455026[/snapback] No he lines up at QB so is a QB. He is fair game once he fully crosses the LOS an only then. Sorry but them's the rules.
envirojeff Posted September 26, 2005 Author Posted September 26, 2005 No he lines up at QB so is a QB. He is fair game once he fully crosses the LOS an only then. Sorry but them's the rules. 455031[/snapback] Trust me, I'm aware of the rules, but my point is that he's treated alot different that any other QB. Jeff
BRH Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 1. The intentional grounding that wasn't called 2. The bad spot on JP's quarterback sneak and the ensuing refusal to reverse 3. Picking up the flag after calling PI on MeAngelo Hall's coverage of Moulds Those were three horrible, horrible calls yesterday. They also initially blew the call on JP's down-by-contact fumble in the first quarter -- I mean, I could understand if it was borderline, but it was so obvious and the ref was RIGHT THERE. I'm not complaining about the late hit calls. Those were legitimate calls, and they did call one late hit on the Falcons as well. If any of those three calls goes the other way (especially #2 or #3), we very well might win the game. BUT we played like stojan, we were coached like stojan, and didn't deserve to win, bad calls or no bad calls.
UConn James Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 In Vicks case, When is a QB a RB? Think about it! When does a QB magically become a RB. IMO Mike Vick is a RB/QB and should be looked at that way by the ref's. 455026[/snapback] A great question that has yet to be adequately defined in the NFL rules wrt the current Vick-style player. Hitting them in the backfield on an obvious running play, if a guy has a superfast release like Vick, you get hit with roughing the passer calls.
envirojeff Posted September 26, 2005 Author Posted September 26, 2005 A great question that has yet to be adequately defined in the NFL rules wrt the current Vick-style player. Hitting them in the backfield on an obvious running play, if a guy has a superfast release like Vick, you get hit with roughing the passer calls. 455055[/snapback] This is exactly what I was trying to get at. Jeff
UConn James Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 3. Picking up the flag after calling PI on MeAngelo Hall's coverage of Moulds 455054[/snapback] Am I the only one who, when the color analyst said "Someone call Johnnie Cochrane!" after that play, first had an expression of from seeing the play, then when what he said sunk in, turned to a ? That guy apparently subscribes to Behind the Times.
Mickey Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 I'm not one of those "The refs hate us" guys, but OMG! There were a couple of late hits that were just ridicules. There was also the intentional grounding call that wasn't made that we will get a nice apology fax from NFL HQ's that will make it all better. Lets focus on the late hits, In Vicks case, When is a QB a RB? Think about it! When does a QB magically become a RB. IMO Mike Vick is a RB/QB and should be looked at that way by the ref's. This straddling the line crap was one of the factors that cost us the game. Just MHO Jeff 455026[/snapback] Its never fair game to go for the head or to hit late whether it is a RB or a QB so that distinction is meaningless. Just because Vick is more dangerous on the groudn than most other quarterbacks doesn't give us the right to aim for the head or hit him late. My objection to those calls are as to whether we really did hit him late or took a head shot. I haven't seen the tape yet.
BRH Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 Its never fair game to go for the head or to hit late whether it is a RB or a QB so that distinction is meaningless. Just because Vick is more dangerous on the groudn than most other quarterbacks doesn't give us the right to aim for the head or hit him late. My objection to those calls are as to whether we really did hit him late or took a head shot. I haven't seen the tape yet. 455068[/snapback] On the first one, we did hit him late. On the second one, it was borderline. The defender had his arms outstretched to hit Vick while Vick was falling backward and throwing, and when they met, the defender's hands landed right around Vick's facemask. Not intentional, but certainly call-able. Especially since Vick's helmet came off on the play.
Mickey Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 A great question that has yet to be adequately defined in the NFL rules wrt the current Vick-style player. Hitting them in the backfield on an obvious running play, if a guy has a superfast release like Vick, you get hit with roughing the passer calls. 455055[/snapback] This assumes that there are things you can do to a running back that you can't do with a QB. I don't think that is the case. You can't hit him after he lets the ball go but if you are already in the air, you don't have to pull up. You can't tackle a running back who doesn't have the ball either. You also can't take a head shot at a running back, WR or anyone else. The only reald difference is in the slide rule where you can't go after him once he has initiated a feet first slide. The particluar issue didn't come up at all yesterday.
BRH Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 Am I the only one who, when the color analyst said "Someone call Johnnie Cochrane!" after that play, first had an expression of from seeing the play, then when what he said sunk in, turned to a ? That guy apparently subscribes to Behind the Times. 455060[/snapback] Sam Rosen and Bill Maas were horrible. And unless our guys start playing better, we're going to get announcers of that caliber for the rest of the season.
UConn James Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 On the first one, we did hit him late. On the second one, it was borderline. The defender had his arms outstretched to hit Vick while Vick was falling backward and throwing, and when they met, the defender's hands landed right around Vick's facemask. Not intentional, but certainly call-able. Especially since Vick's helmet came off on the play. 455076[/snapback] Not that I'm disputing that call, but the fact that Vick has one of the loosest chinstraps in the NFL (despite having the temple strap too) outside of kickers doesn't help.
billsfanone Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 The first one was helmet to helmet, and I agree with the penalty - although I know it's football and impossible to let up when chasing down a QB like Vick. The second one was borderline bush league since Vick was falling backwards. Crowell did get a hand to the face which knocked Vicks helmet off though. I don't like the calls, but they'll be called 99.99% of the time.
obie_wan Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 A great question that has yet to be adequately defined in the NFL rules wrt the current Vick-style player. Hitting them in the backfield on an obvious running play, if a guy has a superfast release like Vick, you get hit with roughing the passer calls. 455055[/snapback] don't hit him in the head- then you don't have a problem
pkwwjd Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 (edited) On the first one, we did hit him late. On the second one, it was borderline. The defender had his arms outstretched to hit Vick while Vick was falling backward and throwing, and when they met, the defender's hands landed right around Vick's facemask. Not intentional, but certainly call-able. Especially since Vick's helmet came off on the play. 455076[/snapback] I thought the first one was not late. IMO if you see the guy lining the QB up and hitting him before the camera follows the ball downfield, it is generally not late. It used to be you could take up to a step or two and still unload on the QB, now it's just a judgment call be the ref. The second was a hit to the facemask, but it looked a lot worse than it was because Vick's helmet was not strapped on. He was falling away from Crowell and the hit by an open hand was a glancing blow. There was not enough contact to knock a helmet off in any normal condition. Was it a penalty? Probably, by default contact to the head on a QB is a penalty. Was it a bad play by Crowell? Definitely not. He had his hands up to try to disrupt the pass and he didn't deliver a "blow" to the head. EDIT: I didn't see the helmet to helmet on TV's hit (first one). Although I would contend that it would have been h2h cuz Vick was falling back on that one too. Edited September 26, 2005 by pkwwjd
34-78-83 Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 The first one IMO was neither late nor illegal, just a terrible call (after a 2nd review even). The 2nd one I can atleast understand why they called it.
nobody Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 One thing that I think I noticed is that Vick always had one of his chin straps not fully snaped while playing. Makes the helmet pop off a little easier.
Spiderweb Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 1. The intentional grounding that wasn't called 2. The bad spot on JP's quarterback sneak and the ensuing refusal to reverse 3. Picking up the flag after calling PI on MeAngelo Hall's coverage of Moulds Those were three horrible, horrible calls yesterday. They also initially blew the call on JP's down-by-contact fumble in the first quarter -- I mean, I could understand if it was borderline, but it was so obvious and the ref was RIGHT THERE. I'm not complaining about the late hit calls. Those were legitimate calls, and they did call one late hit on the Falcons as well. If any of those three calls goes the other way (especially #2 or #3), we very well might win the game. BUT we played like stojan, we were coached like stojan, and didn't deserve to win, bad calls or no bad calls. 455054[/snapback] I thought the JP sneak that failed was a bad spot initially, but the replays only showed that he mimicked Travis Henry vs Oakland last year. The turfmonster tripped him up immediately after the snap. Simply put, JP sucked that one up too, no one else.
taterhill Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 I thought the JP sneak that failed was a bad spot initially, but the replays only showed that he mimicked Travis Henry vs Oakland last year. The turfmonster tripped him up immediately after the snap. Simply put, JP sucked that one up too, no one else. 455187[/snapback] on a side note..your BIlls rec room is awesome
MattyT Posted September 26, 2005 Posted September 26, 2005 Not that this has any bearing on the outcome of the game, but what about towards the end when the refs stopped the play for a booth review just as Vick was snapped the ball and Vick angrily spiked the ball, tore off his helmet, and started yelling at the refs? No unsportsmanlike conduct? Don't you get an automatic UC just for taking your helmet off on the field?
Recommended Posts