Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

NFL Fines week 5: Jets Slauson, Hawks Clemons, Cards Fitz
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mse326


Moderator
Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 16319
Location: mike23md on the sig
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eagles101 wrote:
mse326 wrote:
eagles101 wrote:
24isthelaw wrote:
Jetsman82 wrote:
Slauson deserved to be fined. IMO those knee shots are as dangerous as headshots. They should be treated with the same type of discrimination.

If they were really concerned about health, an not hot button topics, they'd adopt that QB hit box to all defenseless players.


If only...

The one that really bugs me is how ball carriers can grab a defender by the facemask and yank him to the ground, and the network will show 3 slo-mo replays. But if a defender grabs mask? Flags come out.


thats actually illegal. they cant grip the face mask. they can only put there hands on the face masks. which isnt really dangerous.... grabbing the face mask and twisting it is dangerous...hence the rule.

but was the slauson play even illegal? i get it hurt someone and should be against the rules...but is it actually against the rules?


Yes. Peel back block to the knee is illegal

EDIT: Maybe not. I read from our beat reporter who has been doing it for decades that it was a peel back but reading the rule I don't think it was becasue the rule requires the blocker me moving towards his own end line (Rule 12 Section 2 Article 4).

If there is another rule that applies I didn't see it. I also may be remembering the play wrong. I recall the blocker moving toward our end line.

Ultimately there is also the catchall unnecessary rougness that in theory has defined terms but is not limited to those terms. (The rule says "there shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include but is not limited to..." 12-2-6 in link above). It could be said this is unnecessary (the diving at the knee part).


thats what i was thinking. i didnt think the play itself wasnt illegal.

and the unnecessary roughness would be a slippery slop. the runningback could ahve cut back just before that and had been stopped by cushing. and going for the lower body would be necessary because he already got past him.


After seeing the gif above it was a peel back and I remembered the play wrong. He was coming back toward his own endline.

So yes it was illegal
_________________

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group