Why not Block in the back on the INT return for a TD?

[cmoney23]

I referenced your video. And if you watch it, you'll see that this still is taken AS the defender lowers his head to make a block on Dak (contact is imminent). Dak then "turns away from the blocker." Not 2 yards away, he's on him and starting the throw the block. And he's in front of Dak. So how do they get into that position from the still shot way later? Check your video. As he approaches, Dak turns his back to him. You saying the rule exception doesn't apply here?

(b) if the opponent turns away from the blocker when contact is imminent;​

Your OP asked a question: "Why not ...?" I answered it. Undeniably. Just say you only wanted one answer (we wuz robbed) instead of the truth and we can end this little pretend tap dance of yours.

You're flatly wrong.

The rule of "turning away" would play out if Dak turned toward the opponent's goal line to avoid contact. He doesn't.

Dak is running towards the sideline to intersect the defender, doesn't turn or alter his path, until the Jags defender, in an effort to block him, shoves him in the back. This is clear and obvious.

 

[Runwildboys]

Some people just can never admit they're wrong, no matter what evidence you show them. (Or in this case, they show you!)
If it goes against our team, it's a bad call.

Just one reason I'm a misanthrope.

 

[_sturt_]

I get it that it's popular sometimes to be the contrarian, and routinely popular to be the cynic. But that's neither here nor there.

You don't run "toward" the runner to make a tackle, of course... you run to where you anticipate you can intercept the runner... only rational... tacking 101, you have to take the right angle, or you have no shot at bringing the runner down.

He turned his back from a clean block from the side.

Educate me. Must be not just a homer but a blind homer. I have the intellectual humility to admit when I'm wrong, so be as brutal as you want.

I see no turning whatsoever.

Dak is running to intercept the runner on essentially a perpendicular line, and as @cmoney23 suggested, it's not until Dak arrives at the spot where he has a chance to make a tackle that the blocker actually engages him (frame 3)... and once he does, we see the elbow go into the numbers on Dak's back (frame 4).

(Think some of you are missing the depth perception, but again as @cmoney23 asserted, if you look at where Dak's feet are in relation to the blocker's the blocker is b/t 1 and 2 yards away, so he's not actually engaging Dak at the point one might initially think he is... that's not until you see their feet closer together.)

Once Dak arrives, he's clearly looking to tackle the runner... all happens in a split second, and there's no time for any thought, "let's see if I can draw a penalty instead of having to tackle this guy."

No turning. Dak runs. Dak stops because the runner is coming his way and he hopes to tackle him. No turning. The blocker plows into Dak from behind.

More commonly, we see this on a punt return, and with it right there in front of the runner, the announcers would be talking about how blatantly obvious a foul it was, followed by a "you can't do that, you have to be smarter than that on special teams."

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

Should have been called but no way they call that in that instance.

 

[MarcusRock]

You're flatly wrong.

The rule of "turning away" would play out if Dak turned toward the opponent's goal line to avoid contact. He doesn't.

Dak is running towards the sideline to intersect the defender, doesn't turn or alter his path, until the Jags defender, in an effort to block him, shoves him in the back. This is clear and obvious.

Of course I'm flatly wrong because it's like I said. You asked a question you will only accept one answer to. You didn't quote the rule at hand and then explain how it didn't apply in your OP, you asked a question. Well, I presented you with the answer .... from the actual rules. Dak was running to the side and facing the defender as he threw his block, then ran past the defender to prevent getting blown up and put on his rear and slowed up turning his back to the defender who already began his block with Dak facing him like I showed you. Per the rule, that is not a foul. But I get it. We wuz robbed again! Someone should sue. Oh wait the NFL registered itself as entertainment so they can rig games. I forgot. Lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

Educate me. Must be not just a homer but a blind homer. I have the intellectual humility to admit when I'm wrong, so be as brutal as you want.

I see no turning whatsoever.

Unless you start your still photo show at THIS frame, when the defender lowered his head and started his block bringing about imminent contact. Why not start at this frame? Hmmmm.

So does the fact that you see Dak's number on his back mean that he turned when you look at later frames when you see his number on his front?

 

[JoeKing]

Stop complaining about things that do not matter!

 

[cmoney23]

I get it that it's popular sometimes to be the contrarian, and routinely popular to be the cynic. But that's neither here nor there.

You don't run "toward" the runner to make a tackle, of course... you run to where you anticipate you can intercept the runner... only rational... tacking 101, you have to take the right angle, or you have no shot at bringing the runner down.



Educate me. Must be not just a homer but a blind homer. I have the intellectual humility to admit when I'm wrong, so be as brutal as you want.

I see no turning whatsoever.

Dak is running to intercept the runner on essentially a perpendicular line, and as @cmoney23 suggested, it's not until Dak arrives at the spot where he has a chance to make a tackle that the blocker actually engages him (frame 3)... and once he does, we see the elbow go into the numbers on Dak's back (frame 4).

(Think some of you are missing the depth perception, but again as @cmoney23 asserted, if you look at where Dak's feet are in relation to the blocker's the blocker is b/t 1 and 2 yards away, so he's not actually engaging Dak at the point one might initially think he is... that's not until you see their feet closer together.)

Once Dak arrives, he's clearly looking to tackle the runner... all happens in a split second, and there's no time for any thought, "let's see if I can draw a penalty instead of having to tackle this guy."

No turning. Dak runs. Dak stops because the runner is coming his way and he hopes to tackle him. No turning. The blocker plows into Dak from behind.

More commonly, we see this on a punt return, and with it right there in front of the runner, the announcers would be talking about how blatantly obvious a foul it was, followed by a "you can't do that, you have to be smarter than that on special teams."

Excellent breakdown and very well said. You completely nailed it.

I don't say this often, but I'm honestly impressed and you've given me hope that the internet is COMPLETELY made up of stupidity and trolls.

 

[cmoney23]

Of course I'm flatly wrong because it's like I said. You asked a question you will only accept one answer to. You didn't quote the rule at hand and then explain how it didn't apply in your OP, you asked a question. Well, I presented you with the answer .... from the actual rules. Dak was running to the side and facing the defender as he threw his block, then ran past the defender to prevent getting blown up and put on his rear and slowed up turning his back to the defender who already began his block with Dak facing him like I showed you. Per the rule, that is not a foul. But I get it. We wuz robbed again! Someone should sue. Oh wait the NFL registered itself as entertainment so they can rig games. I forgot. Lol.

It has become clear that you are beyond hope or intelligent interaction.

Good day to you.

 

[_sturt_]

Unless you start your still photo show at THIS frame, when the defender lowered his head and started his block bringing about imminent contact. Why not start at this frame? Hmmmm.

Not trying to be a smart ***, but I explicitly pointed out that even in the frames I posted, the blocker is still 1-2 yards away from any contact. Sooo... all the more so, in this earlier frame you've posted. Look at the blocker's foot... it's on the white line even, easily 2 yards away. Your question "why not start at this frame" answers itself.

So does the fact that you see Dak's number on his back mean that he turned when you look at later frames when you see his number on his front?

Okay, so you want to get granular... I'm up for that.

Allow me to start here... imagine a world where a blocker isn't in the picture. What's Dak going to do if there's no blocker? Think we can all agree, he's going to get over to intersect the runner, plant his foot once he's in that vicinity, then turn his left shoulder toward the runner to try to square up and tackle him.

At that point that Dak starts to plant his foot to try to stop his momentum, there's naturally going to be some ever-so-slight momentum on the right side of his body as he abruptly plants that left foot, but then quick recovery to turn (there's that word) and square his shoulders to be parallel to the runner's.

Back in the real world, now, all that happened right up until my frame #3, when the blocker actually made contact, and then in frame #4 bulldozed squarely over top of Dak.

No "turns away from the blocker" because the blocker was never in front or at his side to begin with... your comments as-if that are so are, once again, debunked by a closer observation of the feet which allow us all to have some depth perception... and the blocker didn't get there until that exact moment when Dak planted his foot in order to turn toward the runner... being behind Dak, then, we see his elbow go squarely into the numbers on Dak's back.

You're welcome or anyone else to the last word... tonight's my night to cook, and I got to get started... and I'm pretty sure I've exhausted my interest in the topic, much to @JoeKing 's pleasure.

 

[MarcusRock]

It has become clear that you are beyond hope or intelligent interaction.

Good day to you.

Yup. Shown the truth and then you pull the exit strategy. Except it's your own thread. Lol. Surprised you didn't pull the ol' "I don't have time to teach you" version of "I need to end this cuz it looks bad for me."

Like I said, just say in your first post that you aren't actually asking a question but seeking co-whines. You've found your echo chamber here so you can now pretend you didn't just get schooled with the actual rules you failed to quote as you cry victim. Most of you whiners don't even know the rules you gripe about not being applied correctly. When they say knowing is half the battle, it also applies to mental battles. But you can't help your disability. Lol.

 

[_sturt_]

You completely nailed it.

 

[_sturt_]

But you can't help your disability. Lol.

It's when people resort to ad hominem you can be pretty sure they're not feeling like substance is on their side... when people have substance, they normally choose that, unless they actually prefer to appeal to people who are impressed with ad hominem instead.... and in that case, they kinda make a bigger statement about themselves than they do the target of their contempt.

Just sayin.

Now to get that chicken fryin.

 

[MarcusRock]

It's when people resort to ad hominem you can be pretty sure they're not feeling like substance is on their side... when people have substance, they normally choose that, unless they actually prefer to appeal to people who are impressed with ad hominem instead.... and in that case, they kinda make a bigger statement about themselves than they do the target of their contempt.

Just sayin.

Now to get that chicken fryin.

You don't start none, there won't be none. You don't engage someone with "silly clown crap" or try to avoid discussion by saying another lacks intelligence to try to exit when you can't gainsay their points and not expect there to be backlash. By your standards, the substance was lacking from the start, was it not? I brought it and insults continued. That's what happens when you ask a question you only want 1 answer to. You provided the "right" one and I did not, hence the difference in treatment from the OP. But you then can't go after the one defending themselves. I mean, unless you're the contrasting, better spoken burner account. Lol.

 

[Praxit]

The NFL rule book clearly states that when a player is about to make a game winning play against the Cowboys no official shall ever throw his flag for any reason and if he does he will be overturned by New York. Yall aint learnt the rules yet?

..lol... that's about right.

 

[Praxit]

..in other news, Brown makes the catch. Perhaps another ending.

..........ahh... the Irony in life.

 

[erod]

I get it that it's popular sometimes to be the contrarian, and routinely popular to be the cynic. But that's neither here nor there.

You don't run "toward" the runner to make a tackle, of course... you run to where you anticipate you can intercept the runner... only rational... tacking 101, you have to take the right angle, or you have no shot at bringing the runner down.



Educate me. Must be not just a homer but a blind homer. I have the intellectual humility to admit when I'm wrong, so be as brutal as you want.

I see no turning whatsoever.

Dak is running to intercept the runner on essentially a perpendicular line, and as @cmoney23 suggested, it's not until Dak arrives at the spot where he has a chance to make a tackle that the blocker actually engages him (frame 3)... and once he does, we see the elbow go into the numbers on Dak's back (frame 4).

(Think some of you are missing the depth perception, but again as @cmoney23 asserted, if you look at where Dak's feet are in relation to the blocker's the blocker is b/t 1 and 2 yards away, so he's not actually engaging Dak at the point one might initially think he is... that's not until you see their feet closer together.)

Once Dak arrives, he's clearly looking to tackle the runner... all happens in a split second, and there's no time for any thought, "let's see if I can draw a penalty instead of having to tackle this guy."

No turning. Dak runs. Dak stops because the runner is coming his way and he hopes to tackle him. No turning. The blocker plows into Dak from behind.

More commonly, we see this on a punt return, and with it right there in front of the runner, the announcers would be talking about how blatantly obvious a foul it was, followed by a "you can't do that, you have to be smarter than that on special teams."

Lol, that block is clearly in the shoulder until Dak turns. Obvious as can be. Just look at your first photo.

 

[JoeKing]

Not trying to be a smart ***, but I explicitly pointed out that even in the frames I posted, the blocker is still 1-2 yards away from any contact. Sooo... all the more so, in this earlier frame you've posted. Look at the blocker's foot... it's on the white line even, easily 2 yards away. Your question "why not start at this frame" answers itself.



Okay, so you want to get granular... I'm up for that.

Allow me to start here... imagine a world where a blocker isn't in the picture. What's Dak going to do if there's no blocker? Think we can all agree, he's going to get over to intersect the runner, plant his foot once he's in that vicinity, then turn his left shoulder toward the runner to try to square up and tackle him.

At that point that Dak starts to plant his foot to try to stop his momentum, there's naturally going to be some ever-so-slight momentum on the right side of his body as he abruptly plants that left foot, but then quick recovery to turn (there's that word) and square his shoulders to be parallel to the runner's.

Back in the real world, now, all that happened right up until my frame #3, when the blocker actually made contact, and then in frame #4 bulldozed squarely over top of Dak.

No "turns away from the blocker" because the blocker was never in front or at his side to begin with... your comments as-if that are so are, once again, debunked by a closer observation of the feet which allow us all to have some depth perception... and the blocker didn't get there until that exact moment when Dak planted his foot in order to turn toward the runner... being behind Dak, then, we see his elbow go squarely into the numbers on Dak's back.

You're welcome or anyone else to the last word... tonight's my night to cook, and I got to get started... and I'm pretty sure I've exhausted my interest in the topic, much to @JoeKing 's pleasure.

tl dr

 

[cmoney23]

You don't start none, there won't be none. You don't engage someone with "silly clown crap" or try to avoid discussion by saying another lacks intelligence to try to exit when you can't gainsay their points and not expect there to be backlash. By your standards, the substance was lacking from the start, was it not? I brought it and insults continued. That's what happens when you ask a question you only want 1 answer to. You provided the "right" one and I did not, hence the difference in treatment from the OP. But you then can't go after the one defending themselves. I mean, unless you're the contrasting, better spoken burner account. Lol.

I'll engage you once more but then I'm truely done... and here's where the "lack of intelligence" comment starts.

THE QUESTION WAS RHETORICAL!!!!!!

LOL.

You then double down on your stupidity by not being able to comprehend a written rule, video, or still imagery.

I don't normally hurl insults but you, sir, are beyond infuriating with your level of stupidity.

You can't fix it. So, I'm giving up trying.

 

[shabazz]

<sarcasm> Blocked from the side. Couldn't be clearer. </sarcasm>

Dak was attempting to get in position to make a tackle.

Not mad. Not crying. Just observing. Shoulda been called.

nice pics, however they usually won’t call this on a turnover….and frankly, I didn’t expect them to. At least they were consistent in ignoring this