PDA

View Full Version : Wes Welker wanted flag on Earl Thomas' hit; more



Denver Native (Carol)
09-24-2014, 09:54 AM
in article:


Seattle Seahawks safety Earl Thomas blindsided Welker on Kam Chancellor's fourth-quarter interception Sunday. The shot went viral, and created social media tremors. Thomas was not penalized for the hit, and Welker said Tuesday that league intervention wouldn't negate what he viewed as a missed call.

AND


Wolfe return to Seattle testy. When Derek Wolfe walked onto CenturyLink Field, he fought emotions. It was his first time in Seattle since injuring his neck last season. The defensive tackle said some fans brought up the incident, providing motivation.

"There were some talking smack about how I left on a stretcher. I was like, 'Come on. Keep it coming,'" Wolfe said. "It felt good to get it out of the way. Unfortunately we lost. But that's a great team. You can always learn more from your mistakes."

full article - different things
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_26591070/wes-welker-wanted-flag-earl-thomas-hit-more

DenBronx
09-24-2014, 10:00 AM
Wow...Seattle fans taunting Wolfe because he left on a stretcher? What a bunch of scumbags...

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-24-2014, 10:02 AM
Wow...Seattle fans taunting Wolfe because he left on a stretcher? What a bunch of scumbags...

Yeah, pretty low class, especially as a result of a dirty hit.

TXBRONC
09-24-2014, 10:18 AM
Hey they cheered when Navarro Bowman left on stretcher in last season's NFCCG.

Anyway I wonder if Elway told the League offense because even though the officials blew the call Thomas can still be disciplined. He can also point out how badly the officials blew that offsides call.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-24-2014, 10:23 AM
Hey they cheered when Navarro Bowman left on stretcher in last season's NFCCG.

Anyway I wonder if Elway told the League offense because even though the officials blew the call Thomas can still be disciplined. He can also point out how badly the officials blew that offsides call.
It baffles me that they reversed that call. They shouldn't be able to reverse a call like that without video evidence.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-24-2014, 10:27 AM
Wow...Seattle fans taunting Wolfe because he left on a stretcher? What a bunch of scumbags...

Yep - just like their coach and players, excluding Wilson

Denver Native (Carol)
09-24-2014, 10:34 AM
I can not find a video, but Vic showed a play where I think it was Bennett, hit Peyton in the helmet, and there was no roughing the passer call. I am sure the Broncos will submit that play also to the league.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-24-2014, 10:39 AM
Yep - just like their coach and players, excluding Wilson

Exactly, they have the personality of their coach. Wilson is too classy for all of that nonsense. I'm glad we have a head coach who isn't arrogant and classless.

Joel
09-24-2014, 11:01 AM
Wow...Seattle fans taunting Wolfe because he left on a stretcher? What a bunch of scumbags...
That's how they roll; just hi tech Twenty-First Century Raiders. And as long as Commissioner Integrity and Player Safety let's them head-hunt a Pro Bowler concussed thrice in under a year and lifts Shermans PED suspension because he says, "half the league's on Adderall" it'll not only continue, but "half the league" will copy them: That'll BE the Integrity and Safety League.

Joel
09-24-2014, 11:04 AM
Exactly, they have the personality of their coach. Wilson is too classy for all of that nonsense. I'm glad we have a head coach who isn't arrogant and classless.
Wilson's the only guy on that whole roster I actually respect. Part of me thinks he should step us a team leader and say something to the others—but they'd probably come after him with tire irons and Carroll would cut him for "not being a team player." The SECAA stripping his "championship" when the NFL didn't almost makes me respect college football more.

weazel
09-24-2014, 11:11 AM
Seattle is the new Oakland... except shittier weather. Shit if I had to live in a place that rained every single day I would probably act the same way

Hawgdriver
09-24-2014, 11:14 AM
That's how they roll; just hi tech Twenty-First Century Raiders. And as long as Commissioner Integrity and Player Safety let's them head-hunt a Pro Bowler concussed thrice in under a year and lifts Shermans PED suspension because he says, "half the league's on Adderall" it'll not only continue, but "half the league" will copy them: That'll BE the Integrity and Safety League.

You ride this saw a lot, based on speculation, but I wonder if it's mostly true.

broncofaninfla
09-24-2014, 12:16 PM
I hate using blown or bad calls in any defense of losing but we clearly got screwed on a number of occasions by the refs in this game. Saw some bad calls on the Hawks too but far more in their favor.

CoachChaz
09-24-2014, 12:26 PM
Except....it wasnt an illegal hit.


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nbc-yahoo-sports/hit-on-wes-welker-not-currently-illegal--but-it-could-be-in-2015-223131610-nfl.html

BroncoNut
09-24-2014, 12:27 PM
He should have got it too. totally unsportsmanlike. that was the one where the ball didn't even go the Wes, right?

BroncoNut
09-24-2014, 12:32 PM
nevermind. maybe should have been a flag though, seemed like the thought did go through my head at the time . Maybe it was considered a block at that point? making it completely legal? I'd have to review the tape

Joel
09-24-2014, 12:34 PM
Seattle is the new Oakland... except shittier weather. Shit if I had to live in a place that rained every single day I would probably act the same way
The main difference is Carroll (and possibly their M$) owner have made a science of it. Last years article about them padding all the legal areas in practice so defenders learned where to legally injure opponents (though that wasn't how the article put it) was a real eye-opener, and confirmed what I've been saying for a while: Ban hits to certain AREAS rather than deliberate attempts to injure, and dirty players will just rules-lawyer new ways to inflict the same old injuries while clean players get suspensions for a fingertip across the helmet of a player who never even notices.


You ride this saw a lot, based on speculation, but I wonder if it's mostly true.
Look at all the doping suspensions they've had since Carroll took over, then ask yourself, "Do I really think NFL PED tests catch ALL or even MOST offenders"? Carrolls last job was basically right across town from where Romanowski and Co. ran BALCO, and if anyone has the tech to stay (at least) one step ahead of NFL drug testing, it's Microsoft. Browner and Sherman are the posterchildren:

Sherman popped for Adderall and excused it by saying he mistakenly grabbed a teammates water bottle, but supposedly got the suspension lifted by sending in a doctors prescription after the fact, then dismissed it all by publicly saying, "half the league's on it." There's a lot of contradictions in that (for one thing, while the NFL permits Adderall use by prescription, it's NOT allowed during games: If Sherman grabbed a teammates water bottle spiked with it, the teammate violated the PED rules, so where's his suspension? Do we even know who it was?)

Then there's Browner, a guy NO team WANTED when he went pro, so he headed to the CFL in its pre-testing days. Lo and behold he became a superstar; then the CFL started testing for PEDs, so he came back to the NFL a year later—and almost immediately failed a drug test. And failed another the NEXT year. And failed yet another the year after THAT. Shawne Merriman rule notwithstanding, he played a Pro Bowl the same year as his second suspension, and "won" a SB the year of his third—which, like Shermans, the league subsequently lifted.

Browners third PED-suspension? Announced about two weeks after he took over starting duties for a guy who was (wait for it...) suspended for PEDs. Everyone talks about how literally half their roster was drafted late (or never,) and sure, 32 NFL teams have rejected Pro Bowlers 7 times before—but not DOZENS; every scout in the league would be unemployed if that happened. We all marvel at how EVERYONE in Seattle's fast AND strong, because it's an athletic axiom that there's a tradeoff between the two for all but the rarest physical freaks.

Seattle managed to find two or three dozen of those rare physical freaks, and scouts for 32 NFL teams (including Seattle) managed to MISS them, not once or twice, but half a dozen times.

There's no ironclad proof, and not much hard evidence (apart from, y'know, LEADING THE LEAGUE IN DRUG SUSPENSIONS SINCE CARROLL ARRIVED) but there's a ton of circumstantial evidence. And y'know what? IT WORKED. They plowed over the defending NFC Champs, then historys best offense and cruised to the franchises first SB win. It's a safe bet all other NFL teams will do what all other NFL teams always do when one of them finds a winning formula (in this case, literally.) Integrity and player safety; sure: Congressional hearing in 3... 2... 1....

NightTrainLayne
09-24-2014, 12:43 PM
Except....it wasnt an illegal hit.


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nbc-yahoo-sports/hit-on-wes-welker-not-currently-illegal--but-it-could-be-in-2015-223131610-nfl.html

That article is horribly written, and makes no sense as written.

An unnecessary roughness penalt would not have overturned the turnover. . . I haven't seen any legitimate source argue such a thing.

CoachChaz
09-24-2014, 12:44 PM
That article is horribly written, and makes no sense as written.

An unnecessary roughness penalt would not have overturned the turnover. . . I haven't seen any legitimate source argue such a thing.

I agree about the writing...but the point of it all is that the hit itself was not illegal.

Joel
09-24-2014, 12:47 PM
Except....it wasnt an illegal hit.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nbc-yahoo-sports/hit-on-wes-welker-not-currently-illegal--but-it-could-be-in-2015-223131610-nfl.html
That is SUCH ex post facto CYA BS:
Because Welker had not just made a catch, he did not fall within the “defenseless player” definition. Likewise, because the interception had not clearly been completed, Welker did not enjoy the protections against a blind-side block.
Oh, so if the pass is incomplete it's OK for defenders to pop the intended receiver in the head? Since when? He's somehow not focused on the ball and thus defenseless unless he catches it? How many times have you seen a guy flagged for hitting a defenseless receiver on an incomplete? The blind-side block thing is just as absurd. "Not clearly completed"? Chancellor'd already caught it, come down and completed his turn to run it back (in rules parlance "made a move common to the game of football" and therefore a catch.)

Same old NFL: "We didn't blow the call, because what he did wasn't illegal, but we'll ban it next year—maybe. Now go away: No one gets in to see the Wizard, not no one, not no how!"

Denver Native (Carol)
09-24-2014, 12:56 PM
Except....it wasnt an illegal hit.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nbc-yahoo-sports/hit-on-wes-welker-not-currently-illegal--but-it-could-be-in-2015-223131610-nfl.html


Welker fell within a defenseless player


Definition of a Defenseless Player

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.

(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:

2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

http://nflcommunications.com/2011/12/27/definition-of-a-defenseless-player/

Hawgdriver
09-24-2014, 01:02 PM
... if anyone has the tech to stay (at least) one step ahead of NFL drug testing, it's Microsoft.

Tell me more about this PED-Stealthing division within Microsoft.

NightTrainLayne
09-24-2014, 01:02 PM
I agree about the writing...but the point of it all is that the hit itself was not illegal.

I don't see how it can't be classified as unnecessary roughness, or defenseless player etc.

I could be wrong, but I am waiting to see someone write about it who has at least finished the third grade. :D That's the only article I've seen claim that, and it is too horribly written to take it at face value.

Traveler
09-24-2014, 01:03 PM
That is SUCH ex post facto CYA BS:
Oh, so if the pass is incomplete it's OK for defenders to pop the intended receiver in the head? Since when? He's somehow not focused on the ball and thus defenseless unless he catches it? How many times have you seen a guy flagged for hitting a defenseless receiver on an incomplete? The blind-side block thing is just as absurd. "Not clearly completed"? Chancellor'd already caught it, come down and completed his turn to run it back (in rules parlance "made a move common to the game of football" and therefore a catch.)

Same old NFL: "We didn't blow the call, because what he did wasn't illegal, but we'll ban it next year—maybe. Now go away: No one gets in to see the Wizard, not no one, not no how!"

Fines from the league office will handed out later this week. If Thomas gets hit, our question is answered. Having said that, the NFL has made a point that any shot to the helmet is deemed to be personal foul "unnecessary roughness" penalty which should have negated the interception. Or at least should have moved the ball back well inside the ten yard line for Seattle.

Northman
09-24-2014, 01:09 PM
Or had Manning just thrown it too Sanders who was wide open all fo this would be moot.

weazel
09-24-2014, 01:13 PM
Or had Manning just thrown it too Sanders who was wide open all fo this would be moot.

stop it North, we're looking for excuses!

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-24-2014, 01:15 PM
Or had Manning just thrown it too Sanders who was wide open all fo this would be moot.

Yeah, unfortunately, Manning had decided where he was going with the ball before the snap, which is dangerous in the NFL, and especially against Seattle.

BroncoNut
09-24-2014, 01:19 PM
I agree about the writing...but the point of it all is that the hit itself was not illegal.

was it considered blocking at that point? tried to watch the video, but I lost it.

Hawgdriver
09-24-2014, 01:21 PM
Look at all the doping suspensions they've had since Carroll took ove...

You mentioned one suspension, how many total? It appears it's caps-lock significant, but is it statistically significant compared to the league?

If Adderall use is widespread already, wouldn't Seattle be just another team? How do we know the Broncos (or any other team) aren't the same?

Should we assume Denver's similarly successful offense benefits from a similar PED regimen?

How do we know Seattle has 24-36 rare physical freaks? Did someone say on TV or in print that they were fast and strong, or is it because of their statistical results?

I just don't see enough evidence circumstantial or otherwise to support a claim Seattle is going full U.S. Postal in a land of clean cyclists.

It's an interesting theory though, and I wouldn't be blown away if it proved true.

Joel
09-24-2014, 01:30 PM
Tell me more about this PED-Stealthing division within Microsoft.
It's a sub-department of the division coding software to crash when used with non-M$ applications. :tongue:

TXBRONC
09-24-2014, 01:35 PM
I can not find a video, but Vic showed a play where I think it was Bennett, hit Peyton in the helmet, and there was no roughing the passer call. I am sure the Broncos will submit that play also to the league.

I don't remember the Bennett hitting Manning in the head but I do recall that after Manning threw the interception that Bennett started talking crap with referee between them and never threw the flag.

CoachChaz
09-24-2014, 01:44 PM
I don't see how it can't be classified as unnecessary roughness, or defenseless player etc.

I could be wrong, but I am waiting to see someone write about it who has at least finished the third grade. :D That's the only article I've seen claim that, and it is too horribly written to take it at face value.

Quite honestly, it doesnt matter if a 5 year old Mexican wrote it. The fact remains that someone with knowledge of the rules stated it wasnt illegal. The messenger does not represent the validity of the message.

Hawgdriver
09-24-2014, 01:54 PM
woah woah woah why you dissin the chukes ese?

CoachChaz
09-24-2014, 02:11 PM
woah woah woah why you dissin the chukes ese?

Hell no. In 3 years, that kid will be cutting my grass for $5. In 10 years, he'll help build my addition for a case of beer.

Traveler
09-24-2014, 02:13 PM
Quite honestly, it doesnt matter if a 5 year old Mexican wrote it. The fact remains that someone with knowledge of the rules stated it wasnt illegal. The messenger does not represent the validity of the message.

Hey, I'm from somewhere close to the SHOW-ME STATE (Colorado). :D

The writer might be correct, but I want to know where he got the information to form that conclusion.

Joel
09-24-2014, 02:14 PM
You mentioned one suspension, how many total? It appears it's caps-lock significant, but is it statistically significant compared to the league?
It's #1 out of 32 since Carroll took over; that statistically significant? http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/100145/seahawks-lead-in-ped-bans-under-carroll
That was last preseason, so doesn't include Thurmonds suspension in the middle of 2013, nor Browners shortly therafter, and also (as the article says) excludes the suspension Sherman got the NFL to reverse. So 7 or 8, depending how one counts it; we and the Giants are tied for 2nd with 4 each in the same span.


If Adderall use is widespread already, wouldn't Seattle be just another team? How do we know the Broncos (or any other team) aren't the same?
It's so widespread the NFL specifically tests for it; I don't know if I take Shermans word "half the league's" on it, since "Seattle's just another team" was the whole point of that statement: He said the NFL should lift the ban because everyone's doing it. And we don't know Denver or any other team's not doing it; we are tied for 2nd since 2010, and coming off a SB appearance, and the other team tied for 2nd (the Giants) won their 2nd SB in 4 years the same season Carroll took over Seattle (the start of the Carroll Era we're counting.)


Should we assume Denver's similarly successful offense benefits from a similar PED regimen?
How many popped for PEDs? Are we counting Welkers offseason ecstasy trip? 'Cause that would make... one?


How do we know Seattle has 24-36 rare physical freaks? Did someone say on TV or in print that they were fast and strong, or is it because of their statistical results?
I'm going by the reports, yeah, not their 40 times or bench reps—which weren't impressive enough for ANYONE (including Seattle) to make them First Day draft picks. Their most celebrated unit is also the best example: Earl Thomas was a first-rounder, but Thurmond went in the fourth, Sherman in the FIFTH, and the rest either there or later (or never.)
http://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2014/01/27/seattle-seahawks-team-building-super-bowl-xlviii
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000318407/article/how-the-seattle-seahawks-were-built

Look over the list and the phrases "undrafted" and "free agent" come up a lot; it's all guys whose original teams quickly lost interest, when ANY team ever WAS interested. One or two, well, that would hardly be unprecedented, but we're talking about half a dozen starters and at least twice as many quality role players that were well below quality—before they got to Seattle and became overnight stars.


I just don't see enough evidence circumstantial or otherwise to support a claim Seattle is going full U.S. Postal in a land of clean cyclists.

It's an interesting theory though, and I wouldn't be blown away if it proved true.
In a land of clean cyclists? No, not possible; the NFLs longstanding and annually updated PED policies exist for a reason. But going "full US Postal" may be EXACTLY what Seattle's doing; you may recall one of the methods Armstrong (et al.) used to beat tests was transfusing their BLOOD SUPPLY with clean sources. And despite regular rigorous drug tests and French cops doing surprise raids on hotels where Armstrong was staying and suspected of transfusions, he was NEVER caught; there was only strong suspicion and a participant confession—after Armstrongs retirement.

A lot of Seattles guys HAVE been caught, but the NFL let them go on "earning" the fame, fortune and honors that come with elite competition anyway; in several cases, it even reversed their suspensions. So the NFL may not be "a land of clean cyclists" now, but it DEFINITELY won't be tomorrow; if I had a son on a J/HS football team, that would scare the Hell out of me.

EDIT: Forgot to add this; Seattles open secret is so open there's even an article insisting "Seattles PED suspensions shouldn't taint their success." http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/67432334/seattle-seahawks-performance-enhancing-drug-testing But my personal favorite remains this classic from last season: Mr. "Don't you EVER talk about me111" demanding his teammates "be accountable" for PEDs the way he was when he blamed an anonymous teammate for his PED suspension, then said half the league's on Adderall so the NFL should "legalize it." http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000320419/article/richard-sherman-on-peds-guys-have-to-be-accountable Douchey playr iz douchey.

BroncoNut
09-24-2014, 02:16 PM
Hey, I'm from somewhere close to the SHOW-ME STATE (Colorado). :D

The writer might be correct, but I want to know where he got the information to form that conclusion.

show me state, I'll show you. pretty funny traveler, rather Agapesque (if I might say so myself)

CoachChaz
09-24-2014, 02:20 PM
Hey, I'm from somewhere close to the SHOW-ME STATE (Colorado). :D

The writer might be correct, but I want to know where he got the information to form that conclusion.

All I could find was "league source".

Joel
09-24-2014, 02:28 PM
Quite honestly, it doesnt matter if a 5 year old Mexican wrote it. The fact remains that someone with knowledge of the rules stated it wasnt illegal. The messenger does not represent the validity of the message.
Quite right: The messsenger DOESN'T in/validate the message, and the someone with knowledge of the rules quoted only PART of those rules, conveniently excluding the RELEVANT part that EXPLICITLY bans Thomas' hit; fortunately, Carol quoted it in full:


(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:

2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner.
Welker was trying to catch the pass, which is why he was moving toward and watching the ball—which is why he WASN'T looking for or protecting himself from anyone head-hunting him: The VERY REASON THE DEFENSELESS PLAYER RULE EXISTS. If the NFL's just going to ignore the rule, they should remove it, not just grant Seattle-only exemptions.

Traveler
09-24-2014, 02:28 PM
All I could find was "league source".

Hence all the "poorly written" comments directed toward the writer of the article.

CoachChaz
09-24-2014, 02:48 PM
Quite right: The messsenger DOESN'T in/validate the message, and the someone with knowledge of the rules quoted only PART of those rules, conveniently excluding the RELEVANT part that EXPLICITLY bans Thomas' hit; fortunately, Carol quoted it in full:


Welker was trying to catch the pass, which is why he was moving toward and watching the ball—which is why he WASN'T looking for or protecting himself from anyone head-hunting him: The VERY REASON THE DEFENSELESS PLAYER RULE EXISTS. If the NFL's just going to ignore the rule, they should remove it, not just grant Seattle-only exemptions.

But...he was hit AFTER Chancellor intercepted the pass, so technically, he couldnt be attempting to catch a pass that was already intercepted.

The closest argument anyone can make is that since Chancellor didnt have both feet on the ground at the time of the hit, it should have been a penalty. But, if you watch the video replay, his foot did hit the ground right at the same time Thomas hit Welker. Nevertheless, at game speed, there is no way anyone could expect the referee to be able to make that decision.

CoachChaz
09-24-2014, 02:49 PM
Hence all the "poorly written" comments directed toward the writer of the article.

Well...I base my personal opinion on the rules and how they match with the video. Based on that, I dont think it was illegal.

Hawgdriver
09-24-2014, 02:51 PM
It's #1 out of 32 since Carroll took over; that statistically significant?

Yeah, I guess it's reasonable to be suspicious, but they might just be good, too.

Anyway, sorry to take us OT.

Joel
09-24-2014, 02:59 PM
But...he was hit AFTER Chancellor intercepted the pass, so technically, he couldnt be attempting to catch a pass that was already intercepted.

The closest argument anyone can make is that since Chancellor didnt have both feet on the ground at the time of the hit, it should have been a penalty. But, if you watch the video replay, his foot did hit the ground right at the same time Thomas hit Welker. Nevertheless, at game speed, there is no way anyone could expect the referee to be able to make that decision.
Sure he could be attempting to catch it; doesn't mean he'll succeed. It's not like there's an instant Boolean transition between attempting and not attempting a catch: In terms of the situation for which the rule was created (i.e. a player defenseless because focused on a pass to the exclusion of watching for tacklers or protecting himself from them) it's a textbook case.

Also, remember: The anonymous league source from your link explicitly (but falsely) said the hit was BEFORE Chancellor intercepted the pass, as an (invalid) excuse for not flagging a blindside block. If the hit preceding the Int, it was an illegal hit on a defenseless player; if it succeeded the Int, it was an illegal blindside block, but it WAS illegal EITHER WAY. Except it happened in Seattle, so it wasn't.

Northman
09-24-2014, 02:59 PM
But...he was hit AFTER Chancellor intercepted the pass, so technically, he couldnt be attempting to catch a pass that was already intercepted.

The closest argument anyone can make is that since Chancellor didnt have both feet on the ground at the time of the hit, it should have been a penalty. But, if you watch the video replay, his foot did hit the ground right at the same time Thomas hit Welker. Nevertheless, at game speed, there is no way anyone could expect the referee to be able to make that decision.

You would also be asking the officials to have Matrix vision. Plays are happening so fast you cant catch every little thing that is going on.

Joel
09-24-2014, 03:03 PM
You would also be asking the officials to have Matrix vision. Plays are happening so fast you cant catch every little thing that is going on.
Every little thing on Matrix vision? Guy planted a shoulder in another guys head. A Pro Bowler who's been concussed 3X in under a year. Between this, Swearingers legal concussion and suspending him for dropping ecstasy half a year ago, I'd be wondering if the Commissioner's trying to MAKE me retire. "Nice brain you've got there, Wes; be a shame if something... happened... to it...."

weazel
09-24-2014, 03:43 PM
I can not find a video, but Vic showed a play where I think it was Bennett, hit Peyton in the helmet, and there was no roughing the passer call. I am sure the Broncos will submit that play also to the league.

we mentioned it in the game thread... dude dove at Manning and nailed him in the head. It was clear and noone around them, it should have been called

Northman
09-24-2014, 03:47 PM
Every little thing on Matrix vision? Guy planted a shoulder in another guys head. A Pro Bowler who's been concussed 3X in under a year. Between this, Swearingers legal concussion and suspending him for dropping ecstasy half a year ago, I'd be wondering if the Commissioner's trying to MAKE me retire. "Nice brain you've got there, Wes; be a shame if something... happened... to it...."

You mean while officials were watching the other guy intercept the ball? They cant see everything man that was the point. There was no flag because either,

1) They didnt think it was a illegal hit

or

2) Simply did not see it.

And since you cant review penalties its much ado about nothing at this point. The team ******* lost, end of story.

CoachChaz
09-24-2014, 03:54 PM
Sure he could be attempting to catch it; doesn't mean he'll succeed. It's not like there's an instant Boolean transition between attempting and not attempting a catch: In terms of the situation for which the rule was created (i.e. a player defenseless because focused on a pass to the exclusion of watching for tacklers or protecting himself from them) it's a textbook case.

Also, remember: The anonymous league source from your link explicitly (but falsely) said the hit was BEFORE Chancellor intercepted the pass, as an (invalid) excuse for not flagging a blindside block. If the hit preceding the Int, it was an illegal hit on a defenseless player; if it succeeded the Int, it was an illegal blindside block, but it WAS illegal EITHER WAY. Except it happened in Seattle, so it wasn't.

Again...watch the video. Even if the officials had Matrix vision, there is a very valid argument that at the very least...Chancellor completed the interception at the same time Welker was hit.

Just because we dont like something, it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. I'd have loved nothing more than for the play to have been a penalty. But my eyes tell me differently.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-24-2014, 03:56 PM
Either way, it was a bad idea to throw the ball in the first place.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-24-2014, 03:57 PM
we mentioned it in the game thread... dude dove at Manning and nailed him in the head. It was clear and noone around them, it should have been called

I not only missed reading about it in the game thread, I missed seeing it when it happened. I thought I could find a video showing it, but so far, nothing.

Ravage!!!
09-24-2014, 04:13 PM
Either way, it was a bad idea to throw the ball in the first place.

was a horrible decision on Manning's part. That pass didn't stand a chance.

CrazyHorse
09-24-2014, 04:15 PM
Looks like the hit was legal but it was a cheap shot. I think the NFL should have some form of the NCAA targeting rule.

Joel
09-24-2014, 04:28 PM
Again...watch the video. Even if the officials had Matrix vision, there is a very valid argument that at the very least...Chancellor completed the interception at the same time Welker was hit.
I still disagree, but say for the sake of argument the Int was complete before the hit: The anonymous league source says it wasn't flagged as an illegal blindside block because it happened BEFORE the catch; if it actually happened AFTER, the flag should've been thrown, by the leagues own admission.


Just because we dont like something, it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. I'd have loved nothing more than for the play to have been a penalty. But my eyes tell me differently.
Not seeing it at all is a lot more excusable, because refs are human like everyone. But if they DID see it, the rules say it should've been flagged REGARDLESS of when the catch was made; the defenseless player rule doesn't CARE when the catch was made, only that Welker was attempting one of his own and therefore not watching for or protecting himself from defenders (i.e. defenseless,) and the league itself says even AFTER the catch it should've been flagged as a blindside block (basically post-possession defenselessness.) Any way we slice it, it's an egregious foul.

Joel
09-24-2014, 04:34 PM
Looks like the hit was legal but it was a cheap shot. I think the NFL should have some form of the NCAA targeting rule.
Technically a separate issue, IMHO, but I wholly agree: As long as we ban WHERE defenders can hit rather than HOW, dirty players will keep finding technically legal ways to injure opponents with cheap shots. Hence the published story last year about Seattle practicing with all legal areas padded so they learn where to take cheap shots legally, or James Harrison back in 2011 saying he doesn't care if he blows out a guys knee; since the NFL's fining him for going high, he's going low, even with the increased injury risks—then in the second quarter of the next game he ends Deckers season going low.

It REALLY hacks me off, because it's like

"You can no longer shoot people in the head to kill them."

"What about stabbing them in the head, or shooting them in the chest?"

"What part of 'you can no longer SHOOT people in the HEAD' was unclear?"

It doesn't reduce injuries, just raise explosives sales. Wanna solve the problem, ban killing people.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-24-2014, 06:46 PM
was a horrible decision on Manning's part. That pass didn't stand a chance.

That's usually how Manning gets burned, when he zeroes in on a pre-snap read and doesn't go through his progressions.

CrazyHorse
09-24-2014, 08:35 PM
That's usually how Manning gets burned, when he zeroes in on a pre-snap read and doesn't go through his progressions.

Favre used to do the same thing.

BroncoNut
09-25-2014, 07:41 AM
I still disagree, but say for the sake of argument the Int was complete before the hit: The anonymous league source says it wasn't flagged as an illegal blindside block because it happened BEFORE the catch; if it actually happened AFTER, the flag should've been thrown, by the leagues own admission.


Not seeing it at all is a lot more excusable, because refs are human like everyone. But if they DID see it, the rules say it should've been flagged REGARDLESS of when the catch was made; the defenseless player rule doesn't CARE when the catch was made, only that Welker was attempting one of his own and therefore not watching for or protecting himself from defenders (i.e. defenseless,) and the league itself says even AFTER the catch it should've been flagged as a blindside block (basically post-possession defenselessness.) Any way we slice it, it's an egregious foul.
valid point

Hawgdriver
09-25-2014, 09:30 AM
valid point

Good point a- gap.

MNPatsFan
09-25-2014, 10:29 AM
Sure he could be attempting to catch it; doesn't mean he'll succeed. It's not like there's an instant Boolean transition between attempting and not attempting a catch: In terms of the situation for which the rule was created (i.e. a player defenseless because focused on a pass to the exclusion of watching for tacklers or protecting himself from them) it's a textbook case.

Also, remember: The anonymous league source from your link explicitly (but falsely) said the hit was BEFORE Chancellor intercepted the pass, as an (invalid) excuse for not flagging a blindside block. If the hit preceding the Int, it was an illegal hit on a defenseless player; if it succeeded the Int, it was an illegal blindside block, but it WAS illegal EITHER WAY. Except it happened in Seattle, so it wasn't.It isn't a penalty because the ball had been intercepted pretty much simultaneous with the hit. Similarly, if the ball had been tipped or batted instead of intercepted, the play isn't a penalty. That play has occurred a number of times where a defender tips the pass and the receiver gets crunched almost simultaneously. The interception/tip removes the defenseless receiver protection unless sufficient time passed after the tip/interception for the defender to pull up/avoid the hit/block.

Joel
09-25-2014, 11:25 AM
It isn't a penalty because the ball had been intercepted pretty much simultaneous with the hit. Similarly, if the ball had been tipped or batted instead of intercepted, the play isn't a penalty. That play has occurred a number of times where a defender tips the pass and the receiver gets crunched almost simultaneously. The interception/tip removes the defenseless receiver protection unless sufficient time passed after the tip/interception for the defender to pull up/avoid the hit/block.
It's a penalty because the player (i.e. Welker) is defenseless, and he's defenseless because he's attempting a catch. Just because a defender's ALSO attempting a catch changes NONE of that, whether the hit's before, during or after the Int: It DOESN'T MATTER. Welker doesn't have a magic switch in his brain that instantly tells him to stop playing the ball and start protecting himself (more's the pity.)

What tips change that we've seen countless times is legalizing CONTACT: Defenders can lay out a receiver after a tip, on the premise they're attempting a block—but STILL can't headshot a defenseless player focused on a ball in the air to the exclusion of the guy laying a shot to his helmet. It's bizarre to contend an act indisputably illegal before OR after an Int is inexplicably legal DURING an Int, especially when the basis of illegality is a player distracted by playing the ball and therefore unable to protect himself: Nothing any OTHER player does can alter HIS inability.

NightTrainLayne
09-25-2014, 11:56 AM
It isn't a penalty because the ball had been intercepted pretty much simultaneous with the hit. Similarly, if the ball had been tipped or batted instead of intercepted, the play isn't a penalty. That play has occurred a number of times where a defender tips the pass and the receiver gets crunched almost simultaneously. The interception/tip removes the defenseless receiver protection unless sufficient time passed after the tip/interception for the defender to pull up/avoid the hit/block.

That may be the rule, but that doesn't make a lick of sense. It's not logically consistent. Just because a ball gets tipped the NFL doesn't care about player safety anymore.

Dumb.

MOtorboat
09-25-2014, 12:00 PM
That may be the rule, but that doesn't make a lick of sense. It's not logically consistent. Just because a ball gets tipped the NFL doesn't care about player safety anymore.

Dumb.

Except it's not the rule.

Joel
09-25-2014, 12:42 PM
That may be the rule, but that doesn't make a lick of sense. It's not logically consistent. Just because a ball gets tipped the NFL doesn't care about player safety anymore.

Dumb.
It's not the rule, so moot point: Defenders can legally hit receivers after tips, but NO player can legally headshot ANY defenseless one under AND circumstances.

TXBRONC
09-25-2014, 12:57 PM
It isn't a penalty because the ball had been intercepted pretty much simultaneous with the hit. Similarly, if the ball had been tipped or batted instead of intercepted, the play isn't a penalty. That play has occurred a number of times where a defender tips the pass and the receiver gets crunched almost simultaneously. The interception/tip removes the defenseless receiver protection unless sufficient time passed after the tip/interception for the defender to pull up/avoid the hit/block.

Carol posted the rule on defenseless receivers and there is no mention of tipped passes. What you're talking about is the rules on pass interference. If a ball is tipped at the line of scrimmage and defender can puts his hand on receiver and it's not a foul.

DenBronx
09-25-2014, 01:48 PM
Yep - just like their coach and players, excluding Wilson


It's very hard to dislike Wilson but easy to hate the rest of his team.

Joel
09-25-2014, 02:03 PM
It's very hard to dislike Wilson but easy to hate the rest of his team.
I just hope Carroll doesn't turn him into a typical Carroll cheat, or hasn't already. Steroids were practically invented for guys whose hearts were much bigger than the rest of their body to do things coaches and scouts knew they couldn't. Understand, I'm not accusing Wilson of juicing (he's about the only guy on their roster I DON'T suspect) but the temptation must be unimaginable when scouts called him a reach and he can practically sneak into any teammate locker at random and walk away with half a pharmacy.

Traveler
09-26-2014, 04:11 PM
Guess it's settled. No fine for Earl Thomas.

Joel
09-26-2014, 04:15 PM
Guess it's settled. No fine for Earl Thomas.
Is that like no PED suspension for Dick Sherman and Browner? #Player Safety #Integrity #Legality #Winning

silkamilkamonico
09-26-2014, 04:59 PM
Can we just let this thread die already.

Who f'n cares...

Joel
09-26-2014, 05:05 PM
Can we just let this thread die already.

Who f'n cares...
Welker, for one. Did he kick Goodells dog or something?