The Wheat hit

[Kingofholland]

If he didn't make contact with the facemask it probably wouldn't have been a penalty.

 

[blueblood70]

Marcus Rock posted the rule, so I don't think there's any ambiguity with this one. There have been plenty of penalties that I felt were bad calls, but this was not one of them. The refs applied the rule as written.

good for him most of the reactions online are just like mine.it was a bad call. it's OK but the refs miss OR OVERRLOOK, so many rule based real calls.. so some of us will look at this as grey area ticky tack. that it didn't need to be called

 

[MarcusRock]

That's not defenseless posture ...if it's within two steps of the pass being made. In other words, the rules DOES NOT REQUIRE perfection of the defensive player as regards the "defenseless posture"...it does require perfection when it comes to the location of the hit. I think the refs erred on the side of caution but I doubt the league will fine him because he will have lawyers (players union) who can fight the fine if issued.

A passing QB is literally first on the list of defenseless posture examples so you can't escape that - prior to or after releasing the ball. It's even in the rule you're citing (see below). You are also conflating 2 separate rules that actually reference each other. The step rule is Rule 12, Section 2, Article 11, Roughing the Passer, subsection a). Wheat passes the step test IMO so we agree. But a) does not supercede or eliminate subsection c) of the same rule that connects to the Defenseless Posture rule I cited in Article 9 of the same Rule number.

ARTICLE 11. ROUGHING THE PASSER. Because the act of passing often puts the quarterback (or any other player attempting​

a pass) in a position where he is particularly vulnerable to injury, special rules against roughing the passer apply. Players in a​

passing posture are considered to be a player in a defenseless posture. Any physical acts against a player who is in a passing​

posture (i.e. before, during, or after a pass) which, in the game official’s judgment, are unwarranted by the circumstances of the​

play will be called as fouls. When in doubt about a roughness call or a potentially dangerous tactic against the passer, the game​

official should call roughing the passer. The game official will be guided by the following principles:​

.​

.​

(c) In covering the passer position, game officials will be particularly alert to fouls in which defenders impermissibly use the helmet​

and/or facemask to hit the passer, or use hands, arms, or other parts of the body to hit the passer forcibly in the head or neck​

area (see also the other unnecessary roughness rules covering these subjects). A defensive player must not use his helmet​

against a passer who is in a defenseless posture—for example, (1) forcibly hitting the passer’s head or neck area with the​

helmet or facemask, even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the passer’s neck, and​

regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the passer by encircling or grasping him; or (2)​

lowering the head and making forcible contact with any part of the helmet against any part of the passer’s body. This rule​

does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on a passer.​

Heck, let's go even further. Even if you say Fields was outside the pocket from from running around, the steps limitation is taken away and Wheat is fine on the steps (which I think he was anyway). However, subsection (c) above STILL applies, even if outside the pocket.

(f) When the passer goes outside the pocket area and either continues moving with the ball (without attempting to advance the​

ball as a runner) or throws while on the run, he loses the protection of the one-step rule provided for in (a) above, and the​

protection against a low hit provided for in (d) above, but he remains covered by all the other special protections afforded to​

a passer in the pocket (b, c, and e), as well as the regular unnecessary roughness rules applicable to all player positions. If​

the passer stops behind the line and clearly establishes a passing posture, he will then be covered by all of the special​

protections for passers.​

​

Do you agree this was a penalty in multiple rule realms?

 

[MarcusRock]

good for him most of the reactions online are just like mine.

And you'd all be wrong because you don't know the rules.

 

[blueblood70]

And you'd all be wrong because you don't know the rules.

That'd be i am right because you're missing my point...

you're trying to tell me that all the ones that they get a pass on literally see boys happen in front of them that are absolutely illegal some are dangerous like the face mask at the Saints game against Rico we see plays all the time they look like I don't know was it the one that CD lamb was a couple weeks ago where he got clobbered on the sideline by a second guy when the play was already about over he was falling out of bounds that dude just comes up and hit some should've been targeting but not even they didn't even look over that way didn't even care it wasn't cold that's my point if I look at that there's a big Gray area of what happened they usually let these types slide because it isn't why they invented the rule for that one so a lot of those they just keep the flag that's my point I think you're missing the point I don't think it was egregious enough for where he hit him in the chest pad and then it happened to slide up if it did even get near his neck that they could have held the flag like they do on many calls they missed 7 calls or chose not to call 7 calls in the Saints game I mean egregious face mask and they just ignore they didn't miss it the whole world saw it....

 

[MarcusRock]

That'd be i am right because you're missing my point...

you're trying to tell me that all the ones that they get a pass on literally see boys happen in front of them that are absolutely illegal some are dangerous like the face mask at the Saints game against Rico we see plays all the time they look like I don't know was it the one that CD lamb was a couple weeks ago where he got clobbered on the sideline by a second guy when the play was already about over he was falling out of bounds that dude just comes up and hit some should've been targeting but not even they didn't even look over that way didn't even care it wasn't cold that's my point if I look at that there's a big Gray area of what happened they usually let these types slide because it isn't why they invented the rule for that one so a lot of those they just keep the flag that's my point I think you're missing the point I don't think it was egregious enough for where he hit him in the chest pad and then it happened to slide up if it did even get near his neck that they could have held the flag like they do on many calls they missed 7 calls or chose not to call 7 calls in the Saints game I mean egregious face mask and they just ignore they didn't miss it the whole world saw it....

Yep, more of the "I have seen ..." defense to try to change the subject and cloud the topic at hand. Nothing to do with this play being a penalty here. You want to try actually debating the rules posted on this play here which is the topic of the thread? You're free to exit stage left in an incredulous huff like that other poster did when he didn't want to discuss the actual topic, lol.

 

[blueblood70]

Yep, more of the "I have seen ..." defense to try to change the subject and cloud the topic at hand. Nothing to do with this play being a penalty here. You want to try actually debating the rules posted on this play here which is the topic of the thread? You're free to exit stage left in an incredulous huff like that other poster did when he didn't want to discuss the actual topic, lol.

Nope that's not what I said that's not what I meant and if you wanna keep arguing you know I'll do this all day talk to Texas very friendly make no effort I'm bringing up a point that I don't think it was egregious enough to throw the flag

 

[MarcusRock]

Nope that's not what I said that's not what I meant and if you wanna keep arguing you know I'll do this all day talk to Texas very friendly make no effort I'm bringing up a point that I don't think it was egregious enough to throw the flag

Great, let's talk. What about any of the rules I've posted here were applied incorrectly?

 

[blueblood70]

Great, let's talk. What about any of the rules I've posted here were applied incorrectly?

I'm sick of them only applying the rules when they feel like it that one was Gray area and it could have not been called that's my point and I'm allowed to have one and I will continue to have it I don't think it was applied correctly because they've left worst calls go therefore just another reason to get all over the rest because we see two inconsistently called allegedly protecting players tight offenses and they eat the flag on many of them. in my opinion this is one of those that can easily ate the flag.

 

[MarcusRock]

I'm sick of them only applying the rules when they feel like it that one was Gray area and it could have not been called that's my point and I'm allowed to have one and I will continue to have it I don't think it was applied correctly because they've left worst calls go therefore just another reason to get all over the rest because we see two inconsistently called allegedly protecting players tight offenses and they eat the flag on many of them. in my opinion this is one of those that can easily ate the flag.

Yeah, you're doing the "I have seen .." thing again. Can you actually cite the rule numbers or language from the rulebook you think was misapplied? These are feelings you're spewing. Give me text and logic.

 

[blueblood70]

Yeah, you're doing the "I have seen .." thing again. Can you actually cite the rule numbers or language from the rulebook you think was misapplied? These are feelings you're spewing. Give me text and logic.

And I'll keep doing it that was my opinion from the beginning when I saw it happen in real time it looked ticky tack and should have been called it's one of those that I've seen too many times not called and I seen many they completely missed or chose not to call that were worse so I'm gonna stick to this I think it was ridiculous and thank God we won the game so it doesn't matter... I'm still mad about the Saints game they missed 7 calls it could have changed the flow of the game it could've took some points away from them and gave them back to us that is why they mattered that's why it matters when and they choose to call it and when not to it makes fans do this I get very irritated but in that New York giant game I'm telling you look at what that hit was in the goal area of the sideline I believe it was lamb going up for a pass that was out of his reach he was already hit and being pushed out of bounds and as he was falling backwards another dude came in really hard right up into his chest and slid up into his neck area which is what they call unnecessary roughness like cleaning up the get or the pile he was hit already falling out of bounds and hitting a spot that was very dangerous and by rule this very rule it should have been called unnecessary roughness or targeting or whatever you wanna call it and they chose to let it happen to us so yes I keep these receipts and it makes me react like this.

Oh by the way the more I watch the video from all the angles and reading your little rule book he's not'cause he was absolutely releasing the ball and it was barely a step one step the helmet never hit his neck and never helmet a helmet to me he wasn't defenseless because there wasn't more than one step taken you don't know if that guy would have faked it he doesn't know that Justin fields isn't gonna pull that ball down and try to run it happens he could have been double pumping to get the defender to stop and then he would have throw around him or ran around him you have to be as a defender allowed to continue a play where there's less than one full step and a guy still in a posture to throw the football he's not defenseless he's in the motion of releasing the football as the hits happening it wasn't barely a step his motion wasn't even finished

 

[MarcusRock]

it's one of those that I've seen

You're doing it again.

Which rule are you citing? There are 2 areas that apply as I've stated here. You can't say Fields wasn't defenseless because the rule literally says that throwing a pass is defenseless whether stationary or running. If you feel he shouldn't be then you are again spewing feelings and the rulebook don't care about feelings.

 

[blueblood70]

You're doing it again.

Which rule are you citing? There are 2 areas that apply as I've stated here. You can't say Fields wasn't defenseless because the rule literally says that throwing a pass is defenseless whether stationary or running. If you feel he shouldn't be then you are again spewing feelings and the rulebook don't care about feelings.

I'm telling you my eyes told me that that should have been a penalty I don't see it if they have a right to throw it great but I'm telling you it's one of those that are 80% you should have thrown it so they went with 20% and it makes me mad so and? We lost the game it would have been big like the Saints game those were big those seven penalties that they missed they looked over they your flag makes me still mad now but in this case we won so let's stop talking about it that's my opinion you're not moving me off the mark I watched the video again three times and I'm telling you I don't see a penalty there even if there's one they could utilize it just wasn't egregious enough

 

[Mr_437]

Clean hit, and Wheat played a good game.

 

[MarcusRock]

I'm telling you my eyes told me that that should have been a penalty I don't see it if they have a right to throw it great but I'm telling you it's one of those that are 80% you should have thrown it so they went with 20% and it makes me mad so and? We lost the game it would have been big like the Saints game those were big those seven penalties that they missed they looked over they your flag makes me still mad now but in this case we won so let's stop talking about it that's my opinion you're not moving me off the mark I watched the video again three times and I'm telling you I don't see a penalty there even if there's one they could utilize it just wasn't egregious enough

So you "feel" differently than the officials then. Fair enough. They have text from multiple places that backs up why they called it though. You can't fight that with feelings.

 

[gimmesix]

good for him most of the reactions online are just like mine.it was a bad call. it's OK but the refs miss OR OVERRLOOK, so many rule based real calls.. so some of us will look at this as grey area ticky tack. that it didn't need to be called

Reactions don't matter. The rules do. If the officials enforced the rules as written, then we can't say that the call was wrong. The officials may miss, or overlook, many calls, but we shouldn't fault them when they do go by the book. More consistency is definitely needed.

 

[blueblood70]

Reactions don't matter. The rules do. If the officials enforced the rules as written, then we can't say that the call was wrong. The officials may miss, or overlook, many calls, but we shouldn't fault them when they do go by the book. More consistency is definitely needed.

That's hilarious you're saying reactors don't matter this whole place is full of opinions and reactions over under different it don't matter that is this whole entire social media movement it's about reactions and they all do matter because we have an opinion on whether they saw it correctly or should have thrown it because I've ignored them all over the field on us already many times this year so yeah I'm allowed to say I don't feel it should have been thrown that is an opinion I don't care what you say that is what we're here for because your reaction to my reaction is another reaction..lmao.

 

[CCBoy]

I liked the hit, penalty or not. I like as well how it adds into a vision of a tough and aggressive group.

 

[superonyx]

We're in a thread talking about the validity of a single call and you come in with no clearly defined opinion on the subject of the thread but throw in a "well the rulebook is written to induce judgement on purpose." Willfully ignorant you say? This ain't my first rodeo, partner. I've seen all the change-the-subject tactics there are when people want to dance around the refs actually being correct on a call against us. The 'spiracy bunch are having a tough time after the refs called a penalty on the Giants that should have been on us. Are they in a dispute with the Mara family and have turned their own weapon against them and now help the Cowboys? Lol.

Also, you engage me first then want to leave in a huff when I don't follow your boondoggle? Okay. Seen it all, I tells ya.

Close but no. I am bored of this. It's pointless to try to convince someone online of anything. I said my piece and you said yours. I dont know you and even if I did I am secure enough to not care if you agree. I have a job and family and live a real life in the real world. Not worth the energy to argue with a stranger online.

Its called agreeing to disagree. Not my first rodeo either.
This post exceeded the amount I should have even given to the subject. 2+2= 5 you say? Yes it does. Enjoy your day.

 

[TheDude]

The rule says "head or neck area" and "even if the contact is lower than the player's neck." Is that not what happened?

He hit him in the chest and turned his head toward fields shoulder, The headdidnt snap backon the initial hitit went forward and to the side. The head snapped backwards after moving forward from being hit in the chest. Looks are one thing, it was a clean hit