Laroi's penalty

[joseephuss]

What is your stance on the rule? Not the call. Good call by the refs. It says any type of head contact and Laroi hit him in the head. What I mean is that the rule leaves no leeway for interpretation. Perhaps that is a good thing because different refs may see things differently. Take their judgement out of consideration and just enforce whether the QB was hit in the head. I would be okay with that except the NFL is not consitent in those types of rules. The new horse collar tackle leaves it up to referee interpretation and there are other rules that are not so cut and dry.

Anyway, Dallas has been involved in two roughing the QB plays in the last two weeks. One was for the Chargers against Bledsoe and one for Glover against Brunell. Aikman mentioned it in the San Diego game that he didn't see how a d-lineman could always avoid contact with the QBs head. They are just trying to make plays. I know when I saw the Glover play, there was nothing he could do to avoid the head contact. The head contact occurred when Brunell ducked his head as Glover got there.

Is it worth having a 5 yard inadvertant head contact similar to the inadvertant face mask or running into the kicker penalties? I think so. You are still protecting the QB, but you take it on a play by play basis. I think the above two situations would have qualified as inadvertant.

Just some thoughts I have had for a while and that have been highlighted the last couple of weeks.

[AbeBeta]

It's a tough call -- really though it evens out -- we'll get the benefit as often as not. If you are going to be serious about protecting QBs -- and I think the league should be because no one wants to see Matt Schaub, Jim Sorgi, or Koy Detmer play -- then you have to limit the contact. Troy Aikman picked up a number of concussions because of blows to the head and brutal late hits. No one wants to see good QBs have to retire too early.

[CaptainAmerica]

I wanted to see that play from a different angle. It actually looked like he could have hit up high on Brunell's shoulder pad. I do realize he didn't argue the call.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I thought it was a bad call but I also thought it was pretty typical of officiating in the NFL. To me, if you don't get the QB with the ball in his hands, your 50-50 on how they call it, even on clean hits.

[joseephuss]

It's a tough call -- really though it evens out -- we'll get the benefit as often as not. If you are going to be serious about protecting QBs -- and I think the league should be because no one wants to see Matt Schaub, Jim Sorgi, or Koy Detmer play -- then you have to limit the contact. Troy Aikman picked up a number of concussions because of blows to the head and brutal late hits. No one wants to see good QBs have to retire too early.

Late hits are subject to the judgement of the official. One ref may call a late hit on a QB, but another may not on the same play. I agree that QBs need to be protected, but the NFL just seems pretty inconsitent in doing so. The QB doesn't fall under the horse collar tackle, yet that rule is supposed to protect players. I think that is my biggest problem. The inconsistency.

[SteveOS]

Late hits are subject to the judgement of the official. One ref may call a late hit on a QB, but another may not on the same play. I agree that QBs need to be protected, but the NFL just seems pretty inconsitent in doing so. The QB doesn't fall under the horse collar tackle, yet that rule is supposed to protect players. I think that is my biggest problem. The inconsistency.


Yeah, it is absolutely laughable that QB's don't fall under the horse collar rule. I almost thought the ref was gonna pull a flag just because Roy did it. :)

[scottsp]

Personally, I thought Glover's hit on Brunell looked clean. Though, it is no secret the league and its officials continue to be adamant about protecting the quarterback. And I don't look for that to change anytime soon.

Knowing the league, I would expect a fine to be handed down sometime this week.

[jaybird]

remember last year (coleman I think) jumped up to block a pass and his hand came down and slap the QB in the head, penalty gave them a first down (against steelers i think) That's the BS calls that got to stop

[AdamJT13]

Yeah, it is absolutely laughable that QB's don't fall under the horse collar rule.

Quarterbacks don't fall under the rule IF they're in the pocket. If they're scrambling out of the pocket, then they do. Running backs between the tackles near the line of scrimmage don't fall under the rule, either. It's basically only for players in the open field.

[joseephuss]

Quarterbacks don't fall under the rule IF they're in the pocket. If they're scrambling out of the pocket, then they do. Running backs between the tackles near the line of scrimmage don't fall under the rule, either. It's basically only for players in the open field.

It is basically for T.O. :D

[CrazyCowboy]

What is your stance on the rule? Not the call. Good call by the refs. It says any type of head contact and Laroi hit him in the head. What I mean is that the rule leaves no leeway for interpretation. Perhaps that is a good thing because different refs may see things differently. Take their judgement out of consideration and just enforce whether the QB was hit in the head. I would be okay with that except the NFL is not consitent in those types of rules. The new horse collar tackle leaves it up to referee interpretation and there are other rules that are not so cut and dry.

Anyway, Dallas has been involved in two roughing the QB plays in the last two weeks. One was for the Chargers against Bledsoe and one for Glover against Brunell. Aikman mentioned it in the San Diego game that he didn't see how a d-lineman could always avoid contact with the QBs head. They are just trying to make plays. I know when I saw the Glover play, there was nothing he could do to avoid the head contact. The head contact occurred when Brunell ducked his head as Glover got there.

Is it worth having a 5 yard inadvertant head contact similar to the inadvertant face mask or running into the kicker penalties? I think so. You are still protecting the QB, but you take it on a play by play basis. I think the above two situations would have qualified as inadvertant.

Just some thoughts I have had for a while and that have been highlighted the last couple of weeks.

I thought he pulled up just in time.....it was a judgement call.....maybe because I am a Cowboys fan.....I felt it was a lame call......be that is football

[SteveOS]

Quarterbacks don't fall under the rule IF they're in the pocket. If they're scrambling out of the pocket, then they do. Running backs between the tackles near the line of scrimmage don't fall under the rule, either. It's basically only for players in the open field.

Ahhhhh, didn't know that. I thought it was a penalty no matter where on the field they were. Thanks. :D

[Rezz]

If you are going to be serious about protecting QBs -- and I think the league should be because no one wants to see Matt Schaub, Jim Sorgi, or Koy Detmer play -- then you have to limit the contact.

Speak for yourself, I would love to see those quarterbacks playing for their respective teams.

[CrazyCowboy]

I thought he pulled up just in time.....it was a judgement call.....maybe because I am a Cowboys fan.....I felt it was a lame call......be that is football

The Glover penalty was a legit call.


Just got the above from the press conf recap.....dang guys......I was wrong! Wew......got that out of the way.....it always hurts to admit you are wrong......until the next mistake I make.

[joseephuss]

No problem.

Is it irony that Brunell ducked to protect himself, but his ducking is what really caused the helmet to helmet contact?

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Glover penalty was a legit call.


Just got the above from the press conf recap.....dang guys......I was wrong! Wew......got that out of the way.....it always hurts to admit you are wrong......until the next mistake I make.

I'll tell ya guys, I don't care what BP said in the PC, I watched that play and it looked like a clean hit to me.

[blindzebra]

It looked like Brunell's follow through caused any helmet to helmet contact, if there even was any.

The backside replay looked like Glover hit him in the shoulder, and there was no head snap to make it appear that Glover got him in the head.

As for the question asked, I can understand the thinking behind the rule but it is flawed.

Which is worse hitting a QB high or fearing a penalty and going low?

The vast majority of penalties I've seen thrown have been very iffy. The defender is attempting to strike the ball and makes contact on the follow through or the defender pulls up and the height differences causes a face mask to face mask type of deal.

I have seen very few leading with the crown blows, like what happened to Aikman, or actually blows to the head. Most seem like incidental contact to out right bad calls.

[Sportsbabe]

It's BS.
This is football.
I hate most of the rules instituted in the last 10 years.
The point you, joseephuss, made about a player ducking and bracing themselves is on point. Why should a man be penalized when someone makes a natural, instinctive reaction?

[joseephuss]

It looked like Brunell's follow through caused any helmet to helmet contact, if there even was any.

The backside replay looked like Glover hit him in the shoulder, and there was no head snap to make it appear that Glover got him in the head.

As for the question asked, I can understand the thinking behind the rule but it is flawed.

Which is worse hitting a QB high or fearing a penalty and going low?

The vast majority of penalties I've seen thrown have been very iffy. The defender is attempting to strike the ball and makes contact on the follow through or the defender pulls up and the height differences causes a face mask to face mask type of deal.

I have seen very few leading with the crown blows, like what happened to Aikman, or actually blows to the head. Most seem like incidental contact to out right bad calls.

Isn't there a penalty for going to the QBs legs?

[Derinyar]

Because the league wants to protect ratings, and that means protecting offenses. People like watching high scoring games more than low scoring ones. Offensive games more than defensive games. Therefore rule changes will usually be implimented to protect/help offensive players.

[Seven]

I'll tell ya guys, I don't care what BP said in the PC, I watched that play and it looked like a clean hit to me.

I couldn't agree more. His helmet hit Brunells shoulder pads with his hands extended. I'll take that to my grave. CLEAN hit. No pulling up involved. Wasn't needed. It was CLEAN. I'm not using this as an excuse for the outcome either. Bad, Bad call. That and the Flo "holding" call ticks me off more than the two stink bombs Brunell threw.

[joseephuss]

Because the league wants to protect ratings, and that means protecting offenses. People like watching high scoring games more than low scoring ones. Offensive games more than defensive games. Therefore rule changes will usually be implimented to protect/help offensive players.

But they are inconsitent even with that. Like the horse collar tackle not applying to the QB while in the pocket.

[Derinyar]

But they are inconsitent even with that. Like the horse collar tackle not applying to the QB while in the pocket.
The reason the horse collar was taken out is the sudden loss of motion is hard on the joints/ligaments.

IE the WR is going full out and suddenly is jerked backward by 235+ pounds of force going the opposite direction. IF that cleat gets trapped at all somethings going to break.

The QB inside the pocket isn't likely moving that much or that fast, as is the RB inside the hole.

[Sportsbabe]

Bad, Bad call. That and the Flo "holding" call ticks me off more than the two stink bombs Brunell threw.

Amen!!! The other guys get paid to play football too. So getting beat by good plays is one thing, but getting jacked is something totally different.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Isn't there a penalty for going to the QBs legs?

Your absolutly right, there is. Good point.

NFL Rules and Regulations - Players Rule Book.

Section XXVI - Sub Section 5, Identified in paragraph 3.

Any defensive player shall avoid contact with Quarterback below the hemline of the standard uniform (described here to as "Dress"), in the course of a live play. If a player should be found to have initiated contact below the hemline, that player/team can be penalized with a 15 yard personal foul, from the line of scrimmage, and the offense will be awarded a 1st down. Offending player may also receive penalty from the rules review committe (NFL League Office) should the violation be found to be explicitly offensive (IE responsible for wrinkling the QBs dress, causing runs in the QBs panty hose) and individual fines may be handed out to players found guilty of such rules violations.

[blindzebra]

Your absolutly right, there is. Good point.

NFL Rules and Regulations - Players Rule Book.

Section XXVI - Sub Section 5, Identified in paragraph 3.

Any defensive player shall avoid contact with Quarterback below the hemline of the standard uniform (described here to as "Dress"), in the course of a live play. If a player should be found to have initiated contact below the hemline, that player/team can be penalized with a 15 yard personal foul, from the line of scrimmage, and the offense will be awarded a 1st down. Offending player may also receive penalty from the rules review committe (NFL League Office) should the violation be found to be explicitly offensive (IE responsible for wrinkling the QBs dress, causing runs in the QBs panty hose) and individual fines may be handed out to players found guilty of such rules violations.


Sounds like the strike zone in baseball. You can only hit him from the shoulder to the knee.

The problem is that the defender can be aiming for the chest area and the QB in following through or turning/ducking to absorb contact can put his head into the targeted zone causing helmet to helmet contact.

[Derinyar]

The other question I think is why is a former offensive player solely responsible for levying fine.

Its helping make the offenses look like little girls at times.

[AbeBeta]

I'll tell ya guys, I don't care what BP said in the PC, I watched that play and it looked like a clean hit to me.

What does BP care at this point? What would he gain by saying it was a bad call? You think he watched that call over and over -- not likely. He's concentrating on stuff he can better control -- like how his players perform. Not what the refs do.

[ABQCOWBOY]

What does BP care at this point? What would he gain by saying it was a bad call? You think he watched that call over and over -- not likely. He's concentrating on stuff he can better control -- like how his players perform. Not what the refs do.

The point here is that regardless of what BP says, I saw the hit and I did not see a problem with it. Now, you may ask, what does my opinion have to do with anything? A valid question, I grant you but, since this is a discussion board, designed to discuss opinions specific to Dallas Cowboys football, I throw it out there.

It kinda works out in a twisted kinda way.

[Sportsbabe]

The point here is that regardless of what BP says, I saw the hit and I did not see a problem with it.

For what it's worth, I agree with you (and I'm a Parcells' Apologist) :)

[AbeBeta]

The point here is that regardless of what BP says, I saw the hit and I did not see a problem with it. Now, you may ask, what does my opinion have to do with anything? A valid question, I grant you but, since this is a discussion board, designed to discuss opinions specific to Dallas Cowboys football, I throw it out there.

It kinda works out in a twisted kinda way.

Wow thanks for explaining that.

Now that I think about it - you must be right. We should spend our time whining about calls.

Until there is another AB for Larry Johnson thread I'll be eagerly awaiting every post in this one!