Roy's interception for a TD..

[fanfromvirginia]

It unfortunately was the correct interpretation of a terrible rule.

Newman didn't need to lead with his helmet or even lay a particularly vicious hit on him. Newman simply needed to touch Furrey while Furrey was airborne without possible posession of the ball.

It was an incorrect interpretation of a terrible rule. They ruled that Furrey couldn't have caught the ball but we could all see that he was actually pretty much right there.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

There is no such rule, we gotta kill this theory now. You can hit a defenseless receiver whether he touches the ball or not. It happens all of the time.

Yeah. He's got it backwards. Receivers about to make a catch are not defenseless. They are fair game.

 

[goshan]

The ruling was that Newman had plenty of time to 'hold up' and not hit the WR after he missed the catch.

It has nothing to do with being tipped, helmet contact or PI.

I do suspect the voracity of the hit caused it to be called.

BTW, for you guys whining about the call on Ware. It was a legitimate call. He can't 'bark' pre-snap in an attempt to immitate the QB to throw the OL off.

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

It was almost as if the ref's were upset that they are not part of player introductions....so that had to do something to let everyone know they were at the game as well.

I mean think about it...had the guy caught the ball the hit would have been ok...but because he did not it is a penalty? Was Newman supposed to antcipate before he commited to tackling the guy that the guy would make a real play on the ball?

You cannot play this sport like that. The rule is a good rule WHEN used properly. It is intended to prevent late hits on the WR like late hits on a QB. This was not even boarderline....it was just terrible....unecessary.....out of left field.

 

[Smashmouth24]

Yeah. He's got it backwards. Receivers about to make a catch are not defenseless. They are fair game.

No they are "defenseless", but that's just a glossary term for the NFL rulebooks. It's not intended to mean the same thing it does in every day language. "Defenseless" players get a little extra protection, but you can still hit them.

 

[Smashmouth24]

The ruling was that Newman had plenty of time to 'hold up' and not hit the WR after he missed the catch.

It has nothing to do with being tipped, helmet contact or PI.

I do suspect the voracity of the hit caused it to be called.

BTW, for you guys whining about the call on Ware. It was a legitimate call. He can't 'bark' pre-snap in an attempt to immitate the QB to throw the OL off.

First of all that wasn't elaborated upon by the referee exactly what about the hit was illegal. He certainly didn't say it was a "late hit" or "unecessary roughness". Secondly since the helmet contact in that scenario is the only 'illegal' type of contact that occurred on that play, we shouldn't dismiss it.

 

[AbeBeta]

First of all that wasn't elaborated upon by the referee exactly what about the hit was illegal. He certainly didn't say it was a "late hit" or "unecessary roughness". Secondly since the helmet contact in that scenario is the only 'illegal' type of contact that occurred on that play, we shouldn't dismiss it.

I'm pretty sure I heard the ref say "hit on a defenseless receiver" -- that's an elaboration isn't it?

 

[AbeBeta]

"Defenseless" players get a little extra protection, but you can still hit them.

How so? Helmet to helmet is ALWAYS a penalty. Where is the extra protection?

 

[aikemirv]

How so? Helmet to helmet is ALWAYS a penalty. Where is the extra protection?

Helmet to helmet when, because it is not always a penalty! It happens all the time. On special teams and on RB's and on WR's running with the ball.

 

[AbeBeta]

Helmet to helmet when, because it is not always a penalty! It happens all the time. On special teams and on RB's and on WR's running with the ball.

It isn't always called. But it is a penalty.

You can say that about any penalty. Just look at how many times you could call holding in a game.

 

[Smashmouth24]

How so? Helmet to helmet is ALWAYS a penalty. Where is the extra protection?

Not all helmet-to-helmet contact is a penalty. For instance when you're tackling a running back and your helmets just happen to come in contact that is not a penalty. If your helmet just happens to come in contact with a defenseless player (the 'defenseless' by rule definition, not everyday english), it's a penalty.

 

[Smashmouth24]

I'm pretty sure I heard the ref say "hit on a defenseless receiver" -- that's an elaboration isn't it?

I thought he said "illegal hit on a defenseless receiver", but either way I don't see it as a clear explanation of what he thinks he saw. I'm not aware of any 'hold up' rule. You can certainly hit defenseless receivers as long as it's not late.

 

[Smashmouth24]

Not to fan the flames even further here, but if Newman's helmet did come in contact with a defenseless receiver he can also expect a fine Wednesday.

 

[AbeBeta]

Not all helmet-to-helmet contact is a penalty. For instance when you're tackling a running back and your helmets just happen to come in contact that is not a penalty. If your helmet just happens to come in contact with a defenseless player (the 'defenseless' by rule definition, not everyday english), it's a penalty.

Perhaps I should have said "leading with the helmet" to be more clear.

 

[dalengal]

i agree.

 

[Smith22]

Stupid penalty IMO, but again, the lions had 2 WINS and NOTHING to play for in that game but pride. Losing cost them a freaking NO. 1 pick.

We looked like the 2 win team on defense, losing 3 straight home games while the defense has turned invisible......

 

[AbeBeta]

Not to fan the flames even further here, but if Newman's helmet did come in contact with a defenseless receiver he can also expect a fine Wednesday.

I think this will give us a clear indication of how the league viewed the call. There will be a fine -- that happens for nearly all personal fouls -- the size of the fine should say something about how the league views the call.

 

[AbeBeta]

I thought he said "illegal hit on a defenseless receiver", but either way I don't see it as a clear explanation of what he thinks he saw. I'm not aware of any 'hold up' rule. You can certainly hit defenseless receivers as long as it's not late.

Again -- so how is this rule protecting the defenseless receiver? As you've stated it there is no distinction between what you can do to defenseless players and, um, defended(?) players.

 

[superpunk]

I think this will give us a clear indication of how the league viewed the call. There will be a fine -- that happens for nearly all personal fouls -- the size of the fine should say something about how the league views the call.

They back the refs no matter what. The fine (or lack thereof) would be irrelevant, considering no call of helmet to helmet contact was made. Either way - they're backing the officials no matter what.

 

[Smashmouth24]

Again -- so how is this rule protecting the defenseless receiver? As you've stated it there is no distinction between what you can do to defenseless players and, um, defended(?) players.

I said the referee didn't make a distinction as to what he thought about the hit was illegal. I've repeatedly stated there is a distinction between what you can do to a defenseless player (not just receiver) vs. one who is not considered defenseless, according to NFL rules. "Defenseless" is just a glossary term to describe players in certain situations (and I don't know them all): player stretched out to catch a pass, all quarterbacks in the pocket, all quarterbacks defending an interception, all punters and kickers, etc.