Both the catches were catches. But the hit IMO was hitting a defense less receiver and should have been a penalty but only because it was helmet to helmet. In a case like that the defensive player could have easily lead with a shoulder.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ 1VikesFan said:
First one was questionable, I thought it could have gone either way. Ertz TD was no brainer...he caught the ball ran for at least 3 steps then dove into end zone, clearly a TD. Call or rather non-call that bothered me the most was Jenkins' head to head with Cooks, I think that should have clearly been a penalty.
i kind of agree, i dont see why a player on a comeback block has to avoid a hit like that, but defender doesnt have to when a player changes directions like Cooks did. "head on a swivel" or just "watch where you are going" comes to mind. if the league is going to protect guys, then make it consistent.
On a comeback block, the blocker is setting the defender up. On this hit, the defender was pursuing a ball carrier that suddenly changed directions back towards him. Wasn't dirty, wasn't intentional, just a violent collision. Ball carriers need to be aware that turning back towards big men chasing them at full speed can be a bad idea.
but the defender targeted the head and neck area and he had the ability to control the contact. the defender chose to target high and that is where the play should be called illegal. if a runner drops his head/shoulder to absorb the hit or even be the one delivering the hit (AD comes to mind) then it should be no flag, but here even though the receiver was established as a ball carrier, he was blindly targeted in a manner that could have seriously injured him. i know the difference in the plays and why they didnt call it, but IMO the defender here was just as at fault for a dangerous hit than when a receiver goes high to crack block a direction changing defender.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ 1VikesFan said:
First one was questionable, I thought it could have gone either way. Ertz TD was no brainer...he caught the ball ran for at least 3 steps then dove into end zone, clearly a TD. Call or rather non-call that bothered me the most was Jenkins' head to head with Cooks, I think that should have clearly been a penalty.
i kind of agree, i dont see why a player on a comeback block has to avoid a hit like that, but defender doesnt have to when a player changes directions like Cooks did. "head on a swivel" or just "watch where you are going" comes to mind. if the league is going to protect guys, then make it consistent.
On a comeback block, the blocker is setting the defender up. On this hit, the defender was pursuing a ball carrier that suddenly changed directions back towards him. Wasn't dirty, wasn't intentional, just a violent collision. Ball carriers need to be aware that turning back towards big men chasing them at full speed can be a bad idea.
but the defender targeted the head and neck area and he had the ability to control the contact. the defender chose to target high and that is where the play should be called illegal. if a runner drops his head/shoulder to absorb the hit or even be the one delivering the hit (AD comes to mind) then it should be no flag, but here even though the receiver was established as a ball carrier, he was blindly targeted in a manner that could have seriously injured him. i know the difference in the plays and why they didnt call it, but IMO the defender here was just as at fault for a dangerous hit than when a receiver goes high to crack block a direction changing defender.
Will have to go back and watch it, I don't recall him going high and targeting the head. I thought Cook dropped to cut and turned back into the impact. Tough for the defender to anticipate a ball carrier doing that.
thought the second reviewd td was garbage. he bobbled the ball going to the ground and used the ground to recover it before it flew up in the air and he recaught it.
The defender did maximize the impact, but I don't think he was targeting the head. IMO, it looks like he tries to drop low for a textbook tackle. It was violent, but I just don't see the head hunting in it. He is flying in to tackle a guy in the open field and the Cooks turns towards him.
Quote: @greediron said:
The defender did maximize the impact, but I don't think he was targeting the head. IMO, it looks like he tries to drop low for a textbook tackle. It was violent, but I just don't see the head hunting in it. He is flying in to tackle a guy in the open field and the Cooks turns towards him.
from the replay I watched and from memory it seemed that his helmet hit Cooks in the head/neck area, now maybe it was because the Cooks caught him off guard, but I thought at the time that no call was the right call, but it should be a penalty since it appeared that it was the same type of hit as a crack block.
I liked all the calls. The first one was
the most questionable, but I don’t think it was overturnable. While it was moving a bit, I don’t think you
can tell if it was moving uncontrollably.
The second one was clearly a catch and he
fumbled after becoming a runner.
The hit on Cook was perfectly fine. He was not defenseless in any sense.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
The defender did maximize the impact, but I don't think he was targeting the head. IMO, it looks like he tries to drop low for a textbook tackle. It was violent, but I just don't see the head hunting in it. He is flying in to tackle a guy in the open field and the Cooks turns towards him.
from the replay I watched and from memory it seemed that his helmet hit Cooks in the head/neck area, now maybe it was because the Cooks caught him off guard, but I thought at the time that no call was the right call, but it should be a penalty since it appeared that it was the same type of hit as a crack block.
He did hit the helmet/neck. But it isn't the same as a crack block where the guy sizes up the defender and waits to launch into the head. He did explode on impact, but Cooks is a small guy and that made the violence look worse because Cooks took all the impact. But he had no time to size him up as I doubt there was any anticipation he was coming back that way.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
The defender did maximize the impact, but I don't think he was targeting the head. IMO, it looks like he tries to drop low for a textbook tackle. It was violent, but I just don't see the head hunting in it. He is flying in to tackle a guy in the open field and the Cooks turns towards him.
from the replay I watched and from memory it seemed that his helmet hit Cooks in the head/neck area, now maybe it was because the Cooks caught him off guard, but I thought at the time that no call was the right call, but it should be a penalty since it appeared that it was the same type of hit as a crack block.
He did hit the helmet/neck. But it isn't the same as a crack block where the guy sizes up the defender and waits to launch into the head. He did explode on impact, but Cooks is a small guy and that made the violence look worse because Cooks took all the impact. But he had no time to size him up as I doubt there was any anticipation he was coming back that way.
well he had time to pursue the play and he did make contact high, i dont think intent has anything to do with crack blocks being illegal as they are sometimes bang bang plays. just saying if defenders are protected from blind hits up high, all players should be. its supposed to be illegal for any direct helmet to helmet hits isnt it?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
The defender did maximize the impact, but I don't think he was targeting the head. IMO, it looks like he tries to drop low for a textbook tackle. It was violent, but I just don't see the head hunting in it. He is flying in to tackle a guy in the open field and the Cooks turns towards him.
from the replay I watched and from memory it seemed that his helmet hit Cooks in the head/neck area, now maybe it was because the Cooks caught him off guard, but I thought at the time that no call was the right call, but it should be a penalty since it appeared that it was the same type of hit as a crack block.
He did hit the helmet/neck. But it isn't the same as a crack block where the guy sizes up the defender and waits to launch into the head. He did explode on impact, but Cooks is a small guy and that made the violence look worse because Cooks took all the impact. But he had no time to size him up as I doubt there was any anticipation he was coming back that way.
well he had time to pursue the play and he did make contact high, i dont think intent has anything to do with crack blocks being illegal as they are sometimes bang bang plays. just saying if defenders are protected from blind hits up high, all players should be. its supposed to be illegal for any direct helmet to helmet hits isnt it?
Not sure how you can make all if it illegal when the runner often is partly responsible? I think sometimes football is just a violent sport.
|
