PDA

View Full Version : Football This hit is illegal? Foster v Ocho


pr_capone
08-18-2011, 11:13 PM
<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rHiuYL6_AKE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I may be wrong but it looks like Foster lit him up square in the chest well after Ocho had caught the ball.

I understand protecting a WR with this defenseless receiver rule but this looks clean. Does the NFL expect defenders to concede the catch? If so, prepare for the NFL equivalent of a soccer flop, basketball's jumping into the defender to draw a foul, and baseball's acting as if hit by pitch.

/not my own video

Kraus
08-18-2011, 11:14 PM
Looked clean to me. He was trying to separate the ball from the receiver. No malicious intent behind it.

Bewbies
08-18-2011, 11:19 PM
Elbow to the face. Yes, that's illegal.

Al Bundy
08-18-2011, 11:22 PM
Clean hit. No doubt about it.

nstygma
08-18-2011, 11:30 PM
"receiver who has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner even if both feet are on the ground is considered defenseless."

he fits this description so the call is correct

-King-
08-18-2011, 11:34 PM
"receiver who has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner even if both feet are on the ground is considered defenseless."

he fits this description so the call is correct

Fuck that. He had touched the ball. Is the defender really supposed to wait until the receiver sets his feet on the ground before he can hit him?

Backwards Masking
08-18-2011, 11:38 PM
"receiver who has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner even if both feet are on the ground is considered defenseless."

he fits this description so the call is correct

F*ck that. this is FOOTBALL. What the hell are the DB's supposed to do, watch and wait and then hope the runner doesn't take off the other direction after the catch. Horrible. Its rule like this that allow the league to promote the teams it wants in close games.

he caught the ball, he's fair game. that's how the rule SHOULD read. for the record I've been against this BS "defenseless receiver" crap from the get go. i've seen beloved Chiefs screwed over by it multiple times over the years.

Fo the record Nstygma i'm arguing with the rule, not with you. however this is a no call when small market team's receiver gets jacked up by an East Coast powerhouse in the playoffs every time.

Bump
08-18-2011, 11:44 PM
whether it was a clean hit or not, any hard hit is going to be fined nowadays

nstygma
08-18-2011, 11:47 PM
F*ck that. this is FOOTBALL. What the hell are the DB's supposed to do, watch and wait and then hope the runner doesn't take off the other direction after the catch. Horrible. Its rule like this that allow the league to promote the teams it wants in close games.

he caught the ball, he's fair game. that's how the rule SHOULD read. for the record I've been against this BS "defenseless receiver" crap from the get go. i've seen beloved Chiefs screwed over by it multiple times over the years.

Fo the record Nstygma i'm arguing with the rule, not with you. however this is a no call when small market team's receiver gets jacked up by an East Coast powerhouse in the playoffs every time.you're right, i don't think we would have gotten a similar call. but it appeared also that ocho didn't even have control of the ball, and was still in full extension to make the catch. i remember the days when hits like this would make a receiver think twice about putting himself in that position in the first place for fear of getting popped like that. not so much anymore i suppose.

thurman merman
08-19-2011, 12:21 AM
LET THE MEN PLAY

-King-
08-19-2011, 12:32 AM
you're right, i don't think we would have gotten a similar call. but it appeared also that ocho didn't even have control of the ball, and was still in full extension to make the catch. i remember the days when hits like this would make a receiver think twice about putting himself in that position in the first place for fear of getting popped like that. not so much anymore i suppose.

Thats kind of the point of hitting him :spock:

D-Train6906
08-19-2011, 12:36 AM
I'm on ochocincos side just because the voice i hear in this video sounds like a complete phag.

kysirsoze
08-19-2011, 12:48 AM
Thats kind of the point of hitting him :spock:

OK. The point is it was an illegal hit. You can disapprove of that, but it's a fact. He clearly falls under the definition of a "defenseless receiver". What more do you need?

MagicHef
08-19-2011, 12:57 AM
It sure looks like he hit him in the head. If he had just hit him in the chest, it would have been legal.

Kraus
08-19-2011, 01:27 AM
It was one of those situations where the receiver is in the process of going to the ground. Hard to hit a moving target that is sinking on you. Most likely going to hit him high.

-King-
08-19-2011, 01:49 AM
OK. The point is it was an illegal hit. You can disapprove of that, but it's a fact. He clearly falls under the definition of a "defenseless receiver". What more do you need?

What does a defender do in that situation? Let him catch it?

The point of being a DB is to dislodge the ball. As long as he doesn't hit the WR before the WR touches the ball, he's good in my book.

I seriously don't understand what a defender is supposed to do. Wait until the ref and the WR give him a thumbs up before hitting him?

If you make contact with the ball, you no longer fall under the defenseless category IMO. If you do, then there's no point in DBs even trying to defend balls anymore.

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 01:52 AM
whether it was a clean hit or not, any hard hit is going to be fined nowadays

That simply isn't true.

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 01:53 AM
Looked clean to me. He was trying to separate the ball from the receiver. No malicious intent behind it.

Doesn't make it not illegal.

Just Passin' By
08-19-2011, 01:57 AM
What does a defender do in that situation? Let him catch it?

The point of being a DB is to dislodge the ball. As long as he doesn't hit the WR before the WR touches the ball, he's good in my book.

I seriously don't understand what a defender is supposed to do. Wait until the ref and the WR give him a thumbs up before hitting him?

If you make contact with the ball, you no longer fall under the defenseless category IMO. If you do, then there's no point in DBs even trying to defend balls anymore.

“Defenseless” has formally been defined for 2011 and eight categories of “defenseless” players have been created: 1.) a player in the act of throwing a pass. 2.) a receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not clearly become a runner. 3.) a runner in the grasp whose forward progress has been stopped. 4.) a returner attempting to field a kick in the air. 5.) a player on the ground at the end of a play. 6.) a kicker or punter during the kick or during the return. 7.) a quarterback at any time after a change of possession. 8.) a player who receives a blindside block when the blocker is moving toward his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side (peel-back block).

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article_ketchman/article-1/After-further-review-do-this-dont-do-that/07449881-cc24-40bf-8bd2-cb2b787b42a3?campaign=t110806

-King-
08-19-2011, 01:59 AM
2.) a receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not clearly become a runner.

So a DB has to wait until a WR becomes a runner? WTF?

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 02:00 AM
I am surprised people are talking about absolutely everything about this play except what made it illegal.

What the part of the body the defender used to make the contact and the part of the body of the WR that received the contact.

The intent...the ball...it being touched or not...none of that is why a flag was thrown.

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 02:00 AM
So a DB has to wait until a WR becomes a runner? WTF?

You are confused.

-King-
08-19-2011, 02:01 AM
You are confused.

Explain.

Just Passin' By
08-19-2011, 02:02 AM
Here's an NFL video which lays it out:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8216a10b/2011-NFL-rule-changes-and-points-of-emphasis

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 02:02 AM
Explain.

If he leads with his shoulder it isn't a flag.

Just Passin' By
08-19-2011, 02:04 AM
Explain.

Head shots against defenseless players are illegal.

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 02:08 AM
Here's an NFL video which lays it out:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8216a10b/2011-NFL-rule-changes-and-points-of-emphasis

3:20 is a perfect example. It isn't illegal to get a nice hit on a WR.

MagicHef
08-19-2011, 02:08 AM
Explain.

There are 3 things that need to be true for the hit to be illegal.

1) The player being hit must be "defenseless."

2) Contact must be made with the defenseless player's head or neck.

3) Contact must be made with the hitter's head or arm.

If any of those things are not true, the hit is legal.

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 02:09 AM
There are 3 things that need to be true for the hit to be illegal.

1) The player being hit must be "defenseless."

2) Contact must be made with the defenseless player's head or neck.

3) Contact must be made with the hitter's head or arm.

If any of those things are not true, the hit is legal.

This is a great way of putting it.

Just Passin' By
08-19-2011, 02:10 AM
If he leads with his shoulder it isn't a flag.

Defenseless players cannot be hit in the head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm or shoulder.

http://nflfootballnow.com/2011/05/25/nfl-rules-changes-2011/

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 02:16 AM
http://nflfootballnow.com/2011/05/25/nfl-rules-changes-2011/

I do understand whats written. I think enforcement where the head and neck is not involved will be rare.

Just Passin' By
08-19-2011, 02:19 AM
I do understand whats written. I think enforcement where the head and neck is involved will be rare.

I quoted that because you were saying that leading with the shoulder would make it alright. A shoulder to the head/neck is also illegal.

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 03:37 AM
Defenseless, Unless he chooses to not catch it. Grr.

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 03:39 AM
There are 3 things that need to be true for the hit to be illegal.

1) The player being hit must be "defenseless."

2) Contact must be made with the defenseless player's head or neck.

3) Contact must be made with the hitter's head or arm.

If any of those things are not true, the hit is legal.

BS.
One not 3.

That's before last "year" quotes, dumbass.

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 03:40 AM
[QUOTE=MagicHef;7835109]There are 3 things that need to be true for the hit to be illegal.

1) The WR being hit must be "defenseless."

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 03:42 AM
[QUOTE=MagicHef;7835109]There are 3 things that need to be true for the hit to be illegal.

1) The WR being hit must be "defenseless."

No other 2 apply? You watch football?
:banghead:

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 03:42 AM
I do understand whats written. I think enforcement where the head and neck is involved will be rare.

Yes you did....:cuss:

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 03:43 AM
This is a great way of putting it.

Yeah 2 years ago? WTF

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 03:47 AM
Smed is incredible in that never once has he posted on this board sober.

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 03:52 AM
Smed is incredible in that never once has he posted on this board sober.

Really. Why I brought facts and you brought shit?

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 03:56 AM
Smed is incredible in that never once has he posted on this board sober.

Wow, I have no facts and messed up but I will attack his drinking from before (while lying) while I am eating more.

See last year and this year so far. Oh, I got sand in your mouth and assgina with facts not sucking off a previous nonfactual post...

You have never posted anything skinny here.

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 04:02 AM
Wow, I have no facts and messed up but I will attack his drinking from before (while lying) while I am eating more.

See last year and this year so far. Oh, I got sand in your mouth and assgina with facts not sucking off a previous nonfactual post...

You have never posted anything skinny here.

I don't have a decoder ring for this post.

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 04:08 AM
I don't have a decoder ring for this post.

It means you were wrong. Hit against a WR was last year, so the other 2 had to be there. NO

You just jumped another dick and sucked it without knowing and I am sad. Oh yeah been sober for like 18 months, how long you been skinny?

You said no post sober but no facts, just jaw work for sucking others dickrection.

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 04:10 AM
I don't have a decoder ring for this post.

I have no decoder lips for your sucking off a misinformed post earlier....

But now attack instead of provide proof of that belief.

Just ball wallow now.

Oh, so you have not changed even if others do. I see.

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 04:10 AM
It means you were wrong. Hit against a WR was last year, so the other 2 had to be there. NO

You just jumped another dick and sucked it without knowing and I am sad. Oh yeah been sober for like 18 months, how long you been skinny?

You said no post sober but no facts, just jaw work for sucking others dickrection.

I think you were better off when the excuse for your confusing posts was the drinking.

kstater
08-19-2011, 04:11 AM
Smed=KCNut from a nicer school district.

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 04:12 AM
Smed=KCNut from a nicer school district.

That was my thought as well. If you are sober why are your posts still confusing as shit.

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 04:15 AM
That was my thought as well. If you are sober why are your posts still confusing as shit.

Ok so it still takes all 3 for a penalty? LOL Zach bows out on football facts.

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 04:18 AM
I think you were better off when the excuse for your confusing posts was the drinking.

I think you are the same for no football knowledge.

All I asked for was facts of 3 needing to be a foul. Have saw none yet.

You agreed with a poster and nothing but BS since. No facts etc. Just insults.

MagicHef
08-19-2011, 04:18 AM
What just happened in here?

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 04:19 AM
What just happened in here?

Words have been put into a blender.

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 04:19 AM
Smed is incredible in that never once has he posted on this board sober.

Nothing but facts.. Damn just 1. Backup your BS. :rolleyes:

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 04:20 AM
Words have been put into a blender.

Just asked for facts and got attacks, not facts.

MagicHef
08-19-2011, 04:24 AM
Mr. smed, I truly wish I knew what you were saying so I would be able to respond to you. Sadly, I do not. I would only suggest that you watch the video linked in post #24.

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 04:54 AM
Just asked for facts and got attacks, not facts.

You never put anything in the form of a question. I know you don't like me but I am not the only one who doesn't know what you are trying to say.

DTLB58
08-19-2011, 05:15 AM
When they showed it on TV, I was watching Live and slowed it down from the end zone view (QB View) it looked as though thier helmets collided to me.

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 05:18 AM
This is a great way of putting it.

Why did you say this? All I asked.

Smed1065
08-19-2011, 05:19 AM
Why did you say this? All I asked.

Is stated all 3 have to occur which is wrong. But you jumped all over it, like it was true.

Dave Lane
08-19-2011, 06:24 AM
Lead paint has terrible long term consequences.

-King-
08-19-2011, 07:07 AM
Why does he quote each post twice ROFL ROFL ROFL
Posted via Mobile Device

JD10367
08-19-2011, 07:09 AM
When they showed it on TV, I was watching Live and slowed it down from the end zone view (QB View) it looked as though thier helmets collided to me.

This. Helmet-to-helmet. End of story.

DBOSHO
08-19-2011, 07:21 AM
The nfl needs a new commissioner who isnt such a pussy. If that happened to us(hypothetical) in the first round of the playoffs, with the other team down 6 with a minute left and we got that call, i would fucking explode.

DBOSHO
08-19-2011, 07:24 AM
On a side note, im really suprised belichick didnt make chad change his name back to johnson.

Molitoth
08-19-2011, 07:25 AM
Clean hit, let them play.

JD10367
08-19-2011, 07:27 AM
It was a helmet-to-helmet (problem 1). The guy led with the crown of his helmet as if spearing (problem 2). The receiver could be determined to be defenseless (problem 3). Thus, there are probably three different penalties they could've called.

I liked the hit. It was a football hit. It was a manly hit. It reminded me of the old days. But the rules are the rules. This is the game as it's played today. If that video was grainy and from the 70s, it would've been awesome, but in the 21st century it'll get called a penalty, whether we like it or not.

loochy
08-19-2011, 08:20 AM
Hell, even if it was illegal, I say it was worth the penalty to get a hit on that douchebag.

Backwards Masking
08-19-2011, 08:29 AM
The nfl needs a new commissioner who isnt such a pussy. If that happened to us(hypothetical) in the first round of the playoffs, with the other team down 6 with a minute left and we got that call, i would ****ing explode.

This x 1000. I'm severely disappointed in all my fellow planateers defending the call here. 10-15 years ago NOBODY would have accepted this. Everyone realize the refs definition of "defenseless" is as open to interpretation as judging a painting in a museum right? Yeah, I know "there's a clear set of rules that make the defintion crystal clear". Anyone who thinks the definition will be applied equally without bias or f*ck up across all 32 teams in the league throughout an entire season is in severe denial, and must not have watched football in the last 5-10 years, especially the Goodell era.

Frazod
08-19-2011, 08:30 AM
Hell, even if it was illegal, I say it was worth the penalty to get a hit on that douchebag.

This. Legal or not, I enjoyed it. :D

|Zach|
08-19-2011, 04:56 PM
Bump for hilarity.

Detoxing
08-19-2011, 04:58 PM
When I first saw that play It almost seemed like Brady hung him out to dry on purpose just to send him a message.

"This is my team, ****er, and I will kill you."

Joe Seahawk
08-19-2011, 05:02 PM
twitter.com/#!/ochocinco


@Mason_Foster great hit last night,if u're fined I'll reimburse u boss.That's the way the game should b played.Stay healthy n have a good yr

Aries Walker
08-19-2011, 05:47 PM
From the NFL films video linked by Just Passin' By: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos...ts-of-emphasis. This video very clearly explains rules changes for this year, 2011.
It is illegal to hit a defenseless player in the head or neck area with the helmet, face mask, forearm, or shoulder, or to make contact with the crown or forehead hairline parts of the helmet to any part of his body. Players in a defenseless posture [include, among others] a receiver in the act of making a catch, or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner.
The ref ruled Ochocinco as "defenseless" because he was in the act of making a catch. That said, being defenseless does not mean that any hit on him is automatically illegal. The illegal hits on a defenseless player are, as stated in the video and transcribed above:

a) [Helmet/Face Mask/Forearm/Shoulder] vs. [Head or Neck],
or
b) [Crown or Forehead of the Helmet] vs. [Anything].

This is the first of those cases. Foster used either his shoulder or his head to hit Ochocinco in the head while Ochocinco was defenseless, and therefore, yes, it was an illegal hit. It may also be the second of the cases, but I couldn't tell which part of Foster's helmet hit Ochocinco.

So MagicHef was right. Smed1065 was not.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-19-2011, 06:21 PM
twitter.com/#!/ochocinco


@Mason_Foster great hit last night,if u're fined I'll reimburse u boss.That's the way the game should b played.Stay healthy n have a good yr

Love it. Mason is off to a ggreat start in the preseason. Love them dawgs1

threebag02
08-19-2011, 08:37 PM
Expressed written consent of the NFL?

Demonpenz
08-19-2011, 09:21 PM
I think kids these days should be taught to tackle not just hit. If he tries to tackle ocho right there instead of going to blast him Chad doesn't catch the ball and it is legal.

lcarus
08-19-2011, 09:26 PM
**** that. He had touched the ball. Is the defender really supposed to wait until the receiver sets his feet on the ground before he can hit him?

As far as I understand it, yes. With the rule changes. Welcome to the complete pussification of the NFL.

Bowser
08-19-2011, 10:32 PM
The best part of that youtube clip are the stoners giving play by play in the background. "FUCKED HIM UP!"" "Heh heh"

Aries Walker
08-20-2011, 07:12 AM
As far as I understand it, yes. With the rule changes. Welcome to the complete pussification of the NFL.
Except no. He's supposed to tackle him without hitting him in the head, or using his own as a weapon.

Demonpenz
08-20-2011, 07:23 AM
Ochocinco could carry that team on his fuckin back.

Okie_Apparition
08-20-2011, 07:54 AM
Peanut Hitler knows which side of his truffle shavings are incrusted with salt

alpha_omega
08-20-2011, 08:04 AM
Hard to tell when it happens that fast. But it seemed ok to me.

Backwards Masking
08-20-2011, 10:54 AM
Except no. He's supposed to tackle him without hitting him in the head, or using his own as a weapon.

Go watch ballet, tap dancing or synchronized swimming. This is FOOTBALL.

Aries Walker
08-21-2011, 07:46 AM
Go watch ballet, tap dancing or synchronized swimming. This is FOOTBALL.
Go tell the Commissioner. I'm not saying whether I think it's right or not, I'm just saying the rules.

scott free
08-21-2011, 11:02 AM
What does a defender do in that situation? Let him catch it?

The point of being a DB is to dislodge the ball. As long as he doesn't hit the WR before the WR touches the ball, he's good in my book.

I seriously don't understand what a defender is supposed to do. Wait until the ref and the WR give him a thumbs up before hitting him?

If you make contact with the ball, you no longer fall under the defenseless category IMO. If you do, then there's no point in DBs even trying to defend balls anymore.

Exactly, they're killing the game with some of these newer rules.

kstater
08-21-2011, 11:06 AM
The nfl needs a new commissioner who isnt such a pussy. If that happened to us(hypothetical) in the first round of the playoffs, with the other team down 6 with a minute left and we got that call, i would fucking explode.

One could argue that Goodell is not being a pussy and has a big pair based on him going against favorable opinion of big hits in favor of player safety at the expense of his legacy.

Backwards Masking
08-21-2011, 11:13 AM
One could argue that Goodell is not being a pussy and has a big pair based on him going against favorable opinion of big hits in favor of player safety at the expense of his legacy.

His legacy is, has been, and always will be comprimising the intergrity of the game for the sake of gernerating higher revenue. This rule is a f*cking joke and can easily be used in common situations to flag the teams least likely of selling merchandise and contributing to a bigger bottom line. Goodell has a pair for pussifying the league and ruining the game at the expense of an already disgraced legacy? I might agree if he wasn't already the biggest douche to ever run the NFL.