Random rule change thought

[DenverChief]

What would my fellow fans of my favorite team, the Kansas City Chiefs, think about a rule change where NY would be required to review any "picking up" of a flag. Obviously they saw something to begin with - think it would be a good idea to require higher level review?

Just thinking....

*edit* for personal fouls only

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

he stayed in vertical position not lateral....sorry I thought that was apparent in the picture...also "a step or two" to travel 3 yards would mean he needed to be about 8 feet tall...

Jesus dude, I covered that in the 3rd quote, "definitely took at least a few steps... I'd change what I said a little in terms of "there's nothing the defender could do"".

You don't have to change your mind and I don't go into debating expecting to do so, but at least acknowledge what people are typing (or quoting multiple times), especially when they're re-reviewing plays and giving some benefit of the doubt to your opinion.

After a while you just come off like a troll who's hellbent on frustrating people in circular arguments, yet I'm again giving the benefit of the doubt that it's not your intention. It's how you end up with all caps responses and being called a dipstick.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Jesus dude, I covered that in the 3rd quote, "definitely took at least a few steps... I'd change what I said a little in terms of "there's nothing the defender could do"".

You don't have to change your mind and I don't go into debating expecting to do so, but at least acknowledge what people are typing (or quoting multiple times), especially when they're re-reviewing plays and giving some benefit of the doubt to your opinion.

After a while you just come off like a troll who's hellbent on frustrating people in circular arguments, yet I'm again giving the benefit of the doubt that it's not your intention. It's how you end up with all caps responses and being called a dipstick.

I kinda feel that same way about you TBH. Seriously read the rule and tell me he didn’t violate that the part about making helmet to helmet contact regardless of where the original contact was made (shoulder). The receiver is presumed defenseless.

I’ll make a wager with you that the league disagrees with you and issues a fine and/or suspension. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

I kinda feel that same way about you TBH. Seriously read the rule and tell me he didn’t violate that the part about making helmet to helmet contact regardless of where the original contact was made (shoulder). The receiver is presumed defenseless.

I’ll make a wager with you that the league disagrees with you and issues a fine and/or suspension. Put your money where your mouth is.

We already discussed this.... should I just copy and paste everything I've already said so you can ignore it again? Are you Direcshun in another life? Because I've already marked him off as 'no point to engage'.

Originally Posted by Bearcat

It's letter of the law vs spirit of the law, IMO.... letter of the law says the JJSS hit was a penalty and the other one wasn't, yet I have no idea what I'd tell the defender on the first one. Uh, don't get in the way? On the second one, it's hey numbnuts, you're going to kill someone.

I'll "tap out" now, because you're clearly either being dense on purpose or completely glossing over everything said here. Have a good evening.

[BWillie]

I thought the 2nd one to MVS was worse than the JuJu one. The result was just worse.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by BWillie

I thought the 2nd one to MVS was worse than the JuJu one. The result was just worse.

I didn’t get a good look at the MVS

[T-post Tom]

I love this team:

A few reactions to JuJu Smith-Schuster being knocked out the game.

Justin Reid: "We were pissed."
MVS: "Are they really protecting us?"
Isiah Pacheco: "It brought tears to my eyes.#Chiefs pic.twitter.com/DvN8VFvx9j

— PJ Green (@PJGreenTV) November 13, 2022

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by T-post Tom

I love this team:

A few reactions to JuJu Smith-Schuster being knocked out the game.

Justin Reid: "We were pissed."
MVS: "Are they really protecting us?"
Isiah Pacheco: "It brought tears to my eyes.#Chiefs pic.twitter.com/DvN8VFvx9j

— PJ Green (@PJGreenTV) November 13, 2022

Thank you. Reid, Reid, Mahomes, Pacheco, MVS, and Toney all said it was an illegal hit.

[Bump]

it sure looked like a dirty hit. 30 years ago it was great defense but now they say they want to protect players and then they pick up the flag and it would be a penalty for just about anyone else.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

did you watch the clip above? Who runs into who? Who forcibly crashes into the guy that's literally standing there with both feet flat on the ground? With his head turned away and his hands down around his waist?

Juju sure as hell didn't run into him. The defender had plenty of time to adjust his body and hit him low and wrap up. Instead he stayed high and went helmet to helmet on a defenseless receiver.

I saw Chris Jones get a penalty that allowed the Colts to keep the ball cuz he said something mean to a QB. If we're protecting QBs feelings, then we should protect everyone's brain.

[Imon Yourside]

Both were penalties plain and simple by the letter of the law. Of course The Chiefs never get these calls so both flags were picked up.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Not sure I understand "both"... I already said JJSS might be a flag by the letter of the law, but shouldn't be called. I also explained how the NFL tried to defend the letter of the law on the Frank sack, but that also shouldn't have been called.

All I'm saying is if a player breaks a rule, you should be able to point to something and say "don't do this next time".... and I just don't see what you tell that defender, besides "make a split second decision to go low next time", I guess. Just like Frank did nothing wrong on the sack; you can't tell him "don't tackle a QB".

And unlike that other hit, which was far more reckless than either of those plays, yet somehow isn't a penalty.

Missed this - both meaning the spirit vs the letter. Either holding is holding and helmet to helmet collisions is a personal foul or it isn’t. Once you start making it more subjective than it already is you have lost the meaning of the penalty. I mean is a false start anytime an offensive player that is set makes a motion towards the line or only when it draws the defense in “the spirit” of the rule. Holding only when it effects a play or anytime a player is prevented from disengaging from a block? See how that can screw things up fast?

Penalties/rules are designed to be objective. A certain conduct is prohibited regardless of intent. Most face masks now days are accidental but are 15 yard penalties regardless. Remember when there were 2 different varieties of face mask? 5 yards and 15 yards? Seems like the league decided even accidentally grabbing a face mask was a personal foul. Same here, hitting helmet to helmet as a defender tackling a defenseless receiver, even though that wasn’t his intent (debatable) is still an infraction.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

We already discussed this.... should I just copy and paste everything I've already said so you can ignore it again? Are you Direcshun in another life? Because I've already marked him off as 'no point to engage'.



I'll "tap out" now, because you're clearly either being dense on purpose or completely glossing over everything said here. Have a good evening.

I guess…. I just don’t understand your point then. Literally all I was arguing about was having a video review of picked up flags on personal fouls. That kind of devolved into “dunno what he (the defender) was supposed to do” and “the spirit” of the rule wasn’t to punish ever helmet to helmet hit. So I’m not sure where you are going if we agree that

1. The letter of the rule was violated
2. The refs messed up by not enforcing the letter of the rule

Also - I post from my phone on the go sometimes so I don’t always get to respond to every point. I thought I was being clear and I apologize if you feel like I wasn’t addressing your points. Have a good evening.

[jettio]

Cisco was trying to put those hits on and celebrated and posed like he was trying to do it.

Shoulder pads to WR helmet when the WR has the ball not long enough to be a completion is a penalty.

The officials pow wow was that the shoulder pads did not hit the WR helmet.

Considering that WR was showing the fencing response is a pretty good sign that there was contact to the head.

I suppose a concussion is possible from rapid deceleration on a shoulder to shoulder hit or from head hitting ground, but unlikely you get a KO unless hit to head and replay showed a hit to the head. How that group of officials pow-wowed and then figured no head contact is plain stupid.

[Megatron96]

We don’t want more flags people. Did we forget how unwatchable the nfl was when they averaged 15+ flags a game? Hell even just a couple years ago when they emphasized OL holding? Every other play had laundry.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

We don’t want more flags people. Did we forget how unwatchable the nfl was when they averaged 15+ flags a game? Hell even just a couple years ago when they emphasized OL holding? Every other play had laundry.

Where do you get "more" flags from? This is a simple video review of a flag already thrown that is being proposed to be picked up. It literally is a very small amount of interruption to "game flow". Personal foul flags are fairly rare and it is even more rare to pick one up - why not make sure that picking it up is the right call?