The Ayodele "Roughing" call

[Stautner]

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.

Let's examine the statement in bold above.

You say Akin had less than a second to react before hitting the ball carrier, so it is acceptable or at least understandable that he did it.

Now, I don't disagree with that, but let's look at it from the refs point of view as well. The ref had that same "less than a second" and actually probably less since he had more to view and consider than did Akin - all Akin had to focus on was the ball carrier.

The ref, on the other hand had to see the ball carrier and determine if, when and where he was down, he also had to see Akin coming in, and determine where each player was in relation to each other at the time, how quickly Akin got there and if there was any unnecessary contact in the hit, and determine if Akin had time to slow down and avoid the hit - ALL WITHIN THE SAME "less than a second" (probably less) that Akin had.

In other words, he had many more things to look at and consider than did Akin within the same time or less ........ YET ..... Akin's decision is understandable and the refs isn't ......

So either (A) you have a double standard, (B) you think the play was so obvious the ref shouldn't have been able to miss it - a viewpoint that I think has been shown to be ridiculous because of the strong opinions on both sides, or (C) you understand the difficulty the officials had in making the call yet you continue to whine about it anyway.

 

[Rack]

Let's examine the statement in bold above.

You say Akin had less than a second to react before hitting the ball carrier, so it is acceptable or at least understandable that he did it.

Now, I don't disagree with that, but let's look at it from the refs point of view as well. The ref had that same "less than a second" and actually probably less since he had more to view and consider than did Akin - all Akin had to focus on was the ball carrier.

The ref, on the other hand had to see the ball carrier and determine if, when and where he was down, he also had to see Akin coming in, and determine where each player was in relation to each other at the time, how quickly Akin got there and if there was any unnecessary contact in the hit, and determine if Akin had time to slow down and avoid the hit - ALL WITHIN THE SAME "less than a second" (probably less) that Akin had.

In other words, he had many more things to look at and consider than did Akin within the same time or less ........ YET ..... Akin's decision is understandable and the refs isn't ......

So either (A) you have a double standard, (B) you think the play was so obvious the ref shouldn't have been able to miss it - a viewpoint that I think has been shown to be ridiculous because of the strong opinions on both sides, or (C) you understand the difficulty the officials had in making the call yet you continue to whine about it anyway.

There's a difference.. that's the refs JOB. That's the ONLY thing they have to do.

Akin has to read the play, fight off a blocker (or two), pursue the play, then make the tackle.

The ref has to stand there... and make a judgement. That's it.


Edit: But at least by your even bringing up the fact that the refs had less then a second to make the call, you are - indirectly - ADMITTING it was the wrong call.

And incase you hadn't noticed, I never said it was an easy call by the refs. I just said it was the WRONG call. How difficult their poor little lives are isn't what we're debating about.

 

[cowboy4eva]

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.

Which is why I don't get why Rack keeps making up the idea that Akin had "less than a second to react"... You'd think if it was such a suprise for Akin to find Lloyd curled up he would have missed it if he had "less than a second to react".

 

[Rack]

Which is why I don't get why Rack keeps making up the idea that Akin had "less than a second to react"... You'd think if it was such a suprise for Akin to find Lloyd curled up he would have missed it if he had "less than a second to react".

Learn to use the quote feature. It's not difficult.


And the "less then a second" bit isn't just something I said, it's the truth. Watch the video yourself and you'll see that.

 

[aikemirv]

Which is why I don't get why Rack keeps making up the idea that Akin had "less than a second to react"... You'd think if it was such a suprise for Akin to find Lloyd curled up he would have missed it if he had "less than a second to react".

Go figure!

I don't like some of the ticky tak calls in the NFL these days but that one right there will get called 9 times out of 10 when you lower your head and shoulders into a persons back when they are lying on the ground.

You can fuss all you want but that is the type of play the NFL is trying to get rid of!

 

[Stautner]

There's a difference.. that's the refs JOB. That's the ONLY thing they have to do.

Akin has to read the play, fight off a blocker (or two), pursue the play, then make the tackle.

The ref has to stand there... and make a judgement. That's it.

Akin isn't getting paid ......? I could have sworn football was his JOB.

And as for that JOB, he didn't read the play and get past the blockers in the last second before the hit - HE HAD ALREADY DONE THAT - that's why he was even available to make the hit, that part of his job was past well before the hit.

You just made the dumbest arguments you have made in this whole thread.

By the way, look up the definition of JUDGEMENT. Something that is clear cut and indisputable is not a JUDGEMENT call.

People like you could never be a baseball fan - you would miss the entire game whining over the balls and strikes you thought were called wrong with the first batter of the game.

 

[peplaw06]

Akin isn't getting paid ......? I could have sworn football was his JOB.

And as for that JOB, he didn't read the play and get past the blockers in the last second before the hit - HE HAD ALREADY DONE THAT - that's why he was even available to make the hit, that part of his job was past well before the hit.

You just made the dumbest arguments you have made in this whole thread.

By the way, look up the definition of JUDGEMENT. Something that is clear cut and indisputable is not a JUDGEMENT call.

Offpoint, but someone harping on the definition of a word should at least know how to spell it... Ironic no??

Back onpoint... Yes it's the Akin's job, just as it is the refs. The refs job though is different, in that the basic premise is to PREVENT the players from gaining a competitive advantage.

If there is a question as to whether there is a penalty... especially a 15 yard unnecessary roughness penalty... there should be NO DOUBT in the refs mind. When a penalty's consequences are as severe as this one, the ref shouldn't be making "JUDGMENT calls." Like I said above, which you refused to acknowledge, it's like obscenity... I know it when I see it. If it's borderline, it's probably NOT unnecessary roughness. And that's the argument you've been making all along.

 

[aikemirv]

I don't think there was any doubt in the refs mind if that was unnecessary roughness. He Threw the flag pretty quick.

I would bet you $20 bucks that if they took that play and put it on NFL network with the Segment they do with the officials that they would confirm that is the type of hit they do not want and was not questionable at all.

 

[peplaw06]

I don't think there was any doubt in the refs mind if that was unnecessary roughness. He Threw the flag pretty quick.

I would bet you $20 bucks that if they took that play and put it on NFL network with the Segment they do with the officials that they would confirm that is the type of hit they do not want and was not questionable at all.

Dude you see that kind of hit ALL THE TIME. Rarely does it draw a flag unless it is after the play. And that was the refs thinking, that the play was dead. And it was wrong.

 

[Stautner]

Offpoint, but someone harping on the definition of a word should at least know how to spell it... Ironic no??

Back onpoint... Yes it's the Akin's job, just as it is the refs. The refs job though is different, in that the basic premise is to PREVENT the players from gaining a competitive advantage.

If there is a question as to whether there is a penalty... especially a 15 yard unnecessary roughness penalty... there should be NO DOUBT in the refs mind. When a penalty's consequences are as severe as this one, the ref shouldn't be making "JUDGMENT calls." Like I said above, which you refused to acknowledge, it's like obscenity... I know it when I see it. If it's borderline, it's probably NOT unnecessary roughness. And that's the argument you've been making all along.

The only legitimate point you made was my spelling of the word "Judgment".

To suggest that refs shouldn't be making judgment calls is not only false, it's stupid. How else would you make a late hit call?

As for making a call only when there is NO DOUBT, that comment shows your ignorance of the NFL and the intent of the rules. The NFL tries (too hard sometimes) too protect players and instructs refs that if they err it should be on the side of caution - protecting those players.

Are you really so clouded in the head that you think the NFL has instructed them that they should go against what their "judgment" tells them unless the evidence is clear and overwhelming?

Whether you agree with the NFL's policy or not - that's what the refs are charged with doing and that's what they have to do.

 

[aikemirv]

Dude you see that kind of hit ALL THE TIME. Rarely does it draw a flag unless it is after the play. And that was the refs thinking, that the play was dead. And it was wrong.

When a player goes down after contact like LLoyd did they usually call them down by contact. If Lloyd had gotten completely back up on his feet and then jumped down you might have a case, but he was still lateral to the ground when he leaped forward and down.

That play gets called down by contact 9 times out of 10.

Hey, guess what, maybe the ref knows the interpretation of the rules better than you since he has probably been doing it for 30 years

 

[Stautner]

When a player goes down after contact like LLoyd did they usually call them down by contact. If Lloyd had gotten completely back up on his feet and then jumped down you might have a case, but he was still lateral to the ground when he leaped forward and down.

That play gets called down by contact 9 times out of 10.

Hey, guess what, maybe the ref knows the interpretation of the rules better than you since he has probably been doing it for 30 years

I think that play would be called down by contact 10 out of 10 times.

I can easily see that it might be missed at first ocassionally because it is difficult to tell how much Ware had to do with Lloyd going down, but on review there really is no question that Ware made contact and Lloyd never recovered his balance after that before he went down.

 

[Rack]

I think that play would be called down by contact 10 out of 10 times.

I can easily see that it might be missed at first ocassionally because it is difficult to tell how much Ware had to do with Lloyd going down, but on review there really is no question that Ware made contact and Lloyd never recovered his balance after that before he went down.

If you truly think that then you are beyond ignorant. There is no hope for you.


Cuz it doesn't get anymore OBVIOUS that Lloyd did recover, saw Akin coming, and FLOPPED to the ground. Ware had nothing to do with that tackle. Lloyd went down on his own free will and even a dead, ********, llama could see that.

 

[peplaw06]

The only legitimate point you made was my spelling of the word "Judgment".

You wouldn't know a legitimate point if it bit you in the ***... who's the ignorant one??

To suggest that refs shouldn't be making judgment calls is not only false, it's stupid. That's the only way of making a late hit call - they have to make a "judgment" as to whether the player could have held up or not. Hell, even if you used instant replays there would still be "judgment" invovlved.

Did I ever say they should NEVER be making judgment calls?? Link please... or quote it, because I didn't say it. Obviously everything's is some degree of judgment call. They shouldn't be making borderline judgment calls on penalties that are 15 yards or more. Those penalties should be blatant and obvious. It's not hard to comprehend. You just can't stand not being politically correct.

As for making a call only when there is NO DOUBT, that comment shows your ignorance of the NFL and the intent of the rules. The NFL has always instructed the refs that the the unnecessary roughness penalties are there to protect players and that if they errit should be on the side of caution - protecting those players.

Are you really so clouded in the head that you think the NFL has instructed them that they should go against what their "judgment" tells them unless the evidence is so clear and overwhelming?

All that does is encourage players to push the envelope when clearly (at least to anyone who is paying attention) the league is instructing the refs to make things safer.

Whether you agree with the NFL's policy or not is beside the point - that's what the refs are charged with doing and that's what they have to do.

This whole argument is beside the point. You're operating on the assumption that the play was dead... WHICH IS WRONG!! There was no whistle, and Lloyd was not down. During the play caution is reserved for QBs, defenseless WRs, and other special rules (i.e. horse-collars, crack back, chop blocks, etc.) Unnecessary roughness is an after-the-play penalty. I can't make it any clearer for you.

 

[peplaw06]

If you truly think that then you are beyond ignorant. There is no hope for you.


Cuz it doesn't get anymore OBVIOUS that Lloyd did recover, saw Akin coming, and FLOPPED to the ground. Ware had nothing to do with that tackle. Lloyd went down on his own free will and even a dead, ********, llama could see that.

And emphasis on the "beyond ignorant" part

 

[Stautner]

If you truly think that then you are beyond ignorant. There is no hope for you.


Cuz it doesn't get anymore OBVIOUS that Lloyd did recover, saw Akin coming, and FLOPPED to the ground. Ware had nothing to do with that tackle. Lloyd went down on his own free will and even a dead, ********, llama could see that.

Pay attention - see if you can grasp a simple concept.

Whether or not he was down was not a timing thing like a late hit AND it is a reviewable play - I clearly said that it was a difficult call to make and could understandably be missed without review.

Which is something you have never conceded with the late hit call.

In other words, I accept that calls aren't easy and that with close plays refs can understandably miss an ocassional close call - you still don't.

And are still whining that you were treated unfairly. Frankly I'm surprised you haven't taken your ball and gone home because of how the mean old refs treated you.

 

[aikemirv]

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/penaltysummaries

Summary of Penalties

13. A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent.

14. Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily

It does not say that the play has to be dead - which you guys seem to be so sure it was still live. If you can't see he uses his head you are not only blind but wrong too.

Not to mention the fact that it was completely unneccesary since Lloyd was LAYING on the ground.

 

[peplaw06]

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/penaltysummaries

Summary of Penalties

13. A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent.

14. Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily

It does not say that the play has to be dead - which you guys seem to be so sure it was still live. If you can't see he uses his head you are not only blind but wrong too.

Not to mention the fact that it was completely unneccesary since Lloyd was LAYING on the ground.

So tell me which of those Ayodele did please...

 

[aikemirv]

So tell me which of those Ayodele did please...

If you can look at TEK2000 video and tell me that Akin did not lead with his helmet and hit him in the helmet with it then we just need to stop arguing because our computers must be distorting that video so that 1 of us is seeing 1 thing and the other is seeing the other because I just have no other explanation for you.:laugh2:

 

[peplaw06]

If you can look at TEK2000 video and tell me that Akin did not lead with his helmet and hit him in the helmet with it then we just need to stop arguing because our computers must be distorting that video so that 1 of us is seeing 1 thing and the other is seeing the other because I just have no other explanation for you.:laugh2:

No argument on the "hitting him with the helmet" part. But I don't think you understand "leading with the helmet." There's a difference. Leading with the helmet means you hit a guy with the top - or crown - of the helmet. It's right there in your rules you quoted. And if you think AA did that, then you're right, we need to stop arguing.