such an absurd call. Watch they’ll double down and find him for it too. NFL is so corrupt.
6 Likes
How can a defender not put his weight on the QB when the QB still has the mother-f’ing ball in his hand and Jack has his face buried in JJ’s chestplate?
4 Likes
Toral bullshit call. League office should be shown this. of course, nothing will be done so really It’s kind of pointless.
2 Likes
I think Hutchinson was just as weak
1 Like
The Hutch foul was weak but it was legit, his leg all of a sudden went in an unnatural angle towards the QB.
6 Likes
But looks like he was blocked into him. And barley touched him.
He kicked his leg out. I just wish he wouldn’t do that, we dont need him breaking another leg.
7 Likes
he wasn’t flagged for the hit…..
he was flagged for the landing.
.
.
I do think it was a WEAK example of landing on a QB with his full weight…. but the rule is so ridiculous that it leaves this type of play open to interpretation.
.
.
.
.
.
1 Like
It was a clean tackle.
2 Likes
Agree.
1 Like
the problem is that it was NOT a tackle.
McCarthy threw the ball.
The refs are calling that play to the letter of the rule….
even though all football fans hate it.
3 Likes
There was nothing excessive or unnecessarily landed on him with most of his weight. It was a textbook tackle that the league should be showing as to how they want a defender to tackle a player, not flag him for it. It’s probably one of the dumbest penalties I can remember.
4 Likes
see above post….
it wasn’t a tackle” because JJ threw the ball….
which brings the wording of the rule into play.
When Jack’s shoulder made contact with JJ as he went to the ground, it satisfies the “language” of the rule.
Again…. I hate that rule… but I can’t get worked up about the refs calling it because it is defined by the NFL site to a tee.
No idea what the rules are… Just like the catch rules. It’s the perfect storm for Vegas to do whatever they profit off of most
1 Like
He was clearly making a tackle on an opponent who still had the ball, no excessive weight was planted on the QB…sorry, not a foul.
Your misinterpretation does not make it correct.
2 Likes
.
.
This is NOT “my misinterpretation”……
it is literally what the referee announced on the penalty.
The ref specifically mentioned “body weight” as he called the penalty.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Again… I hate the rule….
.
but…..
.
this is exactly why Blandino agreed with the call when they questioned it on the coverage.
It isn’t what any football wants…..
but that is the actual rule.
.
Would they call it for Goff?
Hell no.
.
That is something we can all agree on.
Sorry, I should have clarified or worded it different but t’s not your misinterpretation of the rule but rather what really happened on the play. And I get it, it’s a judgement call but we all know what it looks like when a defender tackles an exposed QB and leaves his feet to land on the QB with all his weight, that was never done, Jack didn’t leave his feet, he put his head square in his chest and followed-through with the tackle without leaving his feet just as a defender is supposed to do.
I’m all for protecting the QB’s when they are exposed like that but I’m sorry, Jack never lifted JJ and left his feet to make JJ feel excessive weight, that’s a bogus call and a bad call by the referee.
1 Like
the NFL rule NEVER mentions a defensive player “leaving his feet” or “lifting” a QB…. as you mention here.
The Ref on field ruled he landed on JJ with “body weight”.
Dean Blandino went against the argument from Kevin Burkhart on the broadcast… reiterating the NFL definition of the rule.
.
Jack landed on JJ.
He didn’t make an effort to “avoid landing on the QB” as the rule explicitly defines….
so they are going to call that because it is the actual rule.
.
You are misinterpreting the NFL language of the rule.
.
It doesn’t matter what “we all know” about what should be a penalty…. because the rule is there in black and white.
The refs called the play as the rule states it should be called…
which is a garbage rule…..
but it is the actual rule.
1 Like