Quote:
Originally posted by Derock1986
Quote:
Originally posted by mikesears
Quote:
Originally posted by Derock1986
Quote:
Originally posted by mikesears
Quote:
Originally posted by Derock1986
All,
The Eagles-Bucs game just had a play to further emphasize my point why the Steelers-Titans call was a bad call.
The Eagle defender ran into the Bucs kicker on a 27-yd FG but no flag was thrown. Why no flag was thrown when he RAN INTO THE KICKER??? Because safety was not an issue. The Eagle defender made direct contact with the kicker but when he made contact he grabbed the kicker in an attempt to hold him to keep him from falling. Gramatica, K, of course still tried to do his acting job but the official didn't buy it. GOOD NO CALL!!!!!
|
Both plays were excellent examples of when to call the foul and when NOT to call the foul. The contact in the Phi game did not put the Phi. kicker in any danger.
The contact in the P'burg-Tenn game was a different story. It DID put the kicker into danger. Grabbing a guy by the upper body and holding him up is a lot different than sliding into his legs. Legs are MUCH MORE vulnerable than the upper body.
|
I agree with the no call in the Eagles-Bucs game but I still don't agree that safety was an issue in the Steelers-Titans game. If the theory of running into the kicker was true in the Steelers-Titans game, it should have also been true in the Eagles-Bucs game. The emphasis on this call as stated by Blum, was their was contact made which displaced the kicker. The same is true in the Eagles-Bucs situation, contact was made which displaced the kicker however, the Eagle defender grabbed the Bucs K to prevent him from falling to the ground. Furthermore, the contact in the Eagles-Bucs game was more direct and flagrant than the slight contact made in the Steelers-Titans game.
|
BTW, I finally got to see a replay of the Pit-Ten play.
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I thought both calls were good. The first was, IMHO, a classic example of running into (although a bit enhanced by Nedney), while the second was a good case of a no-call because he didn't put the kicker at any risk.
|
Mike did you really find that safety was an issue in Nedney's call? I don't think safety was an issue at all and Blum never stated this. Instead Blum emphasized that contact was made which is why he called running into the kicker opposed to roughing. In the Eagles game, the defender ran into the kicker--same thing but no call.
|
I wouldn't keep saying it if I didn't.
In comparison to other parts of our bodies, the knee is one of the weakest joints in the body. It takes very little pressue on ANY part of the leg to ruin a knee -- just ask the Miami-Fl RB. The contact Nedney took was at the lower leg near his plant foot. Nedney was contacted in a dangerous fashion. Yes he accentuated the foul, but it was still there. Different story in the Phi-TB game. Gramatica was grabbed at the chest and HELD UP. Good no-call.
I again
asset umm, I mean "assert" that it was the safety issue NOT THE CONTACT that was called.
As for the explanation, Mr. Blum was faced with an audience of hundreds of thousands and felt he had to quickly explain his call. He did so by citing the rulebook (as it is hard to explain WHY a rule is written). Much easier to quote the rulebook for a quick answer than to go into a long verbose explanation that the contact was called because the players' safety was at risk. An explanation about player safety would also sound contrived. Aren't the rules written with one of the goals being player saftey? There is no need to explain why the contact was illegal.
I doubt very much that we change one anothers minds so I am done discussing this issue. We see it two different ways.
[Edited by mikesears on Jan 21st, 2003 at 07:08 AM]