News: PFT: Blindside block foul called against the Saints was proper application of horrendous rule

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by WoodysGirl, Dec 3, 2021.

  1. boysbeyond4ever

    boysbeyond4ever Active Member

    237 Messages
    152 Likes Received
    The rule is poorly conceived but if you can't lead with your helmet to tackle or defense a pass you shouldn't be able to use it to deliver a block.
     
  2. khiladi

    khiladi Well-Known Member

    31,340 Messages
    25,489 Likes Received


    The point is the rule was not written for this type of play, it was written for the Green Bay incident. This is the ACTUAL play that initiated the rule change, meaning this is actually what is considered FORCIBLE. The WR leveled the DB in the chest and it wasn’t illegal at that point, so it wasn’t called. But it clearly was forcible.

    If the reasoning of the rule is taken into account, the Saints players was doing what is common all the time in blocking, as the GIFs illustrate, meaning it wasn’t forcible.
     
    Runwildboys likes this.
  3. Runwildboys

    Runwildboys Well-Known Member

    CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
    35,783 Messages
    66,941 Likes Received
    I think it was incidental. Think about how much bigger the helmet makes your head area. If you lean in to push with any leverage, your head goes forward. That happens all the time and doesn't get called.
     
    MarcusRock likes this.
  4. SultanOfSix

    SultanOfSix Star Power

    11,174 Messages
    5,176 Likes Received
    Terrible rule. Terrible call.

    The only thing worth calling there was helmet to helmet, if anything.
     
  5. khiladi

    khiladi Well-Known Member

    31,340 Messages
    25,489 Likes Received
    Notice the date of this game…

    It’s in August of 2019 meaning pre-season…. The game of NE and Chiefs was in December if 2019, meaning right before the playoffs. Both of them were called.

    Per the article I stated, the Chiefs-NE game is used as the example by the NFL of the INCORRECT applications of the rule. So if this claim by the article id true, and there is no reason to assume it isn’t, this ALSO was an example of the INCORRECT application of the rule.
     
  6. Creeper

    Creeper Well-Known Member

    6,568 Messages
    8,371 Likes Received
    I have never argued the rule as written is a good rule. In fact I have stated several times it is a stupid rule - as written. My argument has been that when the refs threw the flag in the Saints game it was not an incorrect call by the text of the rule. If the league thinks the rule is misapplied on plays like the block on Kearse them change the rule to exclude those blocks. You can't have rules that say one thing but then expect the refs to not enforce those rules based on nothing other than "it might look bad if we call it there". I think clearly written rules, and refs calling the games as the rules are written, will lead to better officiating. Take the judgement calls out of the officials hands and things will improve, even slightly.

    The catch rule is a great example. Make it simple. If two feet hit the ground and there is possession it is a catch. This is how they call it when a player catches a pass and goes out of bounds or in the end zone so why is it different on the field of play? Make it simple. Does he have possession and control of the ball? Does he get two feet down on the ground? If yes to both questions then it is a catch.
     
  7. blueblood70

    blueblood70 Well-Known Member

    24,871 Messages
    18,274 Likes Received
    i dont think the refs know anything at this point and to me look at the INT for KC and that block called blindside how is it blindside when the blocker was already in front/in the path of the pursuer who ran right into the block, it wasn't blind at all no helmet or a high block used..it was just an ordinary and great block..

    ref suck we all know this..
     
  8. boysbeyond4ever

    boysbeyond4ever Active Member

    237 Messages
    152 Likes Received

    Another example of incosistency, a more well-intentioned one yes, but still a real inconsistency.

    There really is a lot for the Rules Committee to examine and re-examine..
     
    Runwildboys likes this.

Share This Page