Roy's interception for a TD..

[alancdc]

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

This is exactly what the ref said.

 

[TEK2000]

Here is full video of the play:
CLICK HERE
16MB DIVX format video.
right click and save target as to download and save.

And... here's a GIF of one of the replays:
http://i118.***BLOCKED***/albums/o94/tek2001/roy-int-newman-penalty.gif

 

[Smashmouth24]

This is exactly what the ref said.

"hit on a defenseless receiver" is a pretty useless explanation since it's not always illegal to hit a defenseless receiver. I don't know what the guy who threw the flag actually thinks he saw, but it looked like their helmets made contact which is illegal and would result in a fine. If he didn't really commit a penalty under review, I don't think he'd get fined.

 

[superpunk]

Damn TEK - nice work. Clearly led with his shoulder. If helmet contact was made, it was only because Furrey was curling up - bracing for the hit.

 

[aikemirv]

That just makes me even madder when I see it. Furry wimps out on the play and gets rewarded for it!!!!:bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

 

[Smashmouth24]

Damn TEK - nice work. Clearly led with his shoulder. If helmet contact was made, it was only because Furrey was curling up - bracing for the hit.

Unfortunately that wouldn't matter. If his helmet made contact with Furrey's it's a penalty. I'm very interesting in understanding what the ref thinks he saw. This is a pretty controversial rule that rears its ugly head from time to time.

 

[stealth]

Unfortunately that wouldn't matter. If his helmet made contact with Furrey's it's a penalty. I'm very interesting in understanding what the ref thinks he saw. This is a pretty controversial rule that rears its ugly head from time to time.

pretty sure you are wrong on your interpretation of the rule, or there is zero consistancy on the refs parts across the league.

 

[superpunk]

Unfortunately that wouldn't matter. If his helmet made contact with Furrey's it's a penalty. I'm very interesting in understanding what the ref thinks he saw. This is a pretty controversial rule that rears its ugly head from time to time.

Just making contact is not enough to draw a helmet to helmet violation. Helmets make contact on every play. This one happened because the receiver was ducking the hit.

 

[smarta5150]

I turned the game on just after this serious of downs.

I heard them mention there was a 15 yarder on Newman but had no idea it took away a pick-6.

I am sure if TO dropped a TD pass I would have heard about it.

What a stupid call tho... its not like that hit made the play happen... I think PI, holding, ilegal contact, etc should over turn plays NOT these type of penalties.

 

[TEK2000]

Unfortunately that wouldn't matter. If his helmet made contact with Furrey's it's a penalty. I'm very interesting in understanding what the ref thinks he saw. This is a pretty controversial rule that rears its ugly head from time to time.

If that's how they call the penalty... its absolutely ridiculous.

It reminds me of the time I was in a car wreck. I got rear-ended by this girl when I was stopped behind a truck waiting for the truck to turn left. The Cop shows up and tries to blame it on me because "Well it looks like you hit the truck in front you first". UHHH NO! The lady hit me so hard it obviously launched me into the truck in front of me.

Ya see, there's something called Newton's law that says for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. When someone hits you on your shoulder with their shoulder... the reaction is usually going to be that the heads/necks will keep moving in the same direction and collide as well.

 

[Smashmouth24]

Just making contact is not enough to draw a helmet to helmet violation. Helmets make contact on every play. This one happened because the receiver was ducking the hit.

This is a special scenario because the player was 'defenseless'. All receivers stretched out to catch a pass are by rule 'defenseless'. Helmet to helmet contact does not always occur on 'defenseless' players, it's an automatic penalty.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to grasp.

When a receiver is airborne, he's deemed "defenseless" and it is a penalty to touch him. It does not matter how you touch him, any contact is illegal.

This penalty is never called when a receiver has possession of the ball or has a chance to gain possession.

Furrey catches it, no penalty called.

The ball is a few inches lower and Furrey pops it straight up with a chance to catch it in the future, no penalty called.


Again, correct interpretation of a terrible rule.

 

[Smashmouth24]

I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to grasp.

When a receiver is airborne, he's deemed "defenseless" and it is a penalty to touch him. It does not matter how you touch him, any contact is illegal.

This penalty is never called when a receiver has possession of the ball or has a chance to gain possession.

Furrey catches it, no penalty called.

The ball is a few inches lower and Furrey pops it straight up with a chance to catch it in the future, no penalty called.


Again, correct interpretation of a terrible rule.

There are legal means in which to hit a 'defenseless' player whether they catch the ball or not. Your understanding of the rule is incorrect.

 

[TEK2000]

I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to grasp.

When a receiver is airborne, he's deemed "defenseless" and it is a penalty to touch him. It does not matter how you touch him, any contact is illegal.

This penalty is never called when a receiver has possession of the ball or has a chance to gain possession.

Furrey catches it, no penalty called.

The ball is a few inches lower and Furrey pops it straight up with a chance to catch it in the future, no penalty called.


Again, correct interpretation of a terrible rule.

THE BALL WENT OFF OF FURREY'S HAND!!!!

 

[aikemirv]

I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to grasp.

When a receiver is airborne, he's deemed "defenseless" and it is a penalty to touch him. It does not matter how you touch him, any contact is illegal.

This penalty is never called when a receiver has possession of the ball or has a chance to gain possession.

Furrey catches it, no penalty called.

The ball is a few inches lower and Furrey pops it straight up with a chance to catch it in the future, no penalty called.


Again, correct interpretation of a terrible rule.

You are absolutely wrong because there is no person in their right mind who knows in a split second whether that ball Furrey touched is going straight up or 5 yards down the field - no way, no how. He had his hand on it and could have made a terrific catch.

I take it you have never seen a one-handed catch.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

There are legal means in which to hit a 'defenseless' player whether they catch the ball or not. Your understanding of the rule is incorrect.

No there is not. Officials may vary in their enforcement of the rule but any intentional contact is technically illegal.

 

[anava]

I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to grasp.

When a receiver is airborne, he's deemed "defenseless" and it is a penalty to touch him. It does not matter how you touch him, any contact is illegal.

This penalty is never called when a receiver has possession of the ball or has a chance to gain possession.

Furrey catches it, no penalty called.

The ball is a few inches lower and Furrey pops it straight up with a chance to catch it in the future, no penalty called.


Again, correct interpretation of a terrible rule.

I dont buy your explaination at all. He has every chance of catching the ball just sees the hitting coming and curls up. Without Newman there it is a catch.

 

[superpunk]

Someone owes Brad Hoover an apology.

Cuz Fujita lit his "defenseless" *** up.

As a former Cowboys, I'd expect him to be flagged for that.

 

[Smashmouth24]

No there is not. Officials may vary in their enforcement of the rule but any intentional contact is technically illegal.

No it isn't, you're setting this thread back 3 pages. Stop it. Not all contact with a defenseless player is illegal. There are certain forms of contact that are illegal. Any helmet to helmet contact is one of them. That was Newman's ONLY possible violation in this scenario.

 

[AdamJT13]

When a receiver is airborne, he's deemed "defenseless" and it is a penalty to touch him. It does not matter how you touch him, any contact is illegal.

That's not correct. You can hit a receiver who is airborne, you just can't make helmet-to-helmet contact.