Chris Jones

[Pitt Gorilla]

has possession of the football. How is it theoretically POSSIBLE for there to be "roughing the passer" called on Jones AFTER he has possession?!? I mean, it's literally not POSSIBLE, right?

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by jd1020

How does the rule defy logic?

It's a pretty simple rule. Dont land with your full body weight on the QB. Where's the disconnect in logic?

The issue is that its not reviewable, and even if it were reviewable there would probably be just as many overturned roughing calls as there were overturned PI calls. It's simply a dumb ****ing rule, but it's a pretty simple one.

You never played, right?

How do you tackle (def.: the action of a defensive player stopping the progress of an offensive ball carrier by bringing him to the ground) a world class athlete (NFL players are among the top 3% of athletes in the world) without landing your body on him occasionally? They aren't going to just let guys tackle them; they're going to resist in most cases. So what then if you're a pass rusher? Just let him go to avoid the impending flag for roughing?

There's two disconnects here.

One, it's very difficult to tackle any player without landing on top of them because of the physics required to make a tackle. Made even more difficult because of all the extra rules surrounding the protection of QBs. So some players have decided to "twist/Sling" the QB, to avoid that part of the rule, which is also now a penalty because Brady things.

Two, the rule is incredibly arbitrary. The ref gets to decide whether a tackler did in fact land with "his full body weight," and his decision is final.

It's a bullshit rule, and the reality is that it's too arbitrary. It should be removed so that refs just don't have to make that type of decision. It should just be 'can't hit them above the shoulders, can't hit them below the knees,' and that's it. Everything else is fair game. Otherwise, I agree with Aikman; put skirts on the QBs and put flags around their waists and you just can't tackle QBs anymore.

[ChiTown]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

You never played, right?

How do you tackle (def.: the action of a defensive player stopping the progress of an offensive ball carrier by bringing him to the ground) a world class athlete (NFL players are among the top 3% of athletes in the world) without landing your body on him occasionally? They aren't going to just let guys tackle them; they're going to resist in most cases. So what then if you're a pass rusher? Just let him go to avoid the impending flag for roughing?

There's two disconnects here.

One, it's very difficult to tackle any player without landing on top of them because of the physics required to make a tackle. Made even more difficult because of all the extra rules surrounding the protection of QBs. So some players have decided to "twist/Sling" the QB, to avoid that part of the rule, which is also now a penalty because Brady things.

Two, the rule is incredibly arbitrary. The ref gets to decide whether a tackler did in fact land with "his full body weight," and his decision is final.

It's a bullshit rule, and the reality is that it's too arbitrary. It should be removed so that refs just don't have to make that type of decision. It should just be 'can't hit them above the shoulders, can't hit them below the knees,' and that's it. Everything else is fair game. Otherwise, I agree with Aikman; put skirts on the QBs and put flags around their waists and you just can't tackle QBs anymore.

100% of ALL OF THIS!

[scho63]

There is no reason to beat this dead horse.

EVERYONE IN THE WORLD EXCEPT CHEFFERS KNOW THIS WAS A COMPLETELY ****ED UP CALL. EVERYONE, THAT IS EVERYONE!

End of story.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

You never played, right?

How do you tackle (def.: the action of a defensive player stopping the progress of an offensive ball carrier by bringing him to the ground) a world class athlete (NFL players are among the top 3% of athletes in the world) without landing your body on him occasionally? They aren't going to just let guys tackle them; they're going to resist in most cases. So what then if you're a pass rusher? Just let him go to avoid the impending flag for roughing?

Would you say the overwhelming majority of tackles made dont end up with the tackler with all of his weight going down on the person he tackled?

Ya, occasionally its going to happen, and occasionally it's going to get a flag. Thats how rules work.

The problem here is that the rule has gone too far and the QB is protected to the point of it not being football any more.

I didn't play football, but correct me if I'm wrong. Do they teach you to tackle with the crown of your helmet in a players chest or offset to the side and your shoulder driving through them? If it's the latter then you are already at a position in which the center of your mass is offset from the center of the player you are tackling and its pretty ****ing hard to come down on them with your full weight.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Would you say the overwhelming majority of tackles made dont end up with the tackler with all of his weight going down on the person he tackled?

Ya, occasionally its going to happen, and occasionally it's going to get a flag. Thats how rules work.

The problem here is that the rule has gone too far and the QB is protected to the point of it not being football any more.

The "rule" CLEARLY states that extending arms to "break the fall" is considered a legal play. They talked about it extensively during the broadcast.

They didn't FOLLOW THE RULE. That's the problem.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The "rule" CLEARLY states that extending arms to "break the fall" is considered a legal play. They talked about it extensively during the broadcast.

They didn't FOLLOW THE RULE. That's the problem.

Bro. You are asking a ref that is behind the play and can only see Jones' body completely engulfing Carr's and expecting him to see the last second movement of his left hand extending to brace his impact. It's not a reviewable play. He doesn't get the benefit of camera angles or 60 frames a second.

It was a bad call made under the umbrella of a bad rule.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by scho63

There is no reason to beat this dead horse.

EVERYONE IN THE WORLD EXCEPT CHEFFERS KNOW THIS WAS A COMPLETELY ****ED UP CALL. EVERYONE, THAT IS EVERYONE!

End of story.

Sure, but what will the league do about it? Will they de-emphasize again only to emphasize again when someone gets a concussion? Or will they take jones’ very reasonable feedback to heart?

Will they create more clarity of the rules and change the severity of taunting rules so no game is transformed because of naughty words?

And while we’re at it can we get an official apology from the nfl and an explanation for why Chris jones is repeatedly targeted with these bullshit calls?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Bro. You are asking a ref that is behind the play and can only see Jones' body completely engulfing Carr's and expecting him to see the last second movement of his left hand extending to brace his impact. It's not a reviewable play. He doesn't get the benefit of camera angles or 60 frames a second.

So then he's just bad at his job. There's 4 or 5 other officials on that field. To make a unilateral decision when you ADMIT he couldn't see the whole play is just proves he's incompetent and stubborn.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

So then he's just bad at his job. There's 4 or 5 other officials on that field. To make a unilateral decision when you ADMIT he couldn't see the whole play is just proves he's incompetent and stubborn.

How would he be bad at his job. He threw the flag based on what he saw. It's the other 4 or 5 refs looking at it from a different angle that need to speak up and say "I saw him extend his arm to brace for impact."

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by jd1020

How would he be bad at his job. He threw the flag based on what he saw. It's the other 4 or 5 refs looking at it from a different angle that need to speak up and say "I saw him extend his arm to brace for impact."

Or Cheffers could just, you know, admit he couldn't see the whole play and ASK THEM.

[displacedinMN]

Physics does not work the way the NFL wants it to.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Would you say the overwhelming majority of tackles made dont end up with the tackler with all of his weight going down on the person he tackled?

Ya, occasionally its going to happen, and occasionally it's going to get a flag. Thats how rules work.

The problem here is that the rule has gone too far and the QB is protected to the point of it not being football any more.

I didn't play football, but correct me if I'm wrong. Do they teach you to tackle with the crown of your helmet in a players chest or offset to the side and your shoulder driving through them? If it's the latter then you are already at a position in which the center of your mass is offset from the center of the player you are tackling and its pretty ****ing hard to come down on them with your full weight.

Pay attention. In order to tackle, as in the textbook mechanics of tackling (part of it anyway) require the tackler to WRAP HIS ARMS AROUND THE OPPOSING PLAYER AND BRING HIM TO THE GROUND.

So, try to follow along here: If I wrap my arms around a person with the intent to tackle, does it follow logically that my body is going to necessarily be very near or actually touching the other player?

What do you think?

Is that probable?

Do me a favor and cogitate on that for awhile.

So when I complete the act of tackling (bringing the other player to the GROUND), what are the odds that my body is going to be near or actually touching the other player? Maybe like 100%? Okay, something could go differently so let's just say 95%.

Now, and I need you to follow along here for just a bit longer, the player I'm trying to tackle is trying NOT TO GET TACKLED, right? He's going to resist being tackled, so as the tackler I have to commit myself to dragging/throwing this guy to the ground, right? Any way possible, because that's how you're coached.

So what the **** am I supposed to do if I think I MIGHT land on top of a guy? Just give up on making the tackle?

This is the problem with this idiot rule. It doesn't take into account that these are actual athletes and that even as the tackler you don't always get 100% determination of how that tackle goes. And it's going to end most of the time with some guy on top of another because, well, as humans the tackler must necessarily put himself very near or actually be touching the other player to make a tackle at all.

Actually, just do this. Go to your nearest HS that has a football program and sign a waiver and try to tackle some teenage players. Then come back and defend this idiot rule.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by jd1020

How would he be bad at his job. He threw the flag based on what he saw. It's the other 4 or 5 refs looking at it from a different angle that need to speak up and say "I saw him extend his arm to brace for impact."

Duh, Cheffers was the head ref of that crew. It's his job to discuss exactly these types of calls, OR ANY CALL WHERE HE IS NOT IN THE BEST POSITION TO SEE THE PLAY to ensure the proper call.

It's literally part of the rules refs are supposed to follow.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Now, and I need you to follow along here for just a bit longer, the player I'm trying to tackle is trying NOT TO GET TACKLED, right?

We are talking about a blind hit on a QB here. The rule is there to protect a defenseless passer. So your entire argument goes up in flames right here.

[Red Dawg]

They wanna charge us 15 yards then ok but we should have gotten the ball since he fumbled.