Quote: @greediron said:
@ 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.
hence the blind side part, sure if the runner ducks his head, pretty tough to put that on the defender, but in yesterdays hit it seemed that the defender intended to hit high. kind of like the hit that Dejo took against the aints, it was directed at the head area and in the name of player safety that should have been a penatly. I wouldnt be surprised to see more come from the targeting aspect in the future.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
hence the blind side part, sure if the runner ducks his head, pretty tough to put that on the defender, but in yesterdays hit it seemed that the defender intended to hit high. kind of like the hit that Dejo took against the aints, it was directed at the head area and in the name of player safety that should have been a penatly. I wouldnt be surprised to see more come from the targeting aspect in the future.
Are you trying to suggest that they change the rules to make what happened illegal or are you suggesting that what happened was illegal under the current rules?
Quote: @medaille said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
hence the blind side part, sure if the runner ducks his head, pretty tough to put that on the defender, but in yesterdays hit it seemed that the defender intended to hit high. kind of like the hit that Dejo took against the aints, it was directed at the head area and in the name of player safety that should have been a penatly. I wouldnt be surprised to see more come from the targeting aspect in the future.
Are you trying to suggest that they change the rules to make what happened illegal or are you suggesting that what happened was illegal under the current rules?
either way, just make the rules consistent. if they want to make the game safer then make all targeted hits to the head and neck area illegal. if they want to be able to let people play then make them all legal, its stupid how the league interprets shit anymore.
I am not saying it was illegal, just that with the other rules in place that it should be.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ medaille said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
hence the blind side part, sure if the runner ducks his head, pretty tough to put that on the defender, but in yesterdays hit it seemed that the defender intended to hit high. kind of like the hit that Dejo took against the aints, it was directed at the head area and in the name of player safety that should have been a penatly. I wouldnt be surprised to see more come from the targeting aspect in the future.
Are you trying to suggest that they change the rules to make what happened illegal or are you suggesting that what happened was illegal under the current rules?
either way, just make the rules consistent. if they want to make the game safer then make all targeted hits to the head and neck area illegal. if they want to be able to let people play then make them all legal, its stupid how the league interprets shit anymore.
I am not saying it was illegal, just that with the other rules in place that it should be.
You should try explaining the catch rule to a non-football fan. And why Ertz's TD was good, but why they would even consider reviewing it.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ medaille said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
hence the blind side part, sure if the runner ducks his head, pretty tough to put that on the defender, but in yesterdays hit it seemed that the defender intended to hit high. kind of like the hit that Dejo took against the aints, it was directed at the head area and in the name of player safety that should have been a penatly. I wouldnt be surprised to see more come from the targeting aspect in the future.
Are you trying to suggest that they change the rules to make what happened illegal or are you suggesting that what happened was illegal under the current rules?
either way, just make the rules consistent. if they want to make the game safer then make all targeted hits to the head and neck area illegal. if they want to be able to let people play then make them all legal, its stupid how the league interprets shit anymore.
I am not saying it was illegal, just that with the other rules in place that it should be.
You should try explaining the catch rule to a non-football fan. And why Ertz's TD was good, but why they would even consider reviewing it.
sure thing... just as soon as the league officials can explain it 
My only issue with the TD plays was that- usually- those plays are not ruled as TDs.
Great article in the ny post on how Collinsworth is public enemy #1 in Philly for questioning the calls
That announcing team had a bad game
Because Collins was still hoping for his pal Brady to pull off another one---it stung a little to see the tarnish on the shiny not so new toy. Both TDs were called right by my understanding of the game one) he caught the ball took three steps and fumbled after breaking the plane of the endzone. Second) caught ball with slight movement toe drags or at least cleats make contact inbounds as seen by the pellets spraying up and maintains control to the ground. Christ they let the Pats mug on the extra point attempts
Both looked like touchdowns to me, but I sure would not have been surprised to have heard them over turned, happened all year. The hit on cooks was violent, was within the rules, but one of the reasons I get less enjoyment from the game. Till I realized the damage the physics of the game caused, I loved this type of action, now not so much.
I was perplexed as to why either catch was questioned at all. And the hit on Crooks could have been called helmet-to-helmet. I thought it was at the time.
|
