Football Whitlock has a great idea

orange · 10-08-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefDave

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=215771 Hey, Orange. Read this when you get time...

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.

**BigMeatballDave** · 10-08-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

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.

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

orange · 10-08-2009, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefDave

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

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.

**BigMeatballDave** · 10-08-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

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.

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

orange · 10-08-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefDave

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

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

blaise · 10-08-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

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

You act like it's fact that he hit him in the neck. I don't think he did. And don't bother posting the video, I've seen it. The refs weren't calling a shoulder to the neck penalty.

**BigMeatballDave** · 10-08-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

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

No. YOU are wrong in this assessment. Page did not contact Smiths neck area.

**kysirsoze** · 10-08-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

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

He hit him in the chest with his shoulder. It was a bad call. They sent a letter saying the unnecessary roughness call was a mistake. I just can't imagine what you would need to convince you. At this point you MUST just be trolling.

orange · 10-08-2009, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

He hit him in the chest with his shoulder. It was a bad call. They sent a letter saying the unnecessary roughness call was a mistake. I just can't imagine what you would need to convince you. At this point you MUST just be trolling.

Show me the letter.

That's ALL it will take.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failing that, let's watch and see the rest of the year if that penalty continues to be called.

SDChiefs · 10-08-2009, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

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

It clearly states that it was not to the head or neck area. It was to the CHEST. Therefore, they were wrong. They sent a letter admitting to the fact they they made a mistake in their calling of the game. Its as simple as that. Maybe they didn't appologize for it. But they did admit to making a bad call.

CoMoChief · 10-08-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

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.

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?

orange · 10-08-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

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?

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.

blaise · 10-08-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

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.

Did they say that?

orange · 10-08-2009, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

Did they say that?

As far as I know, the announcers only ever said "helmet-to-helmet."

That is probably why the letter was issued - the Chiefs' inquiry to the NFL also probably said the same thing. Maybe that's the words the ref actually used, which would be wrong. I still think it was a proper personal foul even if he got the wording wrong.

When the NFL makes a new rule, they train the officials by going over videos of when to apply the penalty. They don't concentrate on the wording. I'm sure the ref thought the play looked like plays the league taught him were penalties now.

orange · 10-08-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

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

Here's that other discussion for your edification:

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

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.