**Week 9 All-You-Can-Eat Thread of NFL Games**

[tk13]

Mixed bag of an early slate today. The Mannings take on the Bengals. Also, Luck vs. Tannehill, Cam Newton vs. RGIII.

[KCrockaholic]

Does that not fall under the defenseless receiver rule?

I know that wasn't what was called.

[cyborgtable]

Crazy seattle td

[WilliamTheIrish]

Bang bang plays and all, but the NFL has to realize that this kind of shit lends credence to all the "NFL IS FIXED" conspiracy theorists.

[cyborgtable]

Originally Posted by KCrockaholic

Does that not fall under the defenseless receiver rule?

I know that wasn't what was called.

Defenseless receiver only counts on helmet to helmet

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by cyborgtable

He'll even the anouncers who typically are in the nfl's pocket disagree with the call. I do hope he is ok though

I edited the post -

I watched the replay - it looked like he was hit in the ribs.

Anyway, Clark is a poor man's BDawk (Brian Dawkins)

[WilliamTheIrish]

Originally Posted by KCrockaholic

Does that not fall under the defenseless receiver rule?

I know that wasn't what was called.

Hard to say. Especially since the ball was nearly INT'd.

[Chiefs Pantalones]

Steelers always have that swag.

[cyborgtable]

and a blocked PAT rofl

[KCrockaholic]

Originally Posted by cyborgtable

Defenseless receiver only counts on helmet to helmet

Incorrect.

[cyborgtable]

Originally Posted by Dylan

I edited the post -

I watched the replay - it looked like he was hit in the ribs.

Anyway, Clark is a poor man's BDawk

Its cool, I am not suprised at the initial reaction though, especially considering the Steelers are probably the dirtiest team in the league

[-King-]

Originally Posted by KCrockaholic

Incorrect.

Correct.

Well...not just no helmet to helmet. No contact to the WRs helmet with your arm, or shoulder, etc...

[KCrockaholic]

Originally Posted by WilliamInnerCircle

Hard to say. Especially since the ball was nearly INT'd.

Well... Here's the rule...

“It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are: [. . .]
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
[. . .]
(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.”

If the refs were considering that hit as defenseless I could kind of see that.

[-King-]

How wasn't that clipping called?

[-King-]

Originally Posted by KCrockaholic

Well... Here's the rule...



If the refs were considering that hit as defenseless I could kind of see that.

Contact to the helmet must be made.

[KCrockaholic]

Originally Posted by -King-

Contact to the helmet must be made.

Show me the ruling.