Running into the holder????

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
EPL0c0;2617204 said:
(3:36) (Field Goal formation) 3-Je.Reed 27 yard field goal is GOOD, NULLIFIED by Penalty, Center-61-J.Retkofsky, Holder-17-M.Berger. PENALTY on ARI-24-A.Wilson, Unnecessary Roughness, 5 yards, enforced at ARI 9 - No Play.

According to NFL.com, the penalty was a 5yd "unnecessary roughness" penalty.

Because they were at the 9 yard line to start with so it would be half the distance which gave them 1st and 10 at the 4 yard line. There is no 5 yard unnecessary roughing foul all unnecessary roughing comes with a 15 yard penalty or half the distance and auto 1st down
 

EPL0c0

The Funcooker
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
3,811
Yeah I got that... I think as "unnecessary roughness" penalties go though, it was pretty ticky tack because Wilson didn't spear him or go in shoulder/head first. He was stumbling and looked like he was trying to avoid the holder, but I guess it counts.
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
54,310
Reaction score
32,715
EPL0c0;2617341 said:
Yeah I got that... I think as "unnecessary roughness" penalties go though, it was pretty ticky tack because Wilson didn't spear him or go in shoulder/head first. He was stumbling and looked like he was trying to avoid the holder, but I guess it counts.


This really gets back to Football 101. Even from the Pee Wee level, you're taught to come at an angle which takes you in front of the kicker not at the kicker or the holder.

Another fundamental break down by the Cardinals that cost them. It wasn't a ticky tack call. That's going to get called 100 percent of the time, and the fact he pushed the holder doesn't help Wilson's cause.
 

CalCBFan

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,277
Reaction score
31
Why is no one talking about Warner's "fumble" at the wnd of the game to preserve the Steelers' lead? It was clearly a forward pass or the ball would not have gone forward as far as it did. The only thing I can think of is payback for appplication of the "tuck rule" earlier in the game. I think that rule is totally bogus and should go; a fumble is a fumble...
 

Rampage

Benched
Messages
24,117
Reaction score
2
bbgun;2616063 said:
That 15-yd phantom facemask penalty on DCR was much worse. You gotta make the tackle or turn the guy's head around to draw that penalty, and neither happened.
plus the wr had a handfull of his facemask so it should have been a no call.
 

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
tyke1doe;2617550 said:
This really gets back to Football 101. Even from the Pee Wee level, you're taught to come at an angle which takes you in front of the kicker not at the kicker or the holder.

Another fundamental break down by the Cardinals that cost them. It wasn't a ticky tack call. That's going to get called 100 percent of the time, and the fact he pushed the holder doesn't help Wilson's cause.

The upside of all of that was Pitt still ended up with only 3. I thought the Cards did some good things on defense but made 1 critical mistake on the 4th qrt drive allowing Holmes to make the big play that took them down inside the 10 to get the game winning TD.
 
Top