+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1

    So sick of hearing about Welker's drop...(pats fans should read)

    I know we are all tired of hearing how "lucky" we are to have won. Here's why that play was not THE play to decide the Pats fate, IMO.

    While I agree that play could have changed the outcome, it was only one of many such plays that also could have changed the game. It is just intensified because of the timing and situation.

    There were at least three no-calls that would have benefitted the Giants. Two defensive PI calls were missed, and that Chung hit on Nicks (while I think it was an outstanding defensive play) was called more times than not during the season for roughing a defenseless receiver. All three of these probably cost the Giants points. Two resulted in punts, and one a FG. Also the holding call that nullified Jacobs' first down run on 3rd down DEFINATELY killed a scoring oportunity, even though the Giants would have easily converted without the hold.

    The point is that had one or all of these plays gone in the Giants' favor, it could have easily been a blowout by the time the Welker play happened, and it would have been meaningless. On the flip-side, had New England recovered a couple or all of our fumbles, it could have been lopsided going the other way.

    So while it may seem (to NE fans) this one play determined the Super Bowl, the reality is that it was one of a dozen or so plays that could have also changed the game.

    Yeah, we got lucky on some plays, but others went in the Pats' favor. The G-Men outplayed the Pats AGAIN; plain and simple.

  2. #2

    Re: So sick of hearing about Welker's drop...(pats fans should read)

    We won, they lost and the rest is yada yada yada.
    I don't always root for the Cowboys but when I do I wear my pink Jessica Simpson edition Romo jersey. (yes I lost a bet)

  3. #3

    Re: So sick of hearing about Welker's drop...(pats fans should read)

    We won, they lost and the rest is yada yada yada.
    I don't always root for the Cowboys but when I do I wear my pink Jessica Simpson edition Romo jersey. (yes I lost a bet)

  4. #4
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,539

    Re: So sick of hearing about Welker's drop...(pats fans should read)

    The Chung hit is never a penalty. He didn't lead with his helmet.

  5. #5

    Re: So sick of hearing about Welker's drop...(pats fans should read)

    [quote user="jhamburg"]The Chung hit is never a penalty. He didn't lead with his helmet.[/quote]

    Leading with the helmet is different than a hit on a "defensless receiver". And it is often a penalty. I happen to disagree with it most of the time, and thought this play was clean as well. However, the refs do tend to flag those hits since he had not had a chance to catch the ball and protect himself. Sadly, that's what the league has evolved into.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,539

    Re: So sick of hearing about Welker's drop...(pats fans should read)

    [quote user="FresnoGiant"][quote user="jhamburg"]The Chung hit is never a penalty. He didn't lead with his helmet.[/quote]

    Leading with the helmet is different than a hit on a "defensless receiver". And it is often a penalty. I happen to disagree with it most of the time, and thought this play was clean as well. However, the refs do tend to flag those hits since he had not had a chance to catch the ball and protect himself. Sadly, that's what the league has evolved into.[/quote]

    No, that's the rule, you can't lead with a helmet into a defenseless receiver. Obviously you can still hit the guy, it's not flag football (yet). If there are no heads, necks, or helmets involved, it isn't a penalty on a defenseless receiver.

  7. #7

    Re: So sick of hearing about Welker's drop...(pats fans should read)

    [quote user="jhamburg"][quote user="FresnoGiant"][quote user="jhamburg"]The Chung hit is never a penalty. He didn't lead with his helmet.[/quote]

    Leading with the helmet is different than a hit on a "defensless receiver". And it is often a penalty. I happen to disagree with it most of the time, and thought this play was clean as well. However, the refs do tend to flag those hits since he had not had a chance to catch the ball and protect himself. Sadly, that's what the league has evolved into.[/quote]

    No, that's the rule, you can't lead with a helmet into a defenseless receiver. Obviously you can still hit the guy, it's not flag football (yet). If there are no heads, necks, or helmets involved, it isn't a penalty on a defenseless receiver.[/quote]

    NFL attempts to clarify the defenseless player rules
    Posted by Michael David Smith on December 27, 2011, 3:31 PM EST

    Getty ImagesAfter a personal foul penalty on Monday night led to a high-profile media tiff, the NFL has stepped in to attempt to clarify what, exactly, the term “defenseless player” means.

    The personal foul was called on Falcons linebacker Curtis Lofton, and it left ESPN commentator Jon Gruden harshly criticizing the officiating crew, asking what Lofton was supposed to do to play defense while avoiding contact with a defenseless receiver. Gruden’s criticism had former NFL head of officiating and current FOX analyst Mike Pereira steamed.

    “Nobody likes the rule but that was helmet to helmet contact and the NFL wants that called regardless of what Gruden says,” Pereira wrote in a series of Twitter messages ripping Gruden. “People ask me what was he supposed to do. He was supposed to hit him with his shoulder in the chest area or below. Most are doing that. He announced hitting a defenseless player. He was defenseless and u can hit him in the head or neck area with your helmet, shoulder, forearm.”

    Today the NFL’s communications department attempted to clear things up, with e-mails to the media and Twitter messages pointing to the exact wording of the rules regarding defenseless players.

    The relevant portion of the rule is:

    “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;
    [. . .]

    Again, I'm not saying I like the rule. Just that it has been called, and could have been there as well.

  8. #8
    All-Pro CDN_G-FAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    17,341

    Re: So sick of hearing about Welker's drop...(pats fans should read)



    lucky is when you kick a game winning field goal, pull it right, it hits a bird and falls between the uprights.




    a guy dropping a pass he should have caught is called "not being clutch when it matters".




    he's paid to make that exact play, in that exact situation.




    and he didn't.


  9. #9

    Re: So sick of hearing about Welker's drop...(pats fans should read)

    I wonder if the bogus holding call on Boothe is considered lucky by Patsie fans too?
    I bELIeve in February 1, 2015.

  10. #10
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,539

    Re: So sick of hearing about Welker's drop...(pats fans should read)

    [quote user="FresnoGiant"][quote user="jhamburg"][quote user="FresnoGiant"][quote user="jhamburg"]The Chung hit is never a penalty. He didn't lead with his helmet.[/quote]

    Leading with the helmet is different than a hit on a "defensless receiver". And it is often a penalty. I happen to disagree with it most of the time, and thought this play was clean as well. However, the refs do tend to flag those hits since he had not had a chance to catch the ball and protect himself. Sadly, that's what the league has evolved into.[/quote]

    No, that's the rule, you can't lead with a helmet into a defenseless receiver. Obviously you can still hit the guy, it's not flag football (yet). If there are no heads, necks, or helmets involved, it isn't a penalty on a defenseless receiver.[/quote]

    NFL attempts to clarify the defenseless player rules
    Posted by Michael David Smith on December 27, 2011, 3:31 PM EST

    Getty ImagesAfter a personal foul penalty on Monday night led to a high-profile media tiff, the NFL has stepped in to attempt to clarify what, exactly, the term “defenseless player” means.

    The personal foul was called on Falcons linebacker Curtis Lofton, and it left ESPN commentator Jon Gruden harshly criticizing the officiating crew, asking what Lofton was supposed to do to play defense while avoiding contact with a defenseless receiver. Gruden’s criticism had former NFL head of officiating and current FOX analyst Mike Pereira steamed.

    “Nobody likes the rule but that was helmet to helmet contact and the NFL wants that called regardless of what Gruden says,” Pereira wrote in a series of Twitter messages ripping Gruden. “People ask me what was he supposed to do. He was supposed to hit him with his shoulder in the chest area or below. Most are doing that. He announced hitting a defenseless player. He was defenseless and u can hit him in the head or neck area with your helmet, shoulder, forearm.”

    Today the NFL’s communications department attempted to clear things up, with e-mails to the media and Twitter messages pointing to the exact wording of the rules regarding defenseless players.

    The relevant portion of the rule is:

    “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;
    [. . .]

    Again, I'm not saying I like the rule. Just that it has been called, and could have been there as well.[/quote]

    I noticed you cut off the part of the rule that says exactly what I'm saying:

    (b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
    (1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and
    (2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.”

    No head, no foul.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts