While the call for the blow to the head of Manning is legit.

Black Bolt · 11-08-2010, 11:16 AM

I see everyone is saying that it should not have been called. I say it should have. No, it didn't endanger him. But there's a more practical reason why the rule exists. The QB is TRYING TO PASS THE FOOTBALL. A blow to the head of a QB, just as with an OT, is going to cause one to blink and loose focus for a split second unlike they regain their faculties. That's not part of the game. A defender can sack, strip the ball, bat passes down, but he can't be allow to smack a QB in the back of the head, especially when he still has the ball in his hand and is looking to pass! I find it amazing that no one else is looking at it from this angle. I will say I don't know about an entire 15 yard penalty, though. Thoughts?

bigbluedefense · 11-08-2010, 11:30 AM

I agree with the rule.

15 yards is debatable, but I don't see how the rule is.

umphrey · 11-08-2010, 11:32 AM

Are you serious? The defender was trying to strip the ball while getting knocked around by an offensive tackle. Also the goal is exactly to hit the quarterback to confuse him, make him nervous, etc. You're right, the goal isn't to knock him out like a prize fighter, but that wasn't even close to what happened. Are you suggesting they should let the quarterback sit comfortable in space so he doesn't lose focus? That isn't football.

The QB is trying to pass, offensive tackles are trying to block, running backs are trying to run, receivers are trying to catch. You don't stop them with words and scary gestures. You hit them, or you call it a different sport.

bsaza2358 · 11-08-2010, 11:33 AM

If you are going to try to protect the QB from being hit in the head, you want it to be as black and white as possible. I don't agree with the rule in general because I think QB's are the same as any other player. However, the interpretation of the rule was an unfortunate reality yesterday. Almost cost the Eagles the game and cost gamblers a ton of money. I lost 2 units on that drive alone. Pissed me off...

bigbluedefense · 11-08-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by umphrey

Are you serious? The defender was trying to strip the ball while getting knocked around by an offensive tackle. Also the goal is exactly to hit the quarterback to confuse him, make him nervous, etc. You're right, the goal isn't to knock him out like a prize fighter, but that wasn't even close to what happened. Are you suggesting they should let the quarterback sit comfortable in space so he doesn't lose focus? That isn't football.

Getting rid of the rule sets the precedent. Now when DEs get run around a qb, they can just smack them upside the head which would dramatically change the game.

You just can't allow that to happen. What happened to Cole yesterday was **** luck, but the rule in place is valid.

bsaza2358 · 11-08-2010, 11:36 AM

The refs made the right call based on the rule, but I don't love the rule. That kind of more incidental contact happens on a lot of plays without being called. Actually, if the ref position was the way it was in 2009, they might not have seen it, and the play stands...

bigbluedefense · 11-08-2010, 11:36 AM

The thing is, it's not like Qbs are getting special treatment on this rule. You can't hit linemen in the head either, nor WRs or RBs, you can't hit anybody in the head.

So why is this rule being debated? I don't get it. A blow to the head is a blow to the head, and its not allowed against anybody.

It was terrible luck and unfortunate for the Eagles, but theres nothing wrong with the rule.

bsaza2358 · 11-08-2010, 11:37 AM

In the end, the game was won by the Eagles, and Manning wasn't hurt. I just didn't need the stress.

umphrey · 11-08-2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Getting rid of the rule sets the precedent. Now when DEs get run around a qb, they can just smack them upside the head which would dramatically change the game.

You just can't allow that to happen. What happened to Cole yesterday was **** luck, but the rule in place is valid.

No, those rules already exist. Facemask and illegal contact to the face. It's illegal to strike the helmet, it shouldn't be illegal to touch it or brush against it. Especially when it is just a hand that isn't being thrown with the force of a body behind it like a punch or a closeline. There isn't nearly enough force to do damage like that especially when it's a hand doing contact instead of a shoulder pad or the ground.

bsaza2358 · 11-08-2010, 11:42 AM

I wonder if the same contact happened against Charlie Whitehurst or Matt Cassel or Jason Campbell if the refs would have called it. Did Manning get more protection based on his status? I'm not accusing anything, just trying to see what others think.

bigbluedefense · 11-08-2010, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by umphrey

No, those rules already exist. Facemask and illegal contact to the face. It's illegal to strike the helmet, it shouldn't be illegal to touch it or brush against it. Especially when it is just a hand that isn't being thrown with the force of a body behind it like a punch or a closeline. There isn't nearly enough force to do damage like that especially when it's a hand doing contact instead of a shoulder pad or the ground.

Go watch some old Deacon Jones footage and then come back to me and tell me you feel the same way.

bsaza2358 · 11-08-2010, 11:43 AM

If you're calling the blow to the head, make it a specific penalty with a specific yardage. Don't make it a 15 yard unless it's roughing. Kind of like the old rule with 5 yard and 15 yard facemasks...

bigbluedefense · 11-08-2010, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsaza2358

I wonder if the same contact happened against Charlie Whitehurst or Matt Cassel or Jason Campbell if the refs would have called it. Did Manning get more protection based on his status? I'm not accusing anything, just trying to see what others think.

I'm sure Manning got more benefit of the doubt bc it's Manning. It was just one of those unfortunate things that happened during a game. It is what it is.

I have a much bigger issue with illegal contact rules, and many interpretations of roughing the passer much much more than I do of this rule.

It was just an unfortunate situation at the time, but it is what it is. The rule is a solid rule that I have no issue with.

bigbluedefense · 11-08-2010, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsaza2358

If you're calling the blow to the head, make it a specific penalty with a specific yardage. Don't make it a 15 yard unless it's roughing. Kind of like the old rule with 5 yard and 15 yard facemasks...

I can agree with this. I like 5 yards plus automatic first down as a modification to the rule.

bsaza2358 · 11-08-2010, 11:47 AM

What is the penalty for illegal hands to the face? I think an incidental blow to the head should be the same thing.

umphrey · 11-08-2010, 11:49 AM

It's important to make a distinction, are you debating precedent or the play in question? The rule they write, I would agree that it is a delicate issue how it is interpreted and enforced. However, on the play that happened, I saw incidental contact that wasn't even close to causing injury.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Go watch some old Deacon Jones footage and then come back to me and tell me you feel the same way.

Well first Deacon Jones played in the 70s, and he was a beast, probably the greatest DE of all time. A lot of film on him is going to involve illegal hits under modern rules. But he couldn't have hurt anybody by bringing his arm down on somebody's head while his feet were giving out underneath him. Go back and watch the play - in the position he was in, the defender couldn't generate any kind of damaging power. He didn't even make a fist IIRC. Whatever force hit Manning's head was a fraction of what players endure when they hit the ground or a shoulder pad.

MidwayMonster31 · 11-08-2010, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsaza2358

If you're calling the blow to the head, make it a specific penalty with a specific yardage. Don't make it a 15 yard unless it's roughing. Kind of like the old rule with 5 yard and 15 yard facemasks...

I think it should depend on what kind of hit it is. If the pass rusher is trying to swat the ball and ends up slapping the quarterback in the head, then that should be 5 yards. If he's leading with the helmet and smacks the quarterback in the chin, then that should be 15 yards.

bsaza2358 · 11-08-2010, 11:52 AM

Interpretation of the rule was correct. I think we need to debate whether or not the current implementation is the proper enforcement for infractions such as what we saw yesterday. I do not believe that minor contact to the helmet warrants 15 yards and a first as roughing the QB. I also do not believe that similar contact to any other player should be a personal foul/15 yards and a first.

bsaza2358 · 11-08-2010, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MidwayMonster31

I think it should depend on what kind of hit it is. If the pass rusher is trying to swat the ball and ends up slapping the quarterback in the head, then that should be 5 yards. If he's leading with the helmet and smacks the quarterback in the chin, then that should be 15 yards.

Leading with the helmet is a personal foul already. I don't thank anyone would debate anything related to that.

yourfavestoner · 11-08-2010, 11:52 AM

The intent of the rule is great. But, like with most NFL rules, the application of it is a complete abortion.

They really, really, really need to do an extensive review and possible overhaul of the rulebook this offseason, especially if the competition committee is sitting with their thumbs up their asses waiting for a new CBA to pass.

bsaza2358 · 11-08-2010, 11:55 AM

The NFL is trying to protect its stars. QB's are generally the biggest stars. That's why they changed the rules after the unlucky hit knocked Brady out. It hurts the product on the field. The Eagles won that game by 9, but they had a chance to lose it because of a really unfortunate execution of a poorly written and taught rule.

Watchman · 11-08-2010, 12:10 PM

I don't like the rule, but according the the rule the call was correct. I also don't like PI being marked at the spot of the foul, but that's the way it is.

bearfan · 11-08-2010, 12:15 PM

The intent of the rule is good, but the severity of the penalty for plays like that is way too high. T. Cole was trying to strip the ball from Manning while being blocked, Manning holds the ball high...how else is he supposed to strip it? Underhand?

They need to differentiate what is a personal foul and what is not. I don't think the 1st down should be given on an incidental contact like that either. The call almost cost the Eagles the game, and Peyton's head barely moved at all. If he was clubed that would be a different story and I dont think we would be having this debate.

Black Bolt · 11-08-2010, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by umphrey

Are you serious? The defender was trying to strip the ball while getting knocked around by an offensive tackle. Also the goal is exactly to hit the quarterback to confuse him, make him nervous, etc. You're right, the goal isn't to knock him out like a prize fighter, but that wasn't even close to what happened. Are you suggesting they should let the quarterback sit comfortable in space so he doesn't lose focus? That isn't football.

The QB is trying to pass, offensive tackles are trying to block, running backs are trying to run, receivers are trying to catch. You don't stop them with words and scary gestures. You hit them, or you call it a different sport.

Yet DEs can't headslap OTs.

Black Bolt · 11-08-2010, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsaza2358

The refs made the right call based on the rule, but I don't love the rule. That kind of more incidental contact happens on a lot of plays without being called. Actually, if the ref position was the way it was in 2009, they might not have seen it, and the play stands...

It was more than incidental, it AFFECTED THE PLAY, or could have. That's why it has to be called. Now, when a QB has THROWN the ball and there is come followthrough by the defender that happens to graze the helmet, that is incidental.