Terrible roughing call

[odanny]

That was by far the worst of them

Worse than the roughing call on the Grady Jarrett sack of Brady?

Nah.

 

[Canon Shooter]

There is no such thing as disagreement with it.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. I neglected to be mindful of the fact that I'm dealing with a diaper wearing old man who can't accept that people might not agree with him.

Go fuck yourself, Methuselah ...

It's impossible for the possibility to not exist - and the possibilities are in the very likely range. Did you think all football players were scrupulous ?

I think football players, at any position, should be subjected to the hardest hits someone can lay upon them. We've had tough quarterbacks in the past. The vast majority of them now are just overpaid pussies...

Please stop being a moron.

Stop being a drooling retard...

 

[Rocko]

Worse than the roughing call on the Grady Jarrett sack of Brady?

Nah.

I didn’t see that one

 

[protectionist]

Oh, sorry, I forgot. I neglected to be mindful of the fact that I'm dealing with a diaper wearing old man who can't accept that people might not agree with him.

Go fuck yourself, Methuselah ...



I think football players, at any position, should be subjected to the hardest hits someone can lay upon them. We've had tough quarterbacks in the past. The vast majority of them now are just overpaid pussies...



Stop being a drooling retard...

No limit to USMB IDIOCY, we realize.

Not only should quarterbacks not be subjected to " the hardest hits someone can lay upon them", I suggest that the rules should be changed that QBs cannot be hit AT ALL, and a sack should be defined as simply 2 hands of a defender touching a QB.

This is because of all the things I mentioned in Post # 42, but also there is the fact that unlike other offensive players, who most often see their tacklers approaching, QBs' eyes are focused downfield, scanning for open receivers. They are often hit entirely unaware of the impending tackle.

And if barbarian mouth breathers like Canon Shooter really want hard hits on everybody, they can watch MMA/UFC and get all the hard hits they can stomach, or perhaps watch movies like Gladiator.

 

[Canon Shooter]

No limit to USMB IDIOCY, we realize.

And you exhibit that daily...

Not only should quarterbacks not be subjected to " the hardest hits someone can lay upon them", I suggest that the rules should be changed that QBs cannot be hit AT ALL, and a sack should be defined as simply 2 hands of a defender touching a QB.

Two hand touch??

Goddamn, grandpa, you're a bigger pussy that quarterbacks!

And the fact that you proclaim that "there's no disagreeing with it" demonstrates how much of an insolent, diaper-wearing prick you really are...

This is because of all the things I mentioned in Post # 42, but also there is the fact that unlike other offensive players, who most often see their tacklers approaching, QBs' eyes are focused downfield, scanning for open receivers. They are often hit entirely unaware of the impending tackle.

Hey, you wanna' make $25 million a year? Buck up and play the game.

What about wide receivers? They're often so focused on catching the ball that they get absolutely hammered by defensivemen. Yet, for whatever reason, you don't think they should enjoy the same protection as quarterbacks...

And if barbarian mouth breathers like Canon Shooter really want hard hits on everybody, they can watch MMA/UFC and get all the hard hits they can stomach, or perhaps watch movies like Gladiator.

I'm sure you're more of a Barney The Purple Elephant guy..

 

[protectionist]

And you exhibit that daily...

Two hand touch??

Goddamn, grandpa, you're a bigger pussy that quarterbacks!

And the fact that you proclaim that "there's no disagreeing with it" demonstrates how much of an insolent, diaper-wearing prick you really are...

Hey, you wanna' make $25 million a year? Buck up and play the game.

What about wide receivers? They're often so focused on catching the ball that they get absolutely hammered by defensivemen. Yet, for whatever reason, you don't think they should enjoy the same protection as quarterbacks...



I'm sure you're more of a Barney The Purple Elephant guy..

If receivers do their job right , they get OPEN, and have plenty of time to focus on tacklers. They are nowhere near as vulnerable as quarterbacks. You get dumber & dumber with each passing post.

 

[Couchpotato]

If receivers do their job right , they get OPEN, and have plenty of time to focus on tacklers. They are nowhere near as vulnerable as quarterbacks. You get dumber & dumber with each passing post.

You've clearly never played the game.

 

[Canon Shooter]

If receivers do their job right , they get OPEN, and have plenty of time to focus on tacklers. They are nowhere near as vulnerable as quarterbacks. You get dumber & dumber with each passing post.

And if quarterbacks do their job right, they can get the ball to a receiver downfield or to a running back before they get body-slammed.

You're a proponent of the pussification of America.

So fuck you...

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If that’s roughing the passer they need to take the pads off the QBs and if anyone gets with in a yard of them the play is blown dead

I had a discussion about this with a coworker of mine today.. my thoughts:

1. We've come a long way in protecting QB's, and there's been many necessary steps.
2. Refs need to be able to know better as far as the difference between intentional landing on a QB and being mid-air and having no control.
3. Refs are clearly under pressure by the league, a league who is terrified of fingers pointed at them for player safety.

Basically, I think refs will be calling things that aren't even in the playbook, but are being enforced by strong, stiff messages to the refs.

Don't blame the refs, blame the league.

 

[Unkotare]

I've heard it suggested that roughing calls be included in the challenge flag.

 

[Couchpotato]

I had a discussion about this with a coworker of mine today.. my thoughts:

1. We've come a long way in protecting QB's, and there's been many necessary steps.
2. Refs need to be able to know better as far as the difference between intentional landing on a QB and being mid-air and having no control.
3. Refs are clearly under pressure by the league, a league who is terrified of fingers pointed at them for player safety.

Basically, I think refs will be calling things that aren't even in the playbook, but are being enforced by strong, stiff messages to the refs.

Don't blame the refs, blame the league.

Don’t disagree. This is an overreaction to the Tua injuries. Basically a small, oft injured QB is going to change the game foe the worse.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Don’t disagree. This is an overreaction to the Tua injuries. Basically a small, oft injured QB is going to change the game foe the worse.

What's crazy is how crucial most PI calls are. I'm a Browns fan and can clearly admit that Brissett got a BS call on 3rd down that extended our drive this past Sunday.

This has been a LONG issue in the NFL...

 

[protectionist]

And if quarterbacks do their job right, they can get the ball to a receiver downfield or to a running back before they get body-slammed.

You're a proponent of the pussification of America.

So fuck you...

Assholes don't necessitate replies.

 

[Blaster]

Worse than the roughing call on the Grady Jarrett sack of Brady?

Nah.

That call was a joke.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Assholes don't necessitate replies.

And, yet, here you are.

Replying.

Isn't it jello day in the nursing home cafeteria today?

 

[odanny]

The NFL wants to protect QB's, because teams can go from good to bad with the loss of a starting QB. All you have to do is make roughing calls reviewable, include the red flags in those calls and go to the tape. It was easy to mistake the call on Carr, but they didn't see that Jones had the ball, which would negate the penalty

 

[Unkotare]

The NFL wants to protect QB's, because .....

Because fewer people will pay to watch a backup quarterback or a team they no longer believe has a shot.

 

[odanny]

Because fewer people will pay to watch a backup quarterback or a team they no longer believe has a shot.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

 

[protectionist]

The NFL wants to protect QB's, because teams can go from good to bad with the loss of a starting QB. All you have to do is make roughing calls reviewable, include the red flags in those calls and go to the tape. It was easy to mistake the call on Carr, but they didn't see that Jones had the ball, which would negate the penalty

Problem with that is, it only might change the penalty. The penalty is not the big problem. It is defenders deliberately injuring top quarterbacks (ex. Brady, Rodgers, Mahomes) and knocking them out for the season. Plenty of teams would easily be willing to take a pass roughing penalty, in exchange for removing a division rival team's top QB, and thereby gaining 2 extra wins - often enough to get into the playoffs.

 

[protectionist]

Because fewer people will pay to watch a backup quarterback or a team they no longer believe has a shot.

And that not having a shot, is the crux of this whole debate, even though some people here are not even talking about it.