The Wheat hit

[gimmesix]

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.

OK. You react poorly to anyone who disagrees with you, so enjoy your overreactions. I'm out.

 

[blueblood70]

OK. You react poorly to anyone who disagrees with you, so enjoy your overreactions. I'm out.

Actually you all are reacting poorly to my comments you do get that right we're only here because you're arguing with me you're debating me you could've just read my stuff and passed it up you know hypocritical it is to come in and tell me how I'm poorly reacting when I just stated my opinion and you all carried this to where it's at now all you had to do was stop responding that's it that's how this works and you didn't like what I said and fully disagree with it you could have just passed right by it.. And by the way you judging it as acting poorly is also hypocritical it's irony at its best

 

[CowboysRule]

ARTICLE 9. PLAYERS IN A DEFENSELESS POSTURE. It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player​

who is in a defenseless posture. A player who initiates contact against a defenseless opponent is responsible for avoiding an​

illegal act. A standard of strict liability applies for any contact against an opponent, even if his body position is in motion, and​

irrespective of any acts by him, such as ducking his head or curling up his body in anticipation of contact.​

(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:​

(1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass (passing posture).​

.​

.​

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is listed below. However, these provisions do not prohibit​

incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle or block on an opponent:​

(1) forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the​

initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle​

the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;​

I mean, pretty textbook. Penalty all day.

I'm not going to argue whether this play was a penalty or not. It's so close you can argue his helmet made contact or didn't but this rule is just ridiculous. I will say in my opinion it was a completely legal hit, he lead with his shoulder and if any part of his helmet made contact it was just to the facemask of Field's helmet. But on this, not so much on some other calls, I can see the other side completely and why people would think it's a penalty.

 

[MarcusRock]

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

He totally turned his head which is why you never see me say he used his helmet. If he did, then he also launched himself but that rule says you have to use your helmet to strike which Wheat did not. But what he did do is hit someone forcibly in a defenseless posture which you could flag as Unnecessary Roughness OR Roughing the Passer and they chose the latter. It's covered under 2 umbrellas so I'm not sure how anyone can legislate him out of those. If he eased up and did a light shove, Fields still hits the ground after getting the pass off. But instinct is instinct. I get it.

 

[TheSport78]

Flags like that are why college football is much more enjoyable to watch for me these days.

 

[stiletto]

OK. You react poorly to anyone who disagrees with you, so enjoy your overreactions. I'm out.

First/only person I ever put on ignore on this forum. Takes up too much digital space making simple points. Writes novels to talk about things that should be one sentence. LOL!

 

[OGSixshooter]

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?

No, I don't agree. Your first highlighted point is more about the Tom Brady rule, but in the end, is a judgement call. There's nothing about Wheat's behavior that is ruled out in that rule...all you did was say, "hey it gives officials power to judge here". OK...but what would you tell the defensive player to do differently? Don't tackle him? Let him complete his pass? Play flag football?

Your 2nd point is just false. He did not hit him in the head or neck with his helmet or facemask...he hit him so hard his head and neck snapped. Learn to discriminate...it's actually a good thing. This is you reacting like ...nevermind. This people losing their mind because they don't like the result. The rules were intended to prevent the effects of hits like this, but it was a LEGAL HIT by the rule. Which leads me to your 3rd point:

It clearly states that once the player is on the run, he loses the protections of the one-step rule. So basically some of the rules and discretion you wanted officials to give him in your 1st and 2nd points are MOOT...null and void.

So, no, no, no...I don't agree.

NO.

Can I make that more plain? NO.

 

[OGSixshooter]

The rule is not hazy. A ref has to judge, yes but QB defenseless posture is clearly defined. Check. Forcible contact. Check. Hit the guy in the head or neck area with any part of your own upper body, even if the contact is below the neck. Check. Trying to make it about inconsistency elsewhere doesn't take away that it's a penalty here which is why that's even being brought up. The ol' "I have seen different" defense, lol. But this is a penalty right here, isn't it?

That is a rule Stalin would be proud of: I'm going to say you hit him in the head/neck even if you didn't. Are you quoting the rule word-for-word? I've seen calls reversed - by NY - where the shoulder was used. I've seen the league pull back fines for hits that LOOKED bad, but were not.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

You and anyone can disagree all you want and I have no problem with that .... if someone is actually debating the topic at hand and not trying to infuse a hazy side topic to divert. In that case, I'm just going to bring it back to the topic at hand. But then those who are avoiding the original topic with their side topic will accuse me of avoiding the side topic they've injected, lol. Never change, CowboysZone. Never change.

 

[MarcusRock]

No, I don't agree. Your first highlighted point is more about the Tom Brady rule, but in the end, is a judgement call. There's nothing about Wheat's behavior that is ruled out in that rule...all you did was say, "hey it gives officials power to judge here". OK...but what would you tell the defensive player to do differently? Don't tackle him? Let him complete his pass? Play flag football?

Your 2nd point is just false. He did not hit him in the head or neck with his helmet or facemask...he hit him so hard his head and neck snapped. Learn to discriminate...it's actually a good thing. This is you reacting like ...nevermind. This people losing their mind because they don't like the result. The rules were intended to prevent the effects of hits like this, but it was a LEGAL HIT by the rule. Which leads me to your 3rd point:

It clearly states that once the player is on the run, he loses the protections of the one-step rule. So basically some of the rules and discretion you wanted officials to give him in your 1st and 2nd points are MOOT...null and void.

So, no, no, no...I don't agree.

NO.

Can I make that more plain? NO.

You and I have a different interpretation of "plain" because all that spiel was not. Have you met blueblood here? Y'all might get along.

You're also attributing things to me I never stated like Wheat hitting him with his helmet. Never said that because Wheat didn't. If he did, then he could be called for launching as well. I don't know if all that text I posted was overload but I tried color coding the pertinent parts. This is why I just stuck with the Defenseless Posture rule because it's more compact than Roughing, but those things I highlighted can't be maneuvered around. You can't forcibly hit a guy in a defenseless posture up high with your shoulder in 2 areas of the rules I posted whether the QB is out of the pocket, in the pocket, moving or in motion. The video is there and the rulebook is there to back it up. All that's left is for folks to writhe and contort (and perjure) themselves to avoid admitting it was a good call. I confess, that part entertains me about y'all.

 

[MarcusRock]

That is a rule Stalin would be proud of: I'm going to say you hit him in the head/neck even if you didn't. Are you quoting the rule word-for-word? I've seen calls reversed - by NY - where the shoulder was used. I've seen the league pull back fines for hits that LOOKED bad, but were not.

You quote me pointing out another using the "I have seen ..." defense and then do the "I have seen ..." defense yourself. Lol.

And I only quote the rules word-for-word. I am a cut and paste champion but I add the colors myself. I even state where I think the rules are unclear and could use more detail to describe something.

 

[JohnsKey19]

You are not a running QB if you throw a pass. And as for the QB's running, the rule even states "even if his body position is in motion." But first on the list of the rule points out that the QB only needs to be in "passing posture" either before OR after releasing the ball, so you are also defenseless BEFORE you release the ball and are in your wind up.

By the way, for your avatar, he sings so fine, don't you agree! I never knew until this year that that was an actual statement from a real song they borrowed for the movie.

I get the letter of the law. They're just putting these defenders in impossible situations. We're not far off from 2-hand touch.

 

[MarcusRock]

I'm not going to argue whether this play was a penalty or not. It's so close you can argue his helmet made contact or didn't but this rule is just ridiculous. I will say in my opinion it was a completely legal hit, he lead with his shoulder and if any part of his helmet made contact it was just to the facemask of Field's helmet. But on this, not so much on some other calls, I can see the other side completely and why people would think it's a penalty.

Yeah, I also don't think he hit him with his helmet. But the shoulder is listed among the parts in the defenseless posture foul that you can't use to hit a guy up high with. That's what makes it a penalty.

 

[gtb1943]

some people here will always defend the system no matter what
always defend a law or regulation no matter what

 

[CCBoy]

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

The questions surrounding the Cowboys defense coming in were numerous, obvious, and well-deserved. Already down its two best playmakers, Dallas lost defensive end Marshawn Kneeland just four minutes into the contest. (More on that later.) But the rest of Mike Zimmer’s crew wasted no time in stepping up in a big way, completely containing Justin Fields and the Steelers offense. Heading into halftime, the piecemealed Cowboys D had surrendered just 89 net yards and only three points. They held Pittsburgh to 1-of-7 on third downs, allowed a single play of over 10 yards, and forced almost as many punts (three) as passes Fields had completed (four). The Steelers were able to make adjustments that proved effective in the second half, but the dominance showed by the Cowboys defense in the first 30 minutes was key to keeping things close, unlike what happened against New Orleans and Baltimore.

https://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/li...wdle-dak-prescott-challenges-week-5-steelers/

 

[OGSixshooter]

You quote me pointing out another using the "I have seen ..." defense and then do the "I have seen ..." defense yourself. Lol.

And I only quote the rules word-for-word. I am a cut and paste champion but I add the colors myself. I even state where I think the rules are unclear and could use more detail to describe something.

You might be confusing me with another poster on your first accusation.

On the 2nd point, I don't think you're quite getting the rule...as which happens with the Cut-and-Paste types: "...forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck..."

The rule does not state (here anyway) that hitting NEAR area is bad...it is saying that if it starts on the shoulder pads and ends up hitting the head/neck, that's a foul. We agree. The problem is we have video and technology and evidence. And you have no evidence that he hit the head/neck area...he hit with his forearm and his shoulder to the chest area of Fields.

 

[MarcusRock]

You might be confusing me with another poster on your first accusation.

On the 2nd point, I don't think you're quite getting the rule...as which happens with the Cut-and-Paste types: "...forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck..."

The rule does not state (here anyway) that hitting NEAR area is bad...it is saying that if it starts on the shoulder pads and ends up hitting the head/neck, that's a foul. We agree. The problem is we have video and technology and evidence. And you have no evidence that he hit the head/neck area...he hit with his forearm and his shoulder to the chest area of Fields.

No, I'm getting the rule. It's not solely head or neck, as and few and you tried to change it to. It's head or neck "area" and it's in both rules. That "area" part of the rule is defined first. Otherwise there'd be no need to mention area and it would say "head or neck - but if the hit starts elsewhere and then hits the neck or head, that's a foul too" which would define area leading to the head and neck being off limits. These things are written by lawyers so sequencing matters. The "area" is off limits, not just the head or neck.

Is your upper chest in your neck "area?" Go back and watch the replay. Wheat is tilted when he strikes and his left lead shoulder for striking is way higher than his right shoulder. If Wheat wanted to remove all doubt, then you hit him lower than he did. He not only hit him high but launched upwards to hit him. He turned his head so he wouldn't get the launching penalty but still hit him up high in the "area" of the head and neck. If you're to claim you didn't hit a guy up high, you don't also launch yourself higher than ground level when doing it. You'll have to show me "shoulder pads" in the rules because my cut and paste didn't pick that up.

 

[superonyx]

You and anyone can disagree all you want and I have no problem with that .... if someone is actually debating the topic at hand and not trying to infuse a hazy side topic to divert. In that case, I'm just going to bring it back to the topic at hand. But then those who are avoiding the original topic with their side topic will accuse me of avoiding the side topic they've injected, lol. Never change, CowboysZone. Never change.

Fair enough for me. I enjoy talking to fellow cowboys fans even if we disagree.

 

[OGSixshooter]

No, I'm getting the rule. It's not solely head or neck, as and few and you tried to change it to. It's head or neck "area" and it's in both rules. That "area" part of the rule is defined first. Otherwise there'd be no need to mention area and it would say "head or neck - but if the hit starts elsewhere and then hits the neck or head, that's a foul too" which would define area leading to the head and neck being off limits. These things are written by lawyers so sequencing matters. The "area" is off limits, not just the head or neck.

Is your upper chest in your neck "area?" Go back and watch the replay. Wheat is tilted when he strikes and his left lead shoulder for striking is way higher than his right shoulder. If Wheat wanted to remove all doubt, then you hit him lower than he did. He not only hit him high but launched upwards to hit him. He turned his head so he wouldn't get the launching penalty but still hit him up high in the "area" of the head and neck. If you're to claim you didn't hit a guy up high, you don't also launch yourself higher than ground level when doing it. You'll have to show me "shoulder pads" in the rules because my cut and paste didn't pick that up.

Nonsense. Head and neck area is meant to take in body parts, not expand the strike zone. How do you even call that…he got “near” his neck? You can’t even type this with a straight face. But then in the same paragraph, you give “clear” instruction on how to avoid an infraction. It was a reactionary judgement call based on the EFFECT of the hit, not the mechanics.

 

[gimmesix]

First/only person I ever put on ignore on this forum. Takes up too much digital space making simple points. Writes novels to talk about things that should be one sentence. LOL!

I try not to put anyone on ignore, so sometimes I end up lecturing/responding when I know it's best to just keep my mouth closed. Maybe one day I'll learn.