CosmicBills Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 We have been hit with so many "light contact" personal fouls this year that it really pisses me off to see Abe throwing punches and not get a flag. I don't care if Tucker deserved it or not. If a guy starts throwing punches, a flag should be thrown! 107960[/snapback] There are only two things in football that warrent a beat down. 1) Illegal Chop Blocks & 2) Extreme Late Hits.
Spiderweb Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 He wasn't infront of him. He was coming from behind/the side. Abraham was coming from the end position and had beaten JJ. Tucker was backpeadaling and looking upfield. He saw Abraham and had to turn around to catch him from behind. Abraham didn't/couldn't see him coming. The NFL rulebook says in that case you must block above the waist. 107924[/snapback] None is so blind as he who shall not see....go check the tape and then come back and give us your take. Short and simple. It was legal and no, it wasn't from behind. However, I wouldn't have any problem with banning it if all the cheap shots taken in the "piles" were eliminated and those are dished out frequently by those big DL's (Wilfork, NE ???). I say since this continues, as long as the opposing player is not otherwise engaged, take his legs out. Perfectly legal and fair. Besides, it's not as if Tucker dove straight into Abe's knees for crying out loud. That would have been cheap, but it wasn't so get back to the tape and see for yourself....
wnyguy Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 There are only two things in football that warrent a beat down. 1) Illegal Chop Blocks & 2) Extreme Late Hits. 107964[/snapback] I still question the illegality of it. I have only heard of it being called when the guy is engaged with someone else. Cheap? I would agree but illegal?
Beerball Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 That's the point. They have outlawed it. But teams still do it. Denver is a prime example. They actually TEACH their linemen to do it because the refs don't call it as much as they should. It is, in my opinion, one of the most barbaric tactics left in the game today and people who continue to use it should not only be fined, but suspended. So I have no problem whatsoever with Abraham defending himself in that situation. Was it right? No. But it certainly was justified. 107911[/snapback] Gotta disagree. As long as the defender isn't engaged above the waist by another player it is a legal play. You might not like it, but legal. Get away from the LOS into open field and it's a different story. The rule may change this off season, but the complaints/injuries are nothing new. To this point the NFL and players union haven't decided to outlaw the block.
CosmicBills Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 I still question the illegality of it. I have only heard of it being called when the guy is engaged with someone else. Cheap? I would agree but illegal? 107979[/snapback] Engagement is only part of the rule. The second part is a cut block from behind is illegal as well. "From Behind" in the case of the NFL rule book has been deemed those instances where the player cannot see the hit coming and thus is defenseless. I believe, though not 100 percent sure, that they are two seperate penalties (Chop block and Chop Block from behind).
wnyguy Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Engagement is only part of the rule. The second part is a cut block from behind is illegal as well. "From Behind" in the case of the NFL rule book has been deemed those instances where the player cannot see the hit coming and thus is defenseless. I believe, though not 100 percent sure, that they are two seperate penalties (Chop block and Chop Block from behind). 107988[/snapback] Oh yeah from behind too. However in this instance, as the block was actually being thrown, Tucker appeared to be in front of Abraham.
CosmicBills Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 None is so blind as he who shall not see....go check the tape and then come back and give us your take. Short and simple. It was legal and no, it wasn't from behind. However, I wouldn't have any problem with banning it if all the cheap shots taken in the "piles" were eliminated and those are dished out frequently by those big DL's (Wilfork, NE ???). I say since this continues, as long as the opposing player is not otherwise engaged, take his legs out. Perfectly legal and fair. Besides, it's not as if Tucker dove straight into Abe's knees for crying out loud. That would have been cheap, but it wasn't so get back to the tape and see for yourself.... 107977[/snapback] I don't have the tape But I did rewind (the Tivo) several times during the game to watch it and my interpretation was that it was from behind/the side in such an angle that Abraham could not see it coming nor protect his knees. And I remeber saying after reviewing it that Tucker will be fined. If you are saying it is clearly infront, then we will agree to disagree (since I can't rewatch it:( ) But we'll see when the fines come out on Wed.
The Poojer Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 no problem, the "pummelling" was no big deal, just hard football! Here we have Tucker (who threw a perfectly legal block...he was not engaged) and basically here is Abraham on top of Tucker throwing blows....no friggen flag 107798[/snapback]
buckeyebrian Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 The whistle had not blown. So the play wasn't over. But Abraham was no where close to the ball and was a nonfactor in the play was my point. 107932[/snapback] Sort of like Moorman when he got blasted?
CosmicBills Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Sort of like Moorman when he got blasted? 108021[/snapback] I got mad at that too, even started a thread about it But I retracted my ill will towards Lamont Jordan when Moorman told reporters after the game that Jordan had sought him out and personally appologized for the hit. Differnce was that the hit on Moorman was legal. Unneccessary? Yes. But legal. In my view, Tucker's block was not legal. Nor was Abraham's reaction to it.
John from Riverside Posted November 8, 2004 Author Posted November 8, 2004 Tucker will be fined for the "legal block". Don't get me wrong, I love Tucker, but it was a cheap shot. You don't cut a man's knees when the play is over and you are coming from behind. It's one thing if you are face up or square with a player to cut him, but Tucker wasn't even close. Abraham never saw him coming. It was the same thing that Denver just did last week and ended the season for...shoot I forget his name. I don't think Tucker was trying to be dirty, he was trying to make a play, but he should know better. Abraham was defending himself. Sometimes it's easy to forget that this game is the players livelyhood. And what Tucker did could have prevented Abraham from ever playing again. 107880[/snapback] A couple of things...and I could be wrong because I am at work and cant look at the film right now.....from what I saw - The play was not over - Tucker went low but Abraham was not engaged with another player - These blocks are common place and are taught in the NFL - To me I oquiviate it the layout hit on Mooremen......they TEACH you to do this
Guest BackInDaDay Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Engagement is only part of the rule. The second part is a cut block from behind is illegal as well. "From Behind" in the case of the NFL rule book has been deemed those instances where the player cannot see the hit coming and thus is defenseless. I believe, though not 100 percent sure, that they are two seperate penalties (Chop block and Chop Block from behind). 107988[/snapback] Clipping: Throwing the body across the back of an opponent’s leg or hitting him from the back below the waist while moving up from behind unless the opponent is a runner or the action is in close line play. Close Line Play: The area between the positions normally occupied by the offensive tackles, extending three yards on each side of the line of scrimmage. It is legal to clip above the knee. Tgreg99, first of all, I agree that chop-blocking at the knees is not in keeping with the 'spirit' of the rules. But unless they've changed, I believe the rules are intended to allow for blocking an opponent's hips and thighs. That said, it's not illegal to use this technique on a 'free' man inside the box, and unless you dive at an opponents shins, or ankles, you're blocking legally.
John from Riverside Posted November 8, 2004 Author Posted November 8, 2004 One other thing I would add... Isn't one of the things we like about Tucker is that he is a "nasty" player? When he is playing nasty I dont know if we can then blame him for earning the reputation
CosmicBills Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 A couple of things...and I could be wrong because I am at work and cant look at the film right now.....from what I saw - The play was not over - Tucker went low but Abraham was not engaged with another player - These blocks are common place and are taught in the NFL - To me I oquiviate it the layout hit on Mooremen......they TEACH you to do this 108035[/snapback] What is at issue here is whether Abraham was infront of Tucker or not. A chop block is not legal if it is from behind or from the side, engagment does not matter in those instances. Whether they teach you to do it or not, it doesn't change the legality of the play. Denver teaches their linemen to chop block (legal or not) and they have been the most fined unit in the NFL for the past few years because of it. The problem is that the refs do not enforce the rules in the trenches. It's been said you can call holding every play if you wanted to, but refs don't. Should they? Of course not, it would slow the game down tremendously. But you can't cripple a man by holding him...you CAN cripple a man with an illegal chop block. Thus the refs should call it more often than they do. Right now the NFL is relying on a policy of fining these players rather than policing the action during the game. It's something they need to address. Was Tucker's play the most egregious chop block ever? Of course not. It was borderline. I started this discussion just to point out that Abraham, while clearly commiting an infraction, was justified in doing so because of how dangerous that sort of block can be. Not just in a legal sense, but in the sense that it can jeopardize Abraham's ability to walk, play or provide for his family. Was Tucker in front of Abraham? Some say yes, I say no. I am opperating from memory (didn't save the game tape) albeit I watched the play several times yesterday. Those who have the tape have said he was indeed infront of him. I did not see it that way.
BuffalOhio Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Tucker will be fined for the "legal block". Don't get me wrong, I love Tucker, but it was a cheap shot. You don't cut a man's knees when the play is over and you are coming from behind. It's one thing if you are face up or square with a player to cut him, but Tucker wasn't even close. Abraham never saw him coming. It was the same thing that Denver just did last week and ended the season for...shoot I forget his name. I don't think Tucker was trying to be dirty, he was trying to make a play, but he should know better. Abraham was defending himself. Sometimes it's easy to forget that this game is the players livelyhood. And what Tucker did could have prevented Abraham from ever playing again. 107880[/snapback] I don't think you saw the play properly. Abraham jumped up in the air, directly in front of Tucker to try to block a pass. Tucker cut him. Frankly, I don't think it was all that dangerous, and certainly not from the side or back.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 I don't think you saw the play properly. Abraham jumped up in the air, directly in front of Tucker to try to block a pass. Tucker cut him. Frankly, I don't think it was all that dangerous, and certainly not from the side or back. 108071[/snapback] No, Tgereg99 is right about where the two players were. Tucker was off to Abraham's side and went after his knee. Not below the knee, but at the knee. Cheap block, yes. Legal block, yes. Tgreg99 is probably right about this, too. The league could decide that the block wasn't within the 'spirit' of the rule and fine Tucker. I wonder if they'll set a smaller fine to Abraham for retaliating. Slippery slope.
Recommended Posts