The Ayodele "Roughing" call

[Rack]

There's another angle of it. From there... its a helmet to helmet hit.

I disagree. The angle makes it look like it's helmet to helmet, but Akin's helmet is actually above Lloyd's helmet. Either way, there no rule against helmet to helmet contact unless it's on a QB or a "defenseless (in the air)" reciever. As long as he doesn't spear him, it's legal.

Still a bad call by the refs.

 

[superpunk]

There's another angle of it. From there... its a helmet to helmet hit.

SuperPunk... you can simply right click and save target as on the GIF to save it to your computer.
I'm gonna try to get the clips up of the game sometime this week. A Commanders fan put together a highlight vid showing Sean Taylors hits (hey, they gotta find SOMETHING positive from that game... but they left out the 2 TD passes he gave up). Anyway, I'm thinking about making a Commanders "mockery" video of the game if I get some time... with it being the BYE week I should be able to get it done.

I know you make so many of these small gifs, and I love em. I was just wondering if there was a place I can see all the ones you've made. I couldn't locate them on the website in your sig.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I beleive the call was fine. All he had to do was touch him he didn't have to lower the shoulder. He was clearly down well before lowering the shoulder. If there was some impact I'm sure they wouldn't have called it, but the lowering of the shoulder provoked the call. As for the roughing the passer call on Ware. Now that was questionable.

 

[Chuck 54]

Do you even know what a spear is? That is NOT a spear.


A spear is when you lead with the top of your helmet. His helmet didn't even touch Lloyd.

Get a clue.

incorrect...he threw a shoulder into a guy who was lying on the ground instead of just covering him or landing beside him like most guys.

Since it was a penalty, I'd say you might be wrong...no one except on this board has even mentioned that it wasn't a penalty...not even the coach or player.

 

[Chuck 54]

No way in hell is that unnecessary roughness.

Why do you keep arguing something that you have already been proven wrong on....the ref said it's a penalty, and no one from the cowboys, including the player are taking your side.

It's okay to have an opinion, but that's all you have with absolutely no one that matters taking your side.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

That was a terrible call IMO, he was already committed....cannot stop

 

[peplaw06]

incorrect...he threw a shoulder into a guy who was lying on the ground instead of just covering him or landing beside him like most guys.

Still NOT a spear

Since it was a penalty, I'd say you might be wrong...

Yeah because the refs NEVER make mistakes

no one except on this board has even mentioned that it wasn't a penalty...not even the coach or player.

BP doesn't criticize refs calls, and I haven't seen an Ayodele interview yet.

 

[peplaw06]

Why do you keep arguing something that you have already been proven wrong on....the ref said it's a penalty, and no one from the cowboys, including the player are taking your side.

See above post... BP and AA's silence don't PROVE Rack wrong. Ever hear the saying the absence of evidence doesn't equal proof?

It's okay to have an opinion, but that's all you have with absolutely no one that matters taking your side.

There's no one "that matters" taking your side either. You have made ZERO impact on MY opinion so far. All you've proven to me is that you want to give the refs the benefit of the doubt. I disagree. High school refs, okay I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Not NFL refs, not with the number of mistakes they're making recently.

 

[aikemirv]

I disagree. The angle makes it look like it's helmet to helmet, but Akin's helmet is actually above Lloyd's helmet. Either way, there no rule against helmet to helmet contact unless it's on a QB or a "defenseless (in the air)" reciever. As long as he doesn't spear him, it's legal.

Still a bad call by the refs.

I don't know how any sane person cannot see that that is helmet to helmet and that he lowered his head and shoulders to deliver an uneccesary hit to a player lying on the ground.

Give me a break!!!

That hit is the very reason those rules were made for!

 

[Stautner]

Well that may have been YOUR reaction, but my first reaction was that Lloyd dove to the ground to avoid the hit. I saw it in real time, on TV, and the only education I have received in the rules is from watching it on TV. I expect someone right next to the action with years of experience to see that Lloyd was still a live ballcarrier.

If you accept that he was a live ballcarrier, I say that any type of hit is legal aside from spearing, which Ayodele clearly didn't do. Unnecessary roughness is typically only called after the play, and the play was still going.

Which brings up another point... I've noticed that relatively often the refs don't blow the whistle. Or at least not that I can hear. I got used to hearing the whistle as soon as some guy went down. Now I'm noticing that they wait to blow it. Sometimes they never blow it. Then when someone who is clearly down gets up and starts running or when the play should have been blown dead, they'll start blowing it over an over. What's so stinkin hard about blowing a whistle. it should be a habit. It shouldn't be the ref closest to the ball either, it should be all of the refs who see the guy go down. It leads to confusion, and I don't understand it... {/Rant}

If you're going to go with the "live ball carrier" argument, you just shot yourself in the foot. Ware contributed to him going down and he was therefore down by contact.

But the thing you need to understand is that I'm not saying it WAS a good call, all I'm saying is that it was very close and one of those borderline calls that could go either way.

It's a pretty simple matter to realize that calls like a late hit are purely judgement in nature and that a fraction of a second is all that differentiates a late hit from a clean one. When it is close there is nothing to do but accept the call and realize the ref had a tough decision to make - period.

Screaming about it now and acting as if it was a clear cut no brainer is pretty asinine.

 

[peplaw06]

I don't know how any sane person cannot see that that is helmet to helmet and that he lowered his head and shoulders to deliver an uneccesary hit to a player lying on the ground.

Helmet to helmet was not the call, and isn't even illegal in that situation. They called unnecessary roughness, which is typically only called after the play has been blown dead. Because Lloyd was still a live ballcarrier, it was a bad call. I don't see how you guys can't see this.

 

[Stautner]

Helmet to helmet was not the call, and isn't even illegal in that situation. They called unnecessary roughness, which is typically only called after the play has been blown dead. Because Lloyd was still a live ballcarrier, it was a bad call. I don't see how you guys can't see this.

Who lied to you and told you unneccesary roughness can only be called after a play is blown dead?

And why did you believe them? Admitting you are that naive' does not help your argument.

 

[peplaw06]

If you're going to go with the "live ball carrier" argument, you just shot yourself in the foot. Ware contributed to him going down and he was therefore down by contact.

Go look again. Lloyd's hand hits the turf AFTER Ware hits him... THEN Lloyd picks his hand up and is regaining his balance. he's about to turn up field and then he sees AA and falls. Ware had nothing to do with him going down... at all.

But the thing you need to understand is that I'm not saying it WAS a good call, all I'm saying is that it was very close and one of those borderline calls that could go either way.

Unnecesary roughness should NEVER be a borderline call. If reasonable minds could differ, I say it's not unnecessary roughness. If the ref is sitting there saying, "well it MAY have been a penalty," then it's not unnecessary roughness. It's like obscenity... I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

It's a pretty simple matter to realize that calls like a late hit are purely judgement in nature and that a fraction of a second is all that differentiates a late hit from a clean one. When it is close there is nothing to do but accept the call and realize the ref had a tough decision to make - period.

So if Ayodele had been a fraction of a second earlier, it would have been a legal hit?? The circumstances didn't change from that fraction of a second. Lloyd still wasn't down till someone touched him... it's not like he was live one millisecond, then down the next.

Screaming about it now and acting as if it was a clear cut no brainer is pretty asinine.

What's asinine is pretending that the refs are doing a good job here recently. Since last season's Super Bowl, these guys have been complete jokes. It seems like every single game I've watched since then there's been a call or two that have been completely out of left field. It's pretty easy to sit back and just watch the games and not question refs calls. you don't have to think for yourself, just accept everything as true. "well they're getting paid to do it, they must be right."

 

[peplaw06]

Who lied to you and told you unneccesary roughness can only be called after a play is blown dead?

And why did you believe them? Admitting you are that naive' does not help your argument.

When it's a big hit during the play, they never call unnecessary roughness. They'll call helmet to helmet or spearing, or launching, or whatever. Not unnecessary roughness. It's just what I've noticed from WATCHING. No one told me anything. I can form conclusions on my own.

 

[aikemirv]

Helmet to helmet was not the call, and isn't even illegal in that situation. They called unnecessary roughness, which is typically only called after the play has been blown dead. Because Lloyd was still a live ballcarrier, it was a bad call. I don't see how you guys can't see this.

I never said helmet to helmet should have been called but that play is the "very definition" of unecessary roughness.

Helmet to helmet was just another reason it "WAS" unnecessary.

 

[Stautner]

There will never be a consensus on whether it was a good call, and the difference of opinion only lends credence to what I have been saying all along.

Which is simply this:

A judgement call like this is damned hard and refs have to do the best they can in the blink of an eye with a decision that can sway one way or another based on a fraction of a second. The call is just too close to grouse about either way.

THAT's why there is so much disagreement, and THAT's why this conclusion should be acceptable to all and all should move on with it.

Of course those who stubbornly continue to believe this should have been an easy call to make will never find common ground and meet in the middle - that kind if irratitional radicalism and ignorance of fair consideration of all sides can only be satisfied if they can force an issue to be black and white.

Rational people understand there are gray areas with a lot of issues.

 

[Rack]

Why do you keep arguing something that you have already been proven wrong on....the ref said it's a penalty, and no one from the cowboys, including the player are taking your side.

It's okay to have an opinion, but that's all you have with absolutely no one that matters taking your side.

This might just be the dumbest statement I've ever read here.

Now who's accusing the refs of perfection?

And just cuz Akin isn't complaining about the call doesn't mean he thinks it was legit. Another dumb part of your statement. They won the game, he probably doesn't even care about the call right now.

I never said helmet to helmet should have been called but that play is the "very definition" of unecessary roughness.

Helmet to helmet was just another reason it "WAS" unnecessary.

Oh well, all I can say is that you're wrong. Period.

The runner was LIVE. The defender had LESS THAN A SECOND to react to Lloyd wussing out and flopping down. As a defender, that's the LAST thing you're expecting to happen. He was going in for a regular hit cuz he was expecting the runner to keep going and cuz he KNEW the runner was still live. If he had precognitive powers and KNEW Lloyd was gonna wuss out I'm sure he wouldn't of hit him like that.

Gimme a freakin' break, People. Sean Taylor's shove on Glenn was more of a personal foul then Akin's hit.

 

[aikemirv]

This might just be the dumbest statement I've ever read here.

Now who's accusing the refs of perfection?

And just cuz Akin isn't complaining about the call doesn't mean he thinks it was legit. Another dumb part of your statement. They won the game, he probably doesn't even care about the call right now.





Oh well, all I can say is that you're wrong. Period.

The runner was LIVE. The defender had LESS THAN A SECOND to react to Lloyd wussing out and flopping down. As a defender, that's the LAST thing you're expecting to happen. He was going in for a regular hit cuz he was expecting the runner to keep going and cuz he KNEW the runner was still live. If he had precognitive powers and KNEW Lloyd was gonna wuss out I'm sure he wouldn't of hit him like that.

Gimme a freakin' break, People. Sean Taylor's shove on Glenn was more of a personal foul then Akin's hit.

If Akin did not have time to react he would have gone right over him because as you said he had no idea he was going to flop down and would have still been upright and thus Akin would not have had to lower his head and shoulders and drive them into his back and head.

Do you know where a 4 Eyes is in the area you live because you obviously need some glasses!

 

[Rack]

If Akin did not have time to react he would have gone right over him because as you said he had no idea he was going to flop down and would have still been upright and thus Akin would not have had to lower his head and shoulders and drive them into his back and head.

Do you know where a 4 Eyes is in the area you live because you obviously need some glasses!

Do they teach Football 101 at your local college? Because you obviously need the education!

 

[peplaw06]

There will never be a consensus on whether it was a good call, and the difference of opinion only lends credence to what I have been saying all along.

Which is simply this:

A judgement call like this is damned hard and refs have to do the best they can in the blink of an eye with a decision that can sway one way or another based on a fraction of a second. The call is just too close to grouse about either way.

THAT's why there is so much disagreement, and THAT's why this conclusion should be acceptable to all and all should move on with it.

Of course those who stubbornly continue to believe this should have been an easy call to make will never find common ground and meet in the middle - that kind if irratitional radicalism and ignorance of fair consideration of all sides can only be satisfied if they can force an issue to be black and white.

Rational people understand there are gray areas with a lot of issues.

And I suppose you're the rational one. The one who can't accept "conclusive visual evidence" (to borrow a term from your favorite group of people), and admit that it was a bad call.

I'm not trying to change the call, I know that's not gonna happen. And I have no problem with it because we won the game. But I just don't like people pretending there are no bad calls, and if I feel the need to speak up, I will.

It's typical when a poster doesn't have a leg to stand on in a debate, he harks back to... "the refs are doing the best they can... they have a tough job... they have to make split second decisions... boo hoo hooo.... i feel sorry for them." Then you call those who have a good argument stubborn and irrational because they haven't accepted the greater truth here, and that is that there are "grey areas" in the rules!!! ***!!! Grey areas??

The goal of the NFL as far as the rules and referees are concerned SHOULD BE to eliminate grey areas. Terms like "football move" and "conclusive video evidence" have watered down the product... bottom line. By creating these "grey areas" IMO we have given MORE power to the refs to decide the outcomes of games, instead of the teams on the field.

What are you going to say when a crucial call decides the Cowboys' fate?? Are you going to go on your happy way and say "Oh well, it was a 'grey area' in the rule book"?? Or are you going to shed a tear for the refs because they have a tough job??

And it figures that someone who has a strong opinion on something -- one that may ruffle some feathers -- gets labeled radical and ignorant for calling it like it is. God forbid we question something. Rather, you should be middle of the road, accept everything and everyone, don't rock the boat... yada yada. How Zen-like of you.

So you can hate me, label me intolerant, ignorant, uncultured, uncivilized... I can handle it. I'm still going to have my opinions and you'll have yours. You stay politically correct, I'll question things.