Jump to content

NFL General Discussion


Mr. Brightside

Recommended Posts

While I agree that the penalty is nonsense, I agree only in the context that there should be no such rule in the first place. 

That's exactly the sort of flag that's been thrown for thumping players who aren't even aware of your presence for years. The players know the rules, or at least, they should as they pertain to their role in the team. So what you have there is #58's eyes lighting up and thinking 'hah! I'm gonna level this sucker!!", and while that should be a fair and legal thing to do on a football field, in those circumstances it's not. The player should know this and have the common sense not to engage.

Ok, 'not aware of your presence' doesn't really apply here, as #58 is clearly in the would-be tackler's field of vision, but the tackler never shows any intent to engage with the blocker and is fully focussed on running down the returner, so #58 has to have the presence of mind to realise that if he suddenly stops and changes direction for no other reason than to level the guy, it's gonna get flagged. Yes, it's shite, but it is proper interpretation and application of the rules, such as they are. It's blindside' because the tackler's focus is not and never has been toward #58, and although I agree that's his own look-out, players tend to get hurt a lot more often by being hit from a direction that the simply aren't expecting to be. It's a safety issue as much as anything. 

Edited by Boo Khaki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that the penalty is nonsense, I agree only in the context that there should be no such rule in the first place. 
That's exactly the sort of flag that's been thrown for thumping players who aren't even aware of your presence for years. The players know the rules, or at least, they should as they pertain to their role in the team. So what you have there is #58's eyes lighting up and thinking 'hah! I'm gonna level this sucker!!", and while that should be a fair and legal thing to do on a football field, in those circumstances it's not. The player should know this and have the common sense not to engage.
Ok, 'not aware of your presence' doesn't really apply here, as #58 is clearly in the would-be tackler's field of vision, but the tackler never shows any intent to engage with the blocker and is fully focussed on running down the returner, so #58 has to have the presence of mind to realise that if he suddenly stops and changes direction for no other reason than to level the guy, it's gonna get flagged. Yes, it's shite, but it is proper interpretation and application of the rules, such as they are. It's blindside' because the tackler's focus is not and never has been toward #58, and although I agree that's his own look-out, players tend to get hurt a lot more often by being hit from a direction that the simply aren't expecting to be. It's a safety issue as much as anything. 
So you're never allowed to make an unexpected tackle, one that the player being tackled is not aware of?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's fundamentally different when someone has the ball,  hence why you can tackle them from any angle.

You can't cut back against the flow of play for no other purpose than to lay out someone pursuing the ball carrier. It's been an instant flag for years, for much the same reasons why the league outlawed wedges on kick-offs etc.

Again, I don't agree with the rules, but there's nothing wrong with that call as the rules stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

No, it's fundamentally different when someone has the ball,  hence why you can tackle them from any angle.

You can't cut back against the flow of play for no other purpose than to lay out someone pursuing the ball carrier. It's been an instant flag for years, for much the same reasons why the league outlawed wedges on kick-offs etc.

Again, I don't agree with the rules, but there's nothing wrong with that call as the rules stand.

Watching the footage, it also appeared that he was moving diagonally which would have meant that he was perfectly entitled to block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant have there been matches on every day of the week this season, and if there have would that be the first time it had ever happened in a single season? You're right though I can't think of any Friday games. Maybe if they need to add a week 18 there might be.

Edited by Bully Wee Villa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lambie's Pigeon Feed said:

Was Saints at Falcons moved last minute? I thought it was TNF this week and was just settling down to watch it on repeat.

No, Ravens were meant to be TNF, I think. That was shifted because they didn't play last week's game until Wednesday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...