Why in the hell do especially the NFL gift a shot hole a super bowl

@"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.

@"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?

@"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.

@"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.

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.

@"Jamie Demaree" said: 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.

If we can't clearly define what a catch is and keep the calling of instant replay determinations extremely consistent, I can't really bash on CC for his questioning the calls.  Each of those catches have overturned plays go the other way over the past few years.  Only personal opinion separates them from being catches or non-catches.  Ball moves a little, it's 50/50 on whether it will be determined a catch.  Ball comes out with contact with the ground, 50/50 if it's a catch.  The Jesse James non-TD/non-catch is the play that it's going to be compared to recently or the TO non-catch (diving towards the end zone) a few years back, Magatron's non-TD catch would be another one.  When is total control of the ball established?  When is a player determined to be a "runner" is still a matter of opinion.  Hell if I know the answer half the time, to be honest.  I had no problem with the violence of the hit.  This is big boy football after all.  There is no way we are going to stop all helmet to helmet contact plays and I don't want them to try to.  If it gets to that point, we might as well just play flag football.           

@"Bolstad79" said:

@"Jamie Demaree" said: 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.

He wasn' a receiver at that point, he was a runner.