(08-23-2015, 06:08 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: It didn't look to be malicious? Tackling a player with a history of knee injuries low despite the fact that the ball was 5 yards up field isn't malicious?

No wonder Ray Lewis is a hero in Baltimore - your definition of malicious is all ***** up.

Hell no it didn't look malicious! Did you even see the damn play in real time? Could he have tried to go higher? Sure.....could going higher have resulted in contact to the helmet as well?? Sure.

In case you don't know assignments during situational play calling..........When the offense is in the read option. The DE assignment and responsibility is to blow the QB up. Nobody else.

I don't wish no ill will to anyone. But I wouldn't give any sympathy or take it easier on a player just because he's had an injury before. That is pure craziness.

(08-23-2015, 02:47 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Lol....they didn't mess up the name of the call.
There is no way to call that unnecessary roughness. Lol how? It wasn't a late hit or was it an illegal hit.

Roughing the passer would've been closer (which they called) if the refs felt it wasn't a read option.

It's a gray area. Suggs didn't have to go in low. Didn't look to be malicious.

Dude, he intentionally went low on Bradford well after he had handed the ball off. If Bradford still had possession, then it is a legal play, no doubt. However, without the ball, it's illegal. Nobody in the world is going to argue that the QB is fair game to hit behind the play after a handoff, particularly low. Otherwise, every DL in the NFL would be creaming the QB after every run play.

As far as malicious, it's hard to say. It's definitely unwarranted in a preseason game with nothing on the line and where the #1 goal for both clubs is to get out healthy. Besides which, after Ravens players talking about going low and "putting hot sauce on their ankles", it's tough for anybody outside of Baltimore to give them the benefit of the doubt in these situations anymore.

Yep. Read option or not once the ball is out of the hands of the QB he is protected.

(08-23-2015, 07:10 PM)Whatever Wrote: Dude, he intentionally went low on Bradford well after he had handed the ball off.  If Bradford still had possession, then it is a legal play, no doubt.  However, without the ball, it's illegal.  Nobody in the world is going to argue that the QB is fair game to hit behind the play after a handoff, particularly low.  Otherwise, every DL in the NFL would be creaming the QB after every run play.  

As far as malicious, it's hard to say.  It's definitely unwarranted in a preseason game with nothing on the line and where the #1 goal for both clubs is to get out healthy.  Besides which, after Ravens players talking about going low and "putting hot sauce on their ankles", it's tough for anybody outside of Baltimore to give them the benefit of the doubt in these situations anymore.

Dude a hand off yes.. not a option designed play. On any hand-off play, to get "QB protection" (as in getting a flag for getting hit). Until they do that, they should be fair game to be hit.  You can't have your cake (getting to run a deceptive trick play that throws off the defense) and eat it too (preserving your pretty boy QB for years to come).

Which is precisely why teams that truly value their QBs don't run it or the only decent QBs you see running it have great speed. And even those great speed QBs try to evolve and not run it as much. If your QB isn't as big as Cam Newton/Tim Tebow or as fast as Kaepernick, Wilson and RGIII(past tense) then you are basically begging a smart defense to end his season every time you decide to run it. Going low or not. When it was all the rage 3 years ago, current and former players were saying that it wouldn't last because eventually the teams running it would run out of QBs.

As far as "hot sauce" lol you bring up a quote from NINE years ago as part of argument for August 2015?!

It was low but definitely wasn't cheap. It was a dang arm tackle.

It really didn't look malicious to me.  They can't hit them high.  They can't hit them low.  What are they supposed to do?  That play last season against Bell or Blunt or whoever it was was way dirtier.

(08-23-2015, 07:10 PM)Whatever Wrote: Dude, he intentionally went low on Bradford well after he had handed the ball off.  If Bradford still had possession, then it is a legal play, no doubt.  However, without the ball, it's illegal.  Nobody in the world is going to argue that the QB is fair game to hit behind the play after a handoff, particularly low.  Otherwise, every DL in the NFL would be creaming the QB after every run play.  

As far as malicious, it's hard to say.  It's definitely unwarranted in a preseason game with nothing on the line and where the #1 goal for both clubs is to get out healthy.  Besides which, after Ravens players talking about going low and "putting hot sauce on their ankles", it's tough for anybody outside of Baltimore to give them the benefit of the doubt in these situations anymore.

According to your link, it was a legal play.

(08-23-2015, 08:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: According to your link, it was a legal play.

No it wasn't. It says they called the wrong penalty. They called roughing the passer, but it should have been unnecessary roughness. 

"Roughing the passer was clearly the wrong call, but Suggs still could have been flagged for unnecessary roughness. The league office will likely have more to say about the hit this week"


That's a direct quote from the article. You never go low on a quarterback, you will get flagged and probably fined. Either it was dirty or Suggs is just not smart enough to figure out that the league will protect starting QBs at all costs. "But the rules say he is a runner" boo hoo and the league says, he's still a quarterback, you don't go low. Please tell me that you are smart enough to understand that.

He makes that same hit on Brady, or Manning or Rodgers he'd be getting hammered as the dirtiest player alive and probably missing at least 4 games. The league protects QBs, you'd think by now that with all those years in the game he'd have figured this out.

(08-23-2015, 10:45 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: No it wasn't. It says they called the wrong penalty. They called roughing the passer, but it should have been unnecessary roughness. 

"Roughing the passer was clearly the wrong call, but Suggs still could have been flagged for unnecessary roughness. The league office will likely have more to say about the hit this week"


That's a direct quote from the article. You never go low on a quarterback, you will get flagged and probably fined. Either it was dirty or Suggs is just not smart enough to figure out that the league will protect starting QBs at all costs. "But the rules say he is a runner" boo hoo and the league says, he's still a quarterback, you don't go low. Please tell me that you are smart enough to understand that.

He makes that same hit on Brady, or Manning or Rodgers he'd be getting hammered as the dirtiest player alive and probably missing at least 4 games. The league protects QBs, you'd think by now that with all those years in the game he'd have figured this out.

There is no rule about hitting a runner, QB or not, low. In the read option the QB is a runner and is supposed to be treated as such.




Mike Pereira ‏@MikePereira 1h1 hour ago In regards to Suggs, it isn't a foul. QB does not get protection running read-option or zone-read. Might be cheap but not a foul.

(08-23-2015, 10:58 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: There is no rule about hitting a runner, QB or not, low. In the read option the QB is a runner and is supposed to be treated as such.




Mike Pereira ‏@MikePereira 1h1 hour ago In regards to Suggs, it isn't a foul. QB does not get protection running read-option or zone-read. Might be cheap but not a foul.

Funny...the commentators talked about hitting a QB in the pocket LOW is a foul. This isn't about the read option, this is the fact that you can not, ever, under any circumstances, running, throwing, even if the guy is ***** your wife...you CAN NOT HIT A QB BELOW THE KNEE, it is an instant 15 yard penalty and cheap as hell. Seriously? Have you not watched a game the past 5 years?

"No defensive player who has an unrestricted path to the quarterback may hit him flagrantly in the area of the knee(s) or below when approaching in any direction." It's in the NFL rule book, and this read option stuff of "He's a runner" watch the damn games, you hit a QB low you get flagged.

(08-23-2015, 10:45 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: No it wasn't. It says they called the wrong penalty. They called roughing the passer, but it should have been unnecessary roughness. 

"Roughing the passer was clearly the wrong call, but Suggs still could have been flagged for unnecessary roughness. The league office will likely have more to say about the hit this week"


That's a direct quote from the article. You never go low on a quarterback, you will get flagged and probably fined. Either it was dirty or Suggs is just not smart enough to figure out that the league will protect starting QBs at all costs. "But the rules say he is a runner" boo hoo and the league says, he's still a quarterback, you don't go low. Please tell me that you are smart enough to understand that.

He makes that same hit on Brady, or Manning or Rodgers he'd be getting hammered as the dirtiest player alive and probably missing at least 4 games. The league protects QBs, you'd think by now that with all those years in the game he'd have figured this out.

I always find it amusing when someone cuts out half of a quote. The quote you supplied was preceded by

Quote:Suggs is right that quarterbacks can be hit like runners when they’re running the ball on read-option plays, and the penalty was confusing because the referee announced the penalty as “roughing the passer” even though it wasn’t on a passing play — Suggs hit Bradford after Bradford handed off to Darren Sproles. 

He COULD have been given an unnecessary roughness penalty, yes. Any big hit could get one based on the whim of the referee, but it was a legal play. Suggs was allowed to hit him. If we're reviewing the actual rules for UR, it isn't

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/29969/nfl-rulebook-unnecessary-roughness

Suggs doesn't spear him with his helmet. He wraps him up with his arms as he dives for him.

(08-23-2015, 11:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I always find it amusing when someone cuts out half of a quote. The quote you supplied was preceded by



He COULD have been given an unnecessary roughness penalty, yes. Any big hit could get one based on the whim of the referee, but it was a legal play. Suggs was allowed to hit him. If we're reviewing the actual rules for UR, it isn't

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/29969/nfl-rulebook-unnecessary-roughness

Suggs doesn't spear him with his helmet. He wraps him up with his arms as he dives for him.

Jesus Christ please tell me you are just trolling and not semi-********? I get it, Suggs is your boy so you'll defend him even if he ass raped your Mom in front of you, but watch the damn games. For the past 5 years, it's been established, running, passing, drinking water, even banging a cheerleader...if you hit a QB low, they flag you, probably fine you, and it's labeled dirty. 

I'm not an Eagles fan, I don't give an ounce of crap about Bradford, or Suggs but for anyone to sit there and defend this is either a troll, a moron or doesn't watch the games. It's a penalty in today's NFL, and if Suggs is too stupid to realize that, he'll get flagged next time too.

(08-23-2015, 11:08 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Jesus Christ please tell me you are just trolling and not semi-********? I get it, Suggs is your boy so you'll defend him even if he ass raped your Mom in front of you, but watch the damn games. For the past 5 years, it's been established, running, passing, drinking water, even banging a cheerleader...if you hit a QB low, they flag you, probably fine you, and it's labeled dirty. 

I'm not an Eagles fan, I don't give an ounce of crap about Bradford, or Suggs but for anyone to sit there and defend this is either a troll, a moron or doesn't watch the games. It's a penalty in today's NFL, and if Suggs is too stupid to realize that, he'll get flagged next time too.

Lol...no need to get your sphincter in a knot.... nah apparently you can't read the rule book or just have little comphrehendion skills to know the difference in rules. It's cool you have an opinion. I'll stick to the rule book. But I guess the refs need to review the rule book too because IT WAS NOT ROUGHING THE PASSER by the rule book.
Its up to interpretation if it was dirty or not. But Murdock isn't the judge or jury on if it was or wasn't.

(08-23-2015, 11:21 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Lol...no need to get your sphincter in a knot.... nah apparently you can't read the rule book or just have little comphrehendion skills to know the difference in rules. It's cool you have an opinion. I'll stick to the rule book. But I guess the refs need to review the rule book too because IT WAS NOT ROUGHING THE PASSER by the rule book.
Its up to interpretation if it was dirty or not. But Murdock isn't the judge or jury on if it was or wasn't.

Actually the rulebook has this: 

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (Unnecessary roughness) in the NFL rulebook

(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; or
(2) Lowering the head and violently or unnecessarily making forcible contact with the “hairline” or forehead part of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body; or
(3) “Launching” (springing forward and upward) into a defenseless player, or otherwise striking him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player’s neck. (Examples: a defender buries his facemask into a defenseless player’s high chest area, but the defender’s trajectory as he leaps into the defenseless player causes the defender’s helmet to strike the defenseless player violently in the head or face; or a defender, using a face-on posture or with his head slightly lowered, hits a defenseless player in an area below the defenseless player’s neck, then the defender’s head moves upward, resulting in strong contact by the defender’s mask or helmet with the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face [an example is the so-called “dip and rip” technique]).
Note: The provisions of section (f) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or noncrown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on an opponent.
(g) if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.
Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.
h) If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver’s head or neck area—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver’s neck.
Note: Launching is defined as springing forward and upward by a player who leaves his feet to make contact on the receiver.
(i) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked, is out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. During the kick or during the return, if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of the kicker/punter, it is a foul.
(j) any player who grabs a helmet opening of an opponent and forcibly twists, turns, or pulls his head.
(k) Illegal contact with the helmet against the knee of the snapper during an attempt for a field goal or kick try.
Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.


Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.






So take some time to read especially the bold part, and your comprehension skills (what the hell is comphrehendion, dude don't try to sound smart and butcher the word.) and what you'll realize is, as I have said over and over in this thread that for the past 5 years the NFL will flag you if you go low on a quarterback no matter where he is on the field. Seriously, dude are you ********, cause on the old board you seemed to have a brain, but it's like the switch made you go full on tard.

(08-23-2015, 11:08 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Jesus Christ please tell me you are just trolling and not semi-********? I get it, Suggs is your boy so you'll defend him even if he ass raped your Mom in front of you, but watch the damn games. For the past 5 years, it's been established, running, passing, drinking water, even banging a cheerleader...if you hit a QB low, they flag you, probably fine you, and it's labeled dirty. 

I'm not an Eagles fan, I don't give an ounce of crap about Bradford, or Suggs but for anyone to sit there and defend this is either a troll, a moron or doesn't watch the games. It's a penalty in today's NFL, and if Suggs is too stupid to realize that, he'll get flagged next time too.

The fact that you don't know what you're talking isn't an excuse to use the r word.

Suggs didn't hit him below the knees. The only people saying its a penalty are Bradford and his tackle. The QB was a runner, he can be hit. The fact that Suggs' helmet did not make contact with his knees and only his arms wrapped around his general lower thigh area is what also doesn't make this unnecessary roughness.

(08-23-2015, 11:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The fact that you don't know what you're talking isn't an excuse to use the r word.

Suggs didn't hit him below the knees. The only people saying its a penalty are Bradford and his tackle. The QB was a runner, he can be hit. The fact that Suggs' helmet did not make contact with his knees and only his arms wrapped around his general lower thigh area is what also doesn't make this unnecessary roughness.

Okay, let me try this a different way. I get it, like I said, he's your boy and can do no wrong....

So, answer these one by one.


1) Do you watch NFL games on Sunday?

2) Have you watched games in the past 5 years?

3) Do you realize that if a defender goes low ( low as in anywhere near the knee or below and Suggs is hitting his knee) in the current state of the NFL, it's a penalty.

I get it, it's not spelled out word for word anywhere, but dude the **** is wrong with you? It's like you think it's still the 70's. Player safety is the league's big hot button, and QB's are the #1 priority to protect. It's just how they call it now. You make a hit on a QB and get anywhere near his head, his neck, or near his knees they will flag it. This isn't new, this started 5 years ago. 

So, question 4) Are you just trolling, a blind homer, or seriously not understanding that in the NFL today, hit a QB low ( even perceived low) and you get flagged?




Check this out from 2009

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/144358-how-do-you-tackle-a-quarterback

(08-23-2015, 11:59 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Okay, let me try this a different way. I get it, like I said, he's your boy and can do no wrong....

So, answer these one by one.


1) Do you watch NFL games on Sunday?

2) Have you watched games in the past 5 years?

3) Do you realize that if a defender goes low ( low as in anywhere near the knee or below and Suggs is hitting his knee) in the current state of the NFL, it's a penalty.

I get it, it's not spelled out word for word anywhere, but dude the **** is wrong with you? It's like you think it's still the 70's. Player safety is the league's big hot button, and QB's are the #1 priority to protect. It's just how they call it now. You make a hit on a QB and get anywhere near his head, his neck, or near his knees they will flag it. This isn't new, this started 5 years ago. 

So, question 4) Are you just trolling, a blind homer, or seriously not understanding that in the NFL today, hit a QB low ( even perceived low) and you get flagged?

I've tried quoting the article where it stated it wasn't a foul. You ignored that.

Blitz tried to explain how it cannot be roughing the passer in a play like this. You ignored that.

Blitz tried quoting the former VP of officiating for the NFL who stated that it was not a foul. You ignored that.

I gave you a link to the rules (which you even quoted yourself) which explain why it is not a foul. You ignored that.

I now had to explain to you that he didn't even hit him below the knees. I guess you acknowledged that as you're now saying "near the knees".

I get that it sucks being embarrassingly wrong about something, but man up. You don't need to use classless insults like calling people ********. 

(08-23-2015, 11:32 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Actually the rulebook has this: 





Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.






So take some time to read especially the bold part, and your comprehension skills (what the hell is comphrehendion, dude don't try to sound smart and butcher the word.) and what you'll realize is, as I have said over and over in this thread that for the past 5 years the NFL will flag you if you go low on a quarterback no matter where he is on the field. Seriously, dude are you ********, cause on the old board you seemed to have a brain, but it's like the switch made you go full on tard.

I see you just cut and pasted a bunch of garbage that still does not state ANYTHING to the fact of the hit being illegal.

And the only thing you can come up with is name calling because you don't have anything else of FACT or intellect to include in the debate.

If you took the time to read and comprehend what you cut and paste:
According to Rule 12, Section 2, Article F, the quarterback is no longer treated as a runner until he "is obviously out of the play." It's difficult to argue that Bradford was out of the play because an unblocked Suggs hit Bradford as soon as he had handed the ball off.

Pretty clear cut...it was a legal play

Kaepernick, Vick, Wilson, Newton RG3( 3 seasons ago), etc have been blown up many times when running the option without flags flying. And times with flags. AGAIN all to interpretation.
Hell I've seen Big Ben get the **** hit out of him that was a lot more vicious with no flags. Flacco hit below the belt that caused your boy to be concussed. Dalton take low hits and no flag. AGAIN it's all on interpretation.

So do you have ANYTHING of relevance to add or do you just want to do the name calling thing? Just let me know. So that I'm not wasting my time with ( as you say....a ******)  

(08-24-2015, 12:15 AM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: I see you just cut and pasted a bunch of garbage that still does not state ANYTHING to the fact of the hit being illegal.

And the only thing you can come up with is name calling because you don't have anything else of FACT or intellect to include in the debate.

If you took the time to read and comprehend what you cut and paste:
According to Rule 12, Section 2, Article F, the quarterback is no longer treated as a runner until he "is obviously out of the play." It's difficult to argue that Bradford was out of the play because an unblocked Suggs hit Bradford as soon as he had handed the ball off.

Pretty clear cut...it was a legal play

Kaepernick, Vick, Wilson, Newton RG3( 3 seasons ago), etc have been blown up many times when running the option without flags flying. And times with flags. AGAIN all to interpretation.
Hell I've seen Big Ben get the **** hit out of him that was a lot more vicious with no flags. Flaccid hit below the belt that caused your boy to be concussed. Dalton take low hits and no flag. AGAIN it's all on interpretation.

So do you have ANYTHING of relevance to add or do you just want to do the name calling thing? Just let me know. So that I'm not wasting my time with ( as you say....******)  

it essentially comes down to the fact that the refs are viewing it at real time. If it looks like Suggs' helmet nailed him, they'll throw the flag. That's understandable, they don't have slow mo vision. 

In this case, however, the call was wrong as it cannot be roughing the passer. We also know from reviewing the play on video that there was no unnecessary roughness (which is what should have been the announced penalty given the play) as only his arms wrap around him above the knees. Some refs might throw the flag, and that's part of the game, but the tackle didn't break any rules. 

(08-24-2015, 12:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: calling people ********. 

I call it like it is.

Dude, you are being an absolute tard about this. I feel like you just started watching football this season.

Welcome to 2015, and the new NFL player safety league. I don't know how many different ways I can explain this to you, you can sit here and say but this former guy said no foul, or this guy who says per letter of the rules it's not a foul, but here's reality.

In the NFL today, as it is right now in 2015, ever since the Brady low hit that started this, if you hit a QB, low or high no matter what he is doing, running, throwing, doesn't matter, they call it unnecessary roughness. Seriously Pat, have you just zoned out and stopped watching games?

Guy makes a big hit, whoops, defenseless receiver, 15 yard penalty. It's the NFL today, I am calling you ******** because seriously if you have watched a single game since 2009, these type of hits especially on QB's get you flagged. It's not a debate, it's been going on for years. You are acting like this is some new trend from this preseason, dude this is old news, how are you so far behind?

I actually used to honestly respect your posts and took the time to read them, but now I'm just stunned. Anyone who has watched a single damn game, knows that when you hit the QB, you better make sure you hit him with your head up, don't lunge, don't get low, don't get high, don't leave any room at all for them to flag you. Seriously, what league have you been watching?

(08-24-2015, 12:15 AM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: I see you just cut and pasted a bunch of garbage that still does not state ANYTHING to the fact of the hit being illegal.

And the only thing you can come up with is name calling because you don't have anything else of FACT or intellect to include in the debate.

If you took the time to read and comprehend what you cut and paste:
According to Rule 12, Section 2, Article F, the quarterback is no longer treated as a runner until he "is obviously out of the play." It's difficult to argue that Bradford was out of the play because an unblocked Suggs hit Bradford as soon as he had handed the ball off.

Pretty clear cut...it was a legal play

Kaepernick, Vick, Wilson, Newton RG3( 3 seasons ago), etc have been blown up many times when running the option without flags flying. And times with flags. AGAIN all to interpretation.
Hell I've seen Big Ben get the **** hit out of him that was a lot more vicious with no flags. Flacco hit below the belt that caused your boy to be concussed. Dalton take low hits and no flag. AGAIN it's all on interpretation.

So do you have ANYTHING of relevance to add or do you just want to do the name calling thing? Just let me know. So that I'm not wasting my time with ( as you say....a ******)  

See what I wrote to Pat, I'm not repeating myself, you're clearly not grasping what year this is... It's not 1970 anymore, you make big hit, you get low, they flag you. This isn't new.