Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151600)

I've already read it and responded in a different thread.

It changes nothing. I never claimed Page's hit was "helmet-to-helmet." Quite the contrary, in fact. Please show me - since no one else can - where exactly the NFL "apologized." Or for that matter, where they said it wasn't a personal foul. I'm all eyes.

Note: "NFL apologizes to Page" WRONG. That's GoChiefs' line.

The actual quote for your easy reference:

Safety Jarrad Page said the NFL sent the Chiefs a letter acknowledging a mistake was made when Page was penalized for unnecessary roughness in last week’s loss to the Giants.

Page broke up a pass over the middle for wide receiver Steve Smith but was penalized for making helmet to helmet contact with Smith. Replays showed Page actually used his shoulder to hit Smith in the chest.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151600)

I've already read it and responded in a different thread.

Originally Posted by blaise (Post 6151128)

As long as you're patting yourself on the back about that, orange. I just wondered if you'd heard that the NFL aplogized to the Chiefs for the incorrect call on Page in the Giants game.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151182)

I feel fine about it. The NFL didn't apologize - that was GOCHIEFS' interpretation. The actual article says nothing like that. It says the NFL admits it wasn't a helmet-to-helmet hit. I never said it was. I said it was a shoulder-to-chest* hit - just like Teicher reported. It's still illegal. The sole disputable point is whether he hit Smith in the "neck area" - as vague a term as any you'll find. Page's hit left it to the ref's judgement, and he drew the penalty as usual. Teicher's little blurb doesn't address the "neck area" at all, which leads me to believe that like the posters here (yourself included) he still doesn't understand the rule.

Did the NFL change the standings? I didn't see anything about that.

Maybe you could quote or link to the actual letter to the Chiefs and clear this up completely for me.


Or maybe Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson will get to bottom of this, since they specialize in conspiracies.



* GOCHIEFS - that's shoulder-to-chest, by the way, not shoulder-to-shoulder - according to Teicher.

Originally Posted by blaise (Post 6151217)

I don't have a copy or a link to the letter. Page claimed the NFL sent him a letter of apology. Let's assume they did. You're saying that the NFL apologized because the ref used the incorrect terminology? Give me a break.

And I never said it changes the standings.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151239)

Where? A twitter or something?

The Teicher article says nothing of the kind.

It talks about a letter the Chiefs received - which happens every week for every team, addressing any issues with the officiating. It says nothing about Page receiving a letter. And it certainly doesn't use the word "apology."

Seriously, if you've seen something else about this, I'd love to see their (NFL's) reasoning.

Originally Posted by blaise (Post 6151291)

It doesn't say they apologized. It says they acknowledge a mistake was made. I take that to mean that the call was incorrect. You take it to mean the NFL is clarifying the terminology.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151331)

You have that correct. I would still love to see the actual letter. If the NFL is now saying they're not going to enforce the new rule, that would be quite a scoop. Someone in KC should call Teicher and alert him to get on this.

Originally Posted by BigChiefDave (Post 6151618)

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/chi...y/1496343.html Page, himself said the Chiefs recieved a letter from the league.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151620)

Here's that other discussion for your edification:

Originally Posted by BigChiefDave (Post 6151630)

You're a complete douchenozzle. Go lick your daddy's taint...

Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151623)

Yes - clarifying the call.

He DIDN'T say what exactly the call should have been.

The simple fact - it doesn't have to be "helmet-to-helmet" to be a personal foul.

Originally Posted by BigChiefDave (Post 6151654)

I don't know why you cannot admit you were wrong.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151623)

Yes - clarifying the call.

He DIDN'T say what exactly the call should have been.

The simple fact - it doesn't have to be "helmet-to-helmet" to be a personal foul.

Originally Posted by CoMoChief (Post 6151668)

Well then what about the Page hit do you think justified a personal foul penalty?

It wasn't helmet to helmet, it was a legal hit.....so where's the foul in this case? Tackling too hard?

Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151657)

Because the NFL rulebook says I'm right.


Rule Change No. 3: Unnecessary roughness has been expanded to include shots to a defenseless receiver's head.
The amendment states, a penalty will be called "If the initial force of the contact by a defender's helmet, forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless receiver who is catching or attempting to catch a pass."

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/archiv...ate=03-31-2009

Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151678)

See #22 above. That's the new rule in effect this year.

I'm not advocating FOR or AGAINST it - it simply IS the rule.

The ref judged Page's hit was in the "neck area" and threw the flag. That's MY interpretation of what happened.
I assume that IF the NFL actually backed off the penalty in their letter - instead of just clarifying - I assume they must now be saying it wasn't the "neck area."

Otherwise, they may as well just tear up the new rule.

Originally Posted by blaise (Post 6151682)

Did they say that?

Originally Posted by orange (Post 6151657)

Because the NFL rulebook says I'm right.


Rule Change No. 3: Unnecessary roughness has been expanded to include shots to a defenseless receiver's head.
The amendment states, a penalty will be called "If the initial force of the contact by a defender's helmet, forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless receiver who is catching or attempting to catch a pass."

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/archiv...ate=03-31-2009