Roughing the quarterback Atlanta vs New orleans
by jeremysherwin on Nov 5, 2009 2:59 AM CST
28 comments
If you were like me you cringed when Drew was hit and fumbled the ball for an Atlanta Touchdown the other day.
Here is my question
If you watch the replay of that specific play you will see Atlanta's LB actually hitting Drew in the head on the initial hit. Not it could be related to the momentum, but the quarterback's helmet was hit.
With all the BS calls surrounding the "Roughing the passer", do you think atlanta should have been penalized for that. Or do you think it was a clean hit, and the only way a flag would have been thrown is if Drew, was Tom Brady?
This FanPost was written by a reader and member of Canal Street Chronicles. It does not necessarily reflect the views of CSC and its staff or editors.
0 recs |
28 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Glad you brought that up!!
I noticed that at the time and I think there should have been a call. It was clearly a larger infraction that when Vilma hit Eli in the Giants game! I remember thinking "I wonder if there will be a fine issued after the fact when they review the films. Could happen by the new NFL standards.
"Indecision may or may not be my biggest problem" - Jimmy Buffett
by Philinwood on Nov 5, 2009 6:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
A roughing the passer penalty cannot be called, unless the ball is thrown. Unnecessary roughness COULD have been called, but that’s a judgment call and contact WAS made within the course of a tackle (sack). Just based on seeing similiar plays to both many, many times and how they’re typically handled, the odds of that particular call being made — when compared to the post-pass contact of Vilma on Eli — are slim.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 5, 2009 7:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Even if you are right, it was still a blatantly flagrant foul and arguably could have resulted in an ejection (just as Vilma’s could have on Eli). It was deliberate in that the head was leaning forward, IE “spearing”. His initial contact was to the facemask of Drew with the crown of his helmet. That’s also illegal. The fact that it caused Drew’s head to snap back and give him at least some degree of whiplash is simply lagniappe.
There is no “could” about it. That play 100-plus-percent should have been a penalty.
If you take away all scores in that game allowed by uncalled penalties (and assume no new scores to replace them) the final score is NO 21, ATL 6.
by FriarBob on Nov 5, 2009 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
QB’s should just start quickly throwing the ball at the ground when they’re about to get sacked. Then, getting hit in the helmet would undeniably be Roughing the Passer. Worst case, offsetting penalties(if grounding is called) or grounding, which leads to the same outcome as a sack(if no helmet contact occurs). Since the passer’s arm motion is clearly your determining factor on whether a hit to the passer’s head is good football or game-changing penalty, I think my solution would help the Goodell regime clear that pesky discrepancy up lickety-split.
OR the refs could all agree to call contact to the passer’s head uniformly, to eliminate the gray area entirely. Thus far, neither course of action has been tried.
"We're not going to lay down because they're the almighty New Orleans Saints."-Akin Ayodele
by FuSoYa on Nov 5, 2009 9:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Of course, I’m sure that, like you, the refs see no existing discrepancy in their calls, so maybe it’s just a bunch of whining and excuses over a solidly officiated play. These idiotic bottom-feeders like Brees and McNabb will just get lit up for their brainless play, while geniuses like Eli and Trent Edwards reap the benefits of understanding how to draw the foul in football.
"We're not going to lay down because they're the almighty New Orleans Saints."-Akin Ayodele
by FuSoYa on Nov 5, 2009 9:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely see your point of contention. Helmet-to-helmet contact is helmet-to-helmet contact. I’m just saying that there’s no absolute “zero tolerance” policy in place, for any situation other than immediately following a pass. It would obviously make it a whole lot easier to call if there was, but then you’d occasionally have situations like the one I mentioned in another thread. QB slides feet first on a scramble and his helmet winds up striking the helmet of a defender in pursuit. Under “zero tolerance”, do you penalize the defender on that play? Or maybe the QB should be flagged, since his actions initiated the contact. Yeah, I can imagine how well that would go over with the crowd. A WR is running a slant route, the ball is thrown low and both he and the FS dive for the ball, making incidental helmet-to-helmet contact in mid air, as the ball falls incomplete. 15 yard penalty on who? They’re both entitled to make a play on the ball. Neither initiated the collision. Without a clearly defined “ONLY this particular player, ONLY in this particular situation” stipulation, how could you possibly operate without at least SOME level of judgmental discretion? There’s probably some form of helmet-to-helmet contact being made on every play in football. And of course, once discretion enters the equation, you have different referees who all probably view intent to harm, degrees of collision intensity, etc., a little differently. So, naturally you wind up with inconsistency in the enforcement. Same thing with pass interference, holding or practically any other spur of the moment foul in the game.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 5, 2009 10:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Um, actually there IS a zero tolerance policy in place. Its just not correctly enforced universally.
Not that I’m a fan of ZT, mind you, but in this case, the rule is there and it was not enforced. That should definitely draw a fine and an apology (even if it has to be private because of league rules and whatnot).
by FriarBob on Nov 5, 2009 4:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There are a few problems with that ideology:
1.) If the QB is within 10 yards of the LOS and there’s no helmet-to-helmet contact on the sack, he’s going to wind up being flagged for intentional grounding and lose additional yardage. If he’s 10 or more yards behind the LOS, then you’re right, he has nothing to lose, assuming the passing attempt is ruled as such.
2.) It may NOT be ruled as such. If the danger of a sack is imminent, the defender could possibly obscure the referee’s line of vision of the quarterback. In the split second that the sack occurs, who’s to say if the referee will rule it an incomplete pass or a fumble?
I’ve said the same thing about the tuck rule. Why doesn’t the QB just pump fake as he’s being pulled to the turf? That way, if he happens to fumble, they’d call it an incomplete pass by rule. Creative theory, but there aren’t any guarantees, even with instant replay. Is a slight of hand magic trick really worth the risk of ending a possession?
3.) Being that there are nearby bodies — including the QB’s own, as it gets unmercifully mangled on the way to the turf — the possibility exists that the ball may never make it to the ground. What if it bounces off of someone’s thigh? Or an offensive lineman’s heel? Or gets batted upward, a jump ball fluttering above the backfield, while you’re being buried alive by an Israel Kamakawiwo’ole look-alike? Again, not worth the risk.
4.) If enough QBs in the league took that approach, don’t you think they’d just come up with a new half-baked rule to eliminate or deter it? They could change intentional grounding to be 10 yards from the point of the foul, which it probably should be anyway. They could render it a form of “unsportsmanlike conduct” or “delay of the game”, both also open to interpretation on a case by case basis. I kinda sorta doubt there’s anything in the NFL rule book specifically stating that “stomping an opponent’s head” is frowned upon. Didn’t stop the Haynesworth-Gurrode incident from being classified as a no-no.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 5, 2009 10:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hypothetical scenario:
Brees’s helmet strikes a Miami defender’s helmet during his goal line leap, just before the end of the first half.
a.) Should he be penalized for that? If so, there would be a 10 second run-off by rule and the Saints go into the locker room down by 21.
b.) Had he not broken the plane, should the Dolphins be penalized half the distance to the goal, giving the Saints another crack at the end zone?
In either case, if there was a surge of penetration by Miami’s DL on the play and Brees felt he wasn’t going to reach the stripe, what does he have to lose by intentionally thrashing his skull against a DT’s helmet on the way down? Aside from the ability to walk and feed himself, I mean.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 5, 2009 11:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
a) Its not “contact” that is illegal. It’s the “spearing” that is illegal. Since Drew wasn’t leading with his helmet (he was leading with the ball) then no penalty.
b) Had they speared him, absolutely. If he speared them, absolutely not.
by FriarBob on Nov 5, 2009 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
a) It’s both.
b) That’s ridiculous.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 6, 2009 6:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, if what you’re saying is true, then it would be perfectly fine for a defender to “Superman fly” (arms outstretched) head first into a QB’s chin. After all, he didn’t lead with his helmet … he led with his fists.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 6, 2009 6:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If he tried, his arms would hit first and it would still be a penalty because the arm and hands of a defender cannot contact the QBs head. So it wouldn’t matter.
And part of “spearing” is that its deliberate. In fact, part of spearing is that it has to be in an attempt to tackle. The reason why it is banned isn’t to saved the person being tackled. It’s banned to save the person doing the tackling from crunching his own neck and getting paralyzed.
by FriarBob on Nov 6, 2009 8:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
His arms wouldn’t make contact. They’d be on either side of his head, like goalposts. I understand perfectly what spearing is and why it’s illegal. I was just trying to illustrate that it has nothing to do with what part of your body you lead with.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 6, 2009 10:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK I missed the implication of the “superman” line. My bad.
But actually, it’s the point of leading — in the sense of making first contact with — with your helmet in the process of making a tackle… so my phrasing sucked, but the point still stands.
by FriarBob on Nov 7, 2009 3:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As does mine. Just because Drew had the ball outstretched, doesn’t mean he couldn’t intentionally slam his helmet into a Dolphin defender’s helmet, in an attempt to draw a penalty, i.e., another shot at six points.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 8, 2009 8:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
roughing the passer vs unnecessary roughness
There seems to be a little confusion here. Roughing the passer has nothing to do with helmet to helmet contact. It only gets called for a late hit against the QB after he’s thrown the ball. Also, unnecessary roughness for helmet to helmet contact is not universal. It only applies in certain situations, and for QBs, the defender does not have to use his helmet. You’re simply not allowed to hit the QB in the head, period (cf. Ravens PF on Brady earlier this year). Running backs are allowed to lower their head and ram defenders, and defenders are allowed to blast runners with the helmet. The only time that’s not legal is if the defender leaves his feet to deliver the blow – spearing.
As for the hit on Brees that caused the fumble, I voted yes, but I’d add two caveats. First, it would have been unnecessary roughness, not roughing the passer. Second, I can kind of understand why it didn’t get called since even though DeCoud went helmet to helmet with Brees (note that DeCoud’s helmet is of no relevance), the ref was not in a position to really see that, being behind Brees at the time. From the ref’s perspective, it probably looked like DeCoud popped him in the chest really hard, sending Drew’s head snapping back.
The Falcons game had a lot of non-calls, and I don’t think it was unique. I’ve noticed a trend over the last several years that referees are a lot more uptight with their calls at the beginning of the season, and allow players to get away with more as the season progresses. By the middle of the season, they are “letting them play football,” as Madden would’ve termed it.
by HB-NOLA on Nov 5, 2009 4:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Really? I would frankly wish they were exactly the other way around. Season-ending injuries are bad enough whenever they happen, but when they happen at the end of the year it’s extra devastating.
If they are going to call a game loose and another game tight, I’d rather they get stricter over the course of the season than the other way around.
Oh and so far as I could find, the definition of spearing never included anything about leaving your feet. Maybe its just assumed to be “something everybody should know”? Because you know that old saw about what assume means…
by FriarBob on Nov 5, 2009 5:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't say I like it
It’s just my impression. And at that, I may be wrong. But when I think about a lot of the ticky-tack calls early in the season (especially on defenders), and what players seem to be able to get away with now, it just seems like a trend. It probably has as much to do with figuring out the new rules at the beginning of each season.
As for spearing, I wasn’t trying to correct you – that’s just how I always heard it defined, as in a spear being thrown. In any case, a defender leaving his feet to make a hit is generally frowned upon and usually results in a fine. I think a couple of players have gotten away with it this year though (Steelers/Bears game comes to mind).
by HB-NOLA on Nov 5, 2009 7:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
anyone else see the trend?
it seems this year that every week, more and more players around the NFL are getting hurt…
anyone have a spreadsheet on numbers of players hurt vs the week of NFL that is played… i think that would be an interesting chart to see
I am a jack of all, and master of none
by doublewide on Nov 5, 2009 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
His Head !!!!!!!!!!!
If his head fell off inside the helmet, does that constitute a roughing the passer or a helmet to helmet infraction? If it’s in the rule book, they both are wrong. Should have had Flags everywhere when Brees got hit. If there not going to enforce the rules as interpreted, get rid of them !!!!!
by saint-sly on Nov 5, 2009 5:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Drew hadn't thrown the ball
That’s the defining characteristic for a roughing the passer call. I agree that it should have been unnecessary roughness for hitting him in the head, regardless of what part of his body DeCoud used to do it.
Some penalties are only called by specific referees. I think hitting the QB illegally is one of them. And the ref in this case was on exactly the opposite side of Drew from where he got hit, so I can understand why he didn’t call it. Doesn’t mean I think it was right.
by HB-NOLA on Nov 5, 2009 7:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Universal Fairness
Could we all agree then, that something needs to be standardized in a way that the helmet to helmet contact could be less subjective, and more objectional?
With the new rule in place i would hate any team to be in a position that would jepordize their team winning on a BS call.
In Retrospect I would hate it if any player got hurt much less a quarter back.
Much needs to be done on this.
by jeremysherwin on Nov 5, 2009 6:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
they could
all wear Tom Brady jerseys. Then they couldn’t get hit w/out a penalty.
Superbowl bound!!!...I know! do you?! Go Saints!!
by skinnykinney on Nov 5, 2009 11:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s no worse than any other subjective call, imo. The referee either doesn’t see it, or he sees it and makes a call based on the blatantness of the infraction. How is that any different than incidental contact downfield, certain angles of leverage used by offensive linemen that could possibly be construed as holding, etc.?
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 6, 2009 6:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No offense Jeremy, but that's a HORRIBLY worded question on the poll.
It’s a compound question. If you answer yes or no, it’s impossible to know which question is being answered.
If I put yes, it could mean that I agree it was a clean hit or that it needed more intervention by the refs. Essentially, I’m agreeing to two OPPOSING views at the same time.
You should really reword it, as I doubt your poll is very accurately depicting anything at all.
The people who say, "Winning isn't everything," don't win very often.
If stupidity is a cancer, you're terminal.
When you die and go to hell, you come back as a Jets fan.
by Hooahsaint on Nov 7, 2009 12:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I can see your point of view
I should have put, do you think the hit on drew was uneccessary roughness, and how do you think the league is doing calling or not calling these plays.
I should have not left a pole, instead i should of have left an open thread.
Thanx for feed back
by jeremysherwin on Nov 7, 2009 9:09 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canal Street Chronicles
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
