face guarding?

[AdamJT13]

There is one for "shielding".
Same penalty. Different name.

There's no penalty for "shielding," either, or anything like it.

If there's no contact (pass interference), there is NO penalty.

 

[Spectre]

There's no penalty for "shielding," either, or anything like it.

If there's no contact (pass interference), there is NO penalty.

There isn't a defensive penalty called "shielding" or "shielding the receiver"?

 

[AdamJT13]

You can quote the rulebook over and over, but most know it as face guarding that is why too players who played at a high level in the nfl called it that tonight..

and I am pretty sure eric allen knows what he is talking about...

If he thinks there is a penalty called "face guarding" in the NFL, he's wrong. And if he thinks you can be called for any type of pass-interference-like penalty (whatever someone might choose to call it) even if you don't make contact, he's also wrong.

If you're not looking for the ball and you MAKE CONTACT with the receiver, that's pass interference. Some people might erroneously call it "face guarding," but the penalty is for making contact, not for getting in the receiver's face or blocking his vision or whatever. That's the bottom line. No contact = no penalty, no matter what. If there was no contact on that play, it was a bad call.

 

[AdamJT13]

There isn't a defensive penalty called "shielding" or "shielding the receiver"?

No. I've already posted two links in this thread about it, one quoting the NFL's former top official and one quoting the current head of officiating. No contact = no penalty. Period.

Here's a link to the official rule book --

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/media/2006 NFL RULEBOOK.pdf

There's nothing in there about "shielding" or "shielding the receiver" or anything like it.

 

[theebs]

If he thinks there is a penalty called "face guarding" in the NFL, he's wrong. And if he thinks you can be called for any type of pass-interference-like penalty (whatever someone might choose to call it) even if you don't make contact, he's also wrong.

If you're not looking for the ball and you MAKE CONTACT with the receiver, that's pass interference. Some people might erroneously call it "face guarding," but the penalty is for making contact, not for getting in the receiver's face or blocking his vision or whatever. That's the bottom line. No contact = no penalty, no matter what. If there was no contact on that play, it was a bad call.

Dude what is your deal..You are arguing over the extreme specifics of the play, All I am saying is allen and simms played in the league, so in the league it must be viewed as or called face guarding by the players and coaches....regardless of what the coaches say.

and again....he jumped with his head facing the wr and waived his arms...not allowing the wr to have the opportunity to catch the ball, which is against the spirit of competition....

The officials and the rulebook can call it whatever they want. The players obviously know it as face guarding....it was a penalty tonight and there was no contact....

blame the official, not me and the analysts.

 

[AdamJT13]

All I am saying is allen and simms played in the league, so in the league it must be viewed as or called face guarding by the players and coaches.

Only the ones who don't know the rules. Announcers who played in the league get the rules wrong quite often, which is appalling, but true.

and again....he jumped with his head facing the wr and waived his arms...not allowing the wr to have the opportunity to catch the ball, which is against the spirit of competition....

You cannot be serious.

The officials and the rulebook can call it whatever they want. The players obviously know it as face guarding....it was a penalty tonight and there was no contact....

Then it was a bad call, and the players (rather, the former players, in this case) never learned NFL rules.

 

[theebs]

Only the ones who don't know the rules. Announcers who played in the league get the rules wrong quite often, which is appalling, but true.




You cannot be serious.




Then it was a bad call, and the players (rather, the former players, in this case) never learned NFL rules.

yes I am serious. What he did to me was the same as tackling the wr.

Anything else? It is obvious...well nevermind....there is no point.

and again. I am simply telling you what happened on the play and what I heard...why you feel the need to keep this up is beyond me...

but feel free.

 

[AdamJT13]

yes I am serious. What he did to me was the same as tackling the wr.

Anything else? It is obvious...well nevermind....there is no point.

and again. I am simply telling you what happened on the play and what I heard...why you feel the need to keep this up is beyond me...

but feel free.

Frankly, I'm not even sure what your point is. Apparently, you think "face guarding" is unfair, whether it's a rule or not. You can think whatever you want, but that's not going to make it a rule.

 

[nathanlt]

May be stupid to you, but it's in the rule book. Nuff said.

Then it needs to be taken out of the rule book, because that rule makes no sense in the flow of the game.
For a big tough guy sport, that's so ridiculous...

He was blocking my view of the pass!!! No fair!!

There is no one to this point that has quoted the rule book that mentions anything like face guarding or shielding. The rule, fictional or not, is stupid.

 

[AdamJT13]

I just watched the play again. What the ref might have seen was Wayne's left hand/arm hitting Hobbs' helmet/facemask as he (Wayne) tried to jump up and make the catch. There definitely appears to be contact. And Hobbs obviously is not playing the ball, so that might fall under Rule 8, Section 2, Article 5(a) -- "(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch."

Now, some might argue that Hobbs didn't initiate the contact, since it was Wayne's attempting to make the catch that caused him to reach up and hit Hobbs' helmet with his arm. But perhaps that's Wayne's right to the ball, and any contact with a defender who isn't playing the ball therefore is interference.

So, the question is, did Wayne's left hand/arm make contact with Hobbs' helmet? And if so, does that constitute pass interference simply because Hobbs wasn't playing the ball? If the answer to both questions is "yes," then it was a good call. If not, it was a bad call.

 

[Sarge]

he saw it in the reflection of his eyes .

but still there was absolutly no contact its just a stupid call.

Hate the RULE, not the CALL. It was the right thing to do given the rules.

 

[joseephuss]

Then it needs to be taken out of the rule book, because that rule makes no sense in the flow of the game.
For a big tough guy sport, that's so ridiculous...

He was blocking my view of the pass!!! No fair!!

There is no one to this point that has quoted the rule book that mentions anything like face guarding or shielding. The rule, fictional or not, is stupid.

The rule they need to change is the force out. I can't stand that. The receiver would have come down if not hit. I can understand if a defensive player carries the receiver out of bounds, but just hitting him is part of football. It is just one short step to the receiver would have caught the ball if the defender didn't hit him.

Maybe the officials did see some contact on the play. Things happen so fast that maybe they saw something that really wasn't there on the slow mo. Guys like Madden, Simms and Allen that say something about face guarding or shielding are wrong and that is just their assumption. Madden is wrong quite often, but some people who aren't knowledgable about football take his word for it.

The official later let a db push a Pats receiver(Caldwell) in the endzone. Not once, but twice while the ball was in the air. Missed calls. It happens every game and seemed to happen in both directions yesterday.

Did someone really think that grounding the ball while in the endzone should not be a penalty? It really doesn't matter that Brees was in the endzone for grounding to be called. He was still in the pocket and there was no receiver anywhere near him. He just happened to be in the endzone,which makes the penalty an automatic safety. Good rule and easy call. I never really liked the rule change that allowed QBs to ground the ball while out of the pocket, but I guess I understand some of the thinking behind it. If they allowed them to ground it with no penalty while still in the pocket, it would be extremely difficult on the defenses.

 

[stealth]

who cares anyway? seriously, it was a corner getting beat and not allowing the wr to have the opportunity to make a play and you cant do that.

I completely dissagree with that statement, it was a competition and the receiver got beat, pretty simple to see that for me.

 

[CATCH17]

which is against the spirit of competition....

I haven't heard anything that funny since I umpired 5 year old T Ball when everyone gets a trophy and no one keeps score.

That was funny.