(08-24-2015, 12:20 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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. 

Exactly...all upon the refs interpretation. But atleast get the correct call lol. .but for those at home with video replay I guess it's still not enough.

Tl;dr

If Mike Pereira says its legal, it's legal. I've been way too nice to someone who has called me ******** multiple times, but you're not an expert on this. The former VP of officiating is.
/thread

Good night. This special education teacher (yea, I work with children with disabilities who you insult by throwing that word around) needs to go to bed. First day of school is tomorrow.

(08-24-2015, 12:22 AM)Murdock2420 Wrote: I call it like it is

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?

Lol do you honestly think he cares what you think about his post? Because you're butthurt and wrong.
First you claim he broke a rule but obviously  you didn't understand the rule.
Now you claim we don't watch football? That in the last five years ANY QB touched draws a flag....LMAO
You are running out of things to say.

Do you watch? Or even watch our Division?

AGAIN how many hits has Ben taken that were a lot more vicious? Yeah Manning, Brady, Rogers, etc get breathed in its a flag.

Have you watched any of the teams running the read option? Calls are generally different in that regard.
Once AGAIN all up to interpretation.

You are better at the name calling than FACT finding.

(08-24-2015, 12:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Tl;dr

If Mike Pereira says its legal, it's legal. I've been way too nice to someone who has called me ******** multiple times, but you're not an expert on this. The former VP of officiating is.
/thread

Good night. This special education teacher (yea, I work with children with disabilities who you insult by throwing that word around) needs to go to bed. First day of school is tomorrow.

A Steelers or Ravens fan one time called me a window licker (actually just posted the picture and said it was me, and I'm pretty sure it was on the old board), I don't think it was you (I could be wrong), but you didn't rip that person a new one?

You're a special ed teacher and you were fine with that?

(08-24-2015, 01:23 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: A Steelers or Ravens fan one time called me a window licker (actually just posted the picture and said it was me, and I'm pretty sure it was on the old board), I don't think it was you (I could be wrong), but you didn't rip that person a new one?

You're a special ed teacher and you were fine with that?

Had I read it I would have responded. In this case, the word was directed at me multiple times.

(08-24-2015, 06:44 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Had I read it I would have responded. In this case, the word was directed at me multiple times.

Seeing as it had to be in the Smack forum, I highly doubt you didn't see it.

I haven't been on the message board in a while, but when I saw the play/penalty/aftermath, I wanted to see if and how this was being brought up.

On the old boards, we had this discussion when Suggs hit Dalton low on a read-option play and Hue Jackson wanted to submit the tape to the league. Someone was adamant that it was an illegal play, despite the rules/evidence to the contrary. The play isn't illegal, and I don't find it particularly dirty in either case. The QB isn't protected as a passer. Roughing the passer can't happen on a run play. In a read-option posture, the QB isn't protected as he would be on a normal running play. There isn't an all-encompassing rule that says you can't hit quarterbacks around the knees.

On the old discussion, I posted a few pictures of hand-offs and posturing on different run plays. When the QB-RB exchange happens and the QB has two hands on the ball, in a option posture, he's going to get hit. That's assignment football, and well within the rules. If the QB hands the ball off with one hand on the ball, he's not declaring himself a runner, and unless he bootlegs (opening up the passing option) he's protected as he's no longer a part of the play.

It's interesting that initially (since it was flagged incorrectly) everyone is quick to jump on Suggs, to point out the penalty. Now that the dust has settled and analysts/talking heads/former refs are all in agreement that it shouldn't have been a penalty, the outrage just brings to light how many people don't know the rules/game.

Going for a guys knees is just bush league period....

(08-23-2015, 06:26 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: 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.

I am aware of Suggs' assignment on a read option.

My problem (and why it's easily a foul) is if it's not an option play and is instead a play action. Not to mention Suggs had an open line on Bradford (he was going nowhere if he still had the ball anyways) and intentionally targeted his legs when he could have easily just wrapped him up for an actual tackle. It's a scum bag move by a scum bag player. Targeting is wrong - period. Ask the Saints.

(08-24-2015, 12:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Tl;dr

If Mike Pereira says its legal, it's legal. I've been way too nice to someone who has called me ******** multiple times, but you're not an expert on this. The former VP of officiating is.
/thread

Good night. This special education teacher (yea, I work with children with disabilities who you insult by throwing that word around) needs to go to bed. First day of school is tomorrow.

You're still ********.

(08-24-2015, 06:52 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Seeing as it had to be in the Smack forum, I highly doubt you didn't see it.

I'm not the Watcher. Sorry, I can't see everything that happens. Apparently it wasn't that memorable if you can't recall who said it...

(08-24-2015, 10:29 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I am aware of Suggs' assignment on a read option.

My problem (and why it's easily a foul) is if it's not an option play and is instead a play action. Not to mention Suggs had an open line on Bradford (he was going nowhere if he still had the ball anyways) and intentionally targeted his legs when he could have easily just wrapped him up for an actual tackle. It's a scum bag move by a scum bag player. Targeting is wrong - period. Ask the Saints.

Thats the exact reason why it was NOT a foul my friend.

IT WAS NOT A PLAYACTION. It was not a passing play. So why even say or bring up the woulda could a shoulda?

You said you understood Suggs assignment or the DE assignment during an read or zone option. Then you should also understand and know your QB almost always has going to get blown up or that Suggs should have had a direct line at him.

Did you watch the replay at all? Suggs didn't target his knees and HE Did wrap up. Explain how it was malicious? Did he hit hit with his helmet or pads below the knee?

NO he wrapped up

(08-24-2015, 11:00 AM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Thats the exact reason why it was NOT a foul my friend.

IT WAS NOT A PLAYACTION. It was not a passing play.  So why even say or bring up the woulda could a shoulda?

You said you understood Suggs assignment or the DE assignment during an read or zone option. Then you should also understand and know your QB almost always has going to get blown up or that Suggs should have had a direct line at him.

Did you watch the replay at all? Suggs didn't target his knees and HE Did wrap up. Explain how it was malicious? Did he hit hit with his helmet or pads below the knee?

NO he wrapped up

It was a clean hit. There are a ton of hits that are very questionable that we sit around and debate, but I don't even get the outrage over this one. He doesn't hit his knees with helmet or pads. He simply wraps him up.

(08-24-2015, 11:00 AM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Thats the exact reason why it was NOT a foul my friend.

IT WAS NOT A PLAYACTION. It was not a passing play.  So why even say or bring up the woulda could a shoulda?

You said you understood Suggs assignment or the DE assignment during an read or zone option. Then you should also understand and know your QB almost always has going to get blown up or that Suggs should have had a direct line at him.

Did you watch the replay at all? Suggs didn't target his knees and HE Did wrap up. Explain how it was malicious? Did he hit hit with his helmet or pads below the knee?

NO he wrapped up

I don't think I'm doing a good enough job explaining my stance here.

I don't care whether Suggs was right or the refs were right (though as a rule I side with the refs); my problem is Suggs knew what he was doing as soon as he seen he had Bradford dead to rights - and he targeted his knees. I don't care if it was a dumb penalty; my problem is with the targeting of Bradford's knees.

(08-24-2015, 11:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It was a clean hit. There are a ton of hits that are very questionable that we sit around and debate, but I don't even get the outrage over this one. He doesn't hit his knees with helmet or pads. He simply wraps him up.

A couple reasons I think.

1) Suggs has done it before.

2) The RB was a good 3-4 yards out before the hit.

If nothing else it was poor form to have his head down and focused on the QB when the ball was already downfield away from him.  Not that Suggs was going to make a play at that point but he really just focused on taking out the QB and didn't care where the ball was.  If that's his assignment that's great, but the way he went in so low (not saying he targeted the knees just that he was bent over for a low hit...waist to knee) he had no idea if the QB still had the ball or not.

(08-24-2015, 10:53 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not the Watcher. Sorry, I can't see everything that happens. Apparently it wasn't that memorable if you can't recall who said it...

WAS A HUGE PICTURE IN THE MIDDLE OF A THREAD THAT YOU LIKELY WERE IN FREQUENTLY!!

It's not memorable to me because that holds no importance to me, but, like I said, as a Special Ed teacher, I'd assume you'd be infuriated and all over that!!  

Typical.

As far as the hit, it was a questionable call in the legality of it (I was listening to the VP of officiating this morning and he was against it, Willy McGinest was defending it), but a completely dirty hit in the reality of it.

Fun update: Chip Kelly said it wasn't a read option, just a hand off from the shotgun formation. He also said he doesn't believe Suggs was being deliberately idiotic, but that the refs made the right call.

Imagine that - not every shotgun based hand off is a read option play.

(08-24-2015, 01:45 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: As far as the hit, it was a questionable call in the legality of it (I was listening to the VP of officiating this morning and he was against it, Willy McGinest was defending it), but a completely dirty hit in the reality of it.

Every video I find has both Willie and the VP of officiating agreeing that it was a legal hit.  Can you provide one that shows them disagreeing?  Here are two videos that highlight what I was saying.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-training-camps/0ap3000000515198/Blandino-Suggs-hit-was-not-a-foul

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap3000000515152/McGinest-Suggs-hit-was-clean

(08-24-2015, 02:14 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Fun update: Chip Kelly said it wasn't a read option, just a hand off from the shotgun formation. He also said he doesn't believe Suggs was being deliberately idiotic, but that the refs made the right call.

Imagine that - not every shotgun based hand off is a read option play.

Hmmmm imagine that....the opposing coach saying it wasn't a read/zone option. Wow

Kelly doesnt want that to be a legal hit because it severely limits how he can use bradford in his offense. He just cut out half the playbook, or needs to expect him to miss half the season.

Either way he you quoted him saying HE HANDED OFF....so roughing the passer again was the wrong call! You can't flag roughing the passer with a handoff!
And still if they would have flagged them for unnecessary roughness......that would be a tough call too. All up to interpretation. He didn't go for a hit below the knees as he clearing wrapped up and DID NOT hit him with the helmet or pads...wow.

(08-24-2015, 01:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: A couple reasons I think.

1) Suggs has done it before.

2) The RB was a good 3-4 yards out before the hit.

If nothing else it was poor form to have his head down and focused on the QB when the ball was already downfield away from him.  Not that Suggs was going to make a play at that point but he really just focused on taking out the QB and didn't care where the ball was.  If that's his assignment that's great, but the way he went in so low (not saying he targeted the knees just that he was bent over for a low hit...waist to knee) he had no idea if the QB still had the ball or not.

True....he has done it before. The dirty play against Blount comes to mind.
As far as defensive assignments. During a pass or run he has three assignments of responsibility.....the QB, the LT and the running back. On option plays the DE ONLY responsibility is the QB and taking him down in case it is not handed off.