Stampede Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Holy War Week Brings out the Worst in Fans

Tom Brady and his "skirt": How the calls against the Ravens Sunday were indeed correct

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis argues a call against the Ravens during the fourth quarter of Baltimore's 27-21 loss to the New England Patriots in an NFL football game Sunday, Oct. 4, 2009, in Foxborough, Mass. (AP Photo/Winslow Townson)

More photos » by Winslow Townson - AP

about 1 month ago: Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis argues a call against the Ravens during the fourth quarter of Baltimore's 27-21 loss to the New England Patriots in an NFL football game Sunday, Oct. 4, 2009, in Foxborough, Mass. (AP Photo/Winslow Townson)

Watching Baltimore Ravens defenders like Ray Lewis whine about the costly personal foul calls made against them by Ron Winters's officiating crew provided both entertainment and an educational learning experience.

Perhaps even more enjoyable than Lewis crying about "bad calls," and not the choke-job drop of Ravens wide receiver Mark Clayton on 4th down, was watching Ravens coach John Harbaugh barely acknowledge the presence of Patriots coach Bill Belichick after the game.

Seriously folks, the league really hates ole Billy Boy, and it isn't because he is good.

Back to Lewis, what he, Peter King, and even SB Nation.com editor Chris Mottam (a friend of mine) do not understand is that Ron Winters (a referee we all think would be better suited bagging groceries than calling live NFL games) and his crew called the penalties correctly against the Ravens according to the NFL rules.

Chris Mottam summed up what many people were feeling this morning on Ray Lewis' comments following the Ravens v. Patriots game:

Lewis’ comments are spot on. I think we’d all agree it was an awful roughing the passer call.

Sadly, Chris is incorrect on this point, and it pains to disagree with him and have to agree with the butt wart in the NFL known as Ron Winters. Now, before my editors jump all over me and say "Brad, WTF are you doing taking on one of our own?" let me just say that the problem is not, in my estimation, over the call made on the field, even though people are saying it is.

The problem is the rule itself; a rule that has been on the books for seven months. A rule that, quite honestly, should have been protested back in March, making Lewis's and Mottram's protests a bit too little, too late.

More explanation after the jump...

Star-divide

On a drive which eventually led to a 17-7 Patriots lead, the Ravens were called for a personal foul, low blow to the QB. This is a new personal foul added to the rules this season, often referred to as "The Brady Rule." This type of personal foul was called twice in the Pats v. Ravens game, and on both drives it helped New England score eventual touchdowns.

The Brady Rule was added into the NFL fold this past offseason mainly because, in Week One of last season, Patriots QB Tom Brady was knocked out of the game after Kansas City Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard made a clean hit on him in the pocket. The hit resulted in an ACL tear in Brady's knee, ending his 2008 season and decapitating any and all hope of the New England Patriots returning to the Super Bowl that year.

More importantly, the loss of Brady meant the NFL would not make the kind of money, or create the kind of regular season and post-season buzz, that it normally makes when Tommy Terrific is playing.

So, what did the NFL do? They took Bernard Pollard's clean hit and turned it into a personal foul.

Back in March, the Boston Globe's Christopher Gasper wrote an article clearly articulating what this new "Brady Rule" is [emphasis mine]:

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him."

In both incidents where roughing was called against the Ravens Sunday, Tom Brady was hit by a defender below the knees while both his feet were on the ground. After at least one of the plays, Tom Brady was seen pumping his fist after the referee threw the flag. The stated rule mentions nothing about a defender's "intent". The rule is simple: If you hit a QB, essentially, below the knees, it is a 15 yard penalty. No ifs, ands, or buts.

The article also has some very interesting comments from Patriots owner Bob Kraft, who (for me anyway) accurately articulates what many NFL owners, and many in the league office, feel is most important to professional football (hint, hint: It ain't linebackers or defensive players, period):

"I think all the quarterbacks in this league are critical to what the game is about," said Patriots owner Robert Kraft. "It's like if Peyton Manning were gone for a season, I think the whole NFL suffers, the same way the NFL suffered with Tommy out. So whatever we can do to protect quarterbacks and to minimize the opportunity of them being taken out with a year-ending injury I would support.

"It's not good for the league. What makes it special is special players. It's like going to see a great movie and the star isn't in the movie. It's the same principle."

Take note of that and then apply it to what Ray Lewis said following the game:

That's embarrassing to our game," Lewis said. "Fine me, do whatever you please. I'm not speaking against anybody. It's embarrassing, for them to treat one person on the football field different than everybody else.

"That's what's embarrassing about this game. You cannot do that. You gotta let the game take care of itself like it just did. But when you call penalties like that, it takes away from the love of the game, because you can get a Tom Brady to walk by you and say, 'Oh, that's a cheap one.' Wow."

...

"We're men, we put our pants on the same way. I got kids, just like Brady got kids. Every man has kids. Treat them with that same respect."

Well Ray, clearly the NFL Competition Committee, the NFL league office, and the NFL owners do not agree with you when you say that all players should be treated the same. Quarterbacks are valued more than any other player in the game. They are the game's "stars," and without marquee QBs throwing TD passes, the NFL makes less of that green stuff often referred to as "money." And while Ray Lewis and Chris Mottam seethe at Ron Winters for throwing yellow at the Ravens Sunday, the fact of the matter is that, by rule, both those plays were indeed penalties.

Now, is the rule a good rule? Hell no!

Just like the "Tuck Rule" in 2001 (another dubious rule that Tom Brady has benefited from), the system of guidelines the NFL uses to protect the QB is now beyond ridiculous. But the NFL has made it clear that the excuse of "People get hurt and teams just gotta move on" is not acceptable to their bottom line. A team cannot "move on" when the face of their franchise is wiped out in one play.

A league cannot "move on," which is another way of saying "make money," when Tom Brady does not play the entire 2008 season.

Quarterbacks are special. They are more important than any other player on the team, and players like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are valued a helluva lot more than Ray Lewis, Dwight Freeney, Patrick Willis, or anyone else on defense who has the potential to end a QB's season.

Yes, some rules are indeed needed in order to protect QBs from the violence pro football glorifies. I'll bring up Carson Palmer's rather ominous comments from this offseason:

"The truth of the matter is ... somebody is going to die here in the NFL. It's going to happen.''

Palmer made that statement during a roundtable discussion involving NFL quarterbacks and their safety on the field. Palmer clarified the statement, and when you read it in tandem with Lewis's comments from yesterday and Kraft's comments from March, they provide a sobering reason why quarterbacks are so protected [emphasis mine]:

"Guys are getting so big, so fast, so explosive,'' Palmer said. "The game's so violent. Now that they're cutting out the wedge deal on kickoff returns, those guys [are] coming free, and at some point somebody is going to die in football. And I hope it's not anyone at this table, and I hope it doesn't happen, obviously. Everyone talks about the good old days, when guys were tough and quarterbacks got crushed all the time, but back in the day, there weren't defensive ends that were Mario Williams -- 6-7, 300 pounds, 10 percent body fat, running a 4.7 40.

"The game has changed, the game is getting bigger, faster, stronger, and there needs to be more protection. If I weren't a quarterback, I would be mad about the rules. If I were a safety or a defensive back, I would be mad about the new rule that you can't hit your helmet above their shoulder pads or whatever it is because it does take some of the ferociousness out of the game, but somebody is going to get seriously hurt, possibly die.

Take all this in, and the message is clear: Quarterbacks are special, and the league would prefer that they not get hurt during games, thank you very much.

What astonishes me is this rule has been on the books since March, and it is only now that people are starting to bitch about it. I mean, come on folks! This was an obvious move by the league to say the QBs are important and everyone else is garbage, and it was done nearly sevens months ago. Why are we only now saying, "Woah, woah, woah! This is BS!"

So, if I could offer a point of emphasis here: Don't be mad at Ron Winters or his crew on this particular subject. Yes, Winters is one of the worst officials in football, and is long overdue to receive a pink slip to go with his pink hat and pink shoes this month. The people you should be mad at are the NFL owners. They are the ones who think that protecting the QB is more important than protecting the game of football.

I say all this as a fan of a team built around the face of the NFL: Peyton Manning. The league saw Brady go down last year, and they all did a quick calculation in their head as to how much money they would lose if the same thing happened to Peyton. When the negative number popped into their brains, they collectively began to panic.

If Peyton Manning ever went down as Tom Brady did, it would spell disaster for the NFL.

Yes, games would go on. Yes, fans would cheer their teams. Yes, there would be a Super Bowl. Yes, the sun would still rise and set. All these would happen if Peyton Manning were lost for a season. But, what would not go on is the continued increase in profits the NFL owners receive when players like Peyton Manning quarterback their teams to the playoffs. Major corporate sponsors like Sprint, Visa, and Budweiser would lose milions in endorsements because no one wants to see a player out for the season pushing cell phones, credit cards, and beer.

This is the reality pro football in the 21st century. In today's game, the quarterbacks are everything. The Brady Rule simply enforces that.

Look for Ray Lewis to receive a rather hefty fine for his comments, which essentially said the league's "Brady Rule" embarrasses the game of football. Lewis is indeed right in his comments, but his comments are about seven months too late.

2 recs  |  Comment 50 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

As long as the "Brady Rule"

isn’t specifically reserved for Brady.

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on Oct 5, 2009 12:53 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

but it will be

 the problem is even when you put in rules like this, it is very subjective when they are called. Brady will get extra attention since it was his knew that generated the rule. I bet if you watched more games yesterday, many QB’s took a low hit, and that was the only game where the flag is thrown.

How the hell are you supposed to never hit a QB below the knees? How many times do you see defenders roll into them? how do you decide if it was caused by someone else or not when defenders are so often locked up with the linemen..

BBS is right, the flag is correct under the rule but it is a REALLY stupid rule. And it won’t be enforced half the time anyway…

An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing...

by bluegirl on Oct 5, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I did not see the Oakland replay, but

Trent Dilfer implied that it is a “superstar QB -only” rule. He noted that Jamarcus Russell got illegally hammered yesterday and no call. Brady gets brushed, call. (Dilfer was pretty ticked.) Then again, maybe the refs decided that Russell is not actually a QB. Could explain a lot.

I must say, all this makes me feel a little less bitter about many of the non-calls I see on OLs, especially situations like McNeil grabbing Freeney’s facemask repeatedly in last year’s playoffs. If—despite the written rules—they are interpreting everything through a veil of “protect the QB,” then I can understand them only calling the most blatant fouls. Not that I like it, but I can maybe understand it a little better…. and grind my teeth less at night.

I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.

by Bobman on Oct 5, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

My problem with the call

is that he wasn’t trying to take out Brady at the knee. He appeared to stumble towards Brady and barely touched him at all. Brady whined to the official and got the call.

More importantly, Ron Winters’ crew has been making questionable calls (at best) for a couple years now and it really bothers me that they make such ticky tack calls on a regular basis. It doesn’t jive with the spirit of the game.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

by AceOfSpades on Oct 5, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

BBS is right that it's all about money

otherwise we would have had this rule a few years ago and it would have been the “Palmer Rule”

How can you not love a team that does this?

by LovinBlue on Oct 5, 2009 1:02 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Good point

But Palmer was a star, no? In a playoff game? I guess not as big a star as TB.

Up to that point, I’d have rated the NFL QBs Manning #1 and Palmer #2 with a chance to eclipse the master some day. I may have been overestimating CP, but clrearly that chance (if it existed) is gone forever.

I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.

by Bobman on Oct 5, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It is laughably embarrassing

that this rule was made. It seems the NFL creates it’s rules to keep Tom Brady safe. QBs have torn ACLs or other serious injuries before Brady did (PALMER), many times in fact, and no rules were put in place for those guys. I didn’t watch the game (thankfully), but I did see a recap and on one of the calls, the Ravens’ defender barely grazed the fabric of Brady’s game pants. It is ridiculous. The NFL and big media networks constantly overrate and overprotect Tom Brady. They would not do this for many QBs in the league (for the record, I do agree that it would have been placed if Manning had been hurt, too, but Manning isn’t pampered like Brady is in the media and NFL).

If Jamarcus Russell was on the end of that Marcus Pollard hit, the league would have barely batted an eye. Palmer’s career was practically ruined due to his ACL injury, but no rules were in place for him. I agree with many of the safety rules in the NFL (no helmet to helmet, etc.), but this is getting ridiculous how the league is so biased to protecting QBs over other players. Excuse me, protecting big name QBs over other players. Receivers, RBs, and everyone else who has the ball can be tackled below the waist. I know that is not the same as QBs because QBs are motionless when attacked at the knees, but the skill players face the same fate regardless.

But BBS is right, it was the right call, unfortunately. Whether the call was correct or not was not the controversy, it is the ridiculous rule in general.

by npb1985 on Oct 5, 2009 1:12 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Bernard Pollard

Not Marcus! Come on, now….

Both are minor heros to me, of course, but quite different guys.

I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.

by Bobman on Oct 5, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

AH!

Damnit! I had a brain fart, my bad.

by npb1985 on Oct 5, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

too much brain fiber.

I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.

by Bobman on Oct 5, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rereading my post

I think I ranted a little too much. Basically, the short version of my point is that it is BS Brady gets special treatment all the time, yet they did nothing about Palmer. And let’s not forget about the ridiculous fine the NFL made Haynesworth pay in the preseason who had the gall to sack precious little Tom. With all the rules now being placed, sacks will eventually be banned. It is ridiculous. ESPN and the NFL need to quit all the Tom Brady slobbering. They try to make him out to be a better QB (he’s good, but nowhere near the level they make him out to be) than he is and they won’t allow anyone to touch him.

by npb1985 on Oct 5, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haynesworth got fined?

Brady, along with everyone else, thought it was a legal hit. Now that’s ridiculous.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Oct 5, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Error on my part

I could have sworn he got fined, but he made a public apology. He wasn’t fined. Since you’re a Pats fan and didn’t know about it, I figured I better double check. I was wrong. It was speculated that it was a less than genuine apology and was forced upon him by the league.

by npb1985 on Oct 5, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

Where was this rule when the exact same thing happened to Palmer in the playoffs (that arguably led the Steelers to their championship in 05)? I do agree that the rule has been used for more than just Brady, but you can’t have a rule that is specfically enforced for the stars. In the same game Joe Flacco was nailed well after a pass was thrown, but there was no flag. If there’s a rule in place to protect the quarterbacks, then it needs to be applied to all QB’s, not just the marquee ones.

by EddieDean on Oct 5, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

OK..........

I want a rule that Freeney and Mathis can’t get cut of blocked below their bellybuttons. Can’t deny that the Colt’s will loose a chunk of their bottom line if we have no more sack attack.

by tim55 on Oct 5, 2009 1:22 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

The RTP penalty has been called across the league

The Patriots have had it called against them at least 3 times, with Wilfork getting a letter from the league (after the fact) saying the refs were wrong to call it.

Last night, the Ravens had it called against them twice, the Patriots had it called against them once. Hardly an example of the referees favoring one team over another. Two of the calls were for the defenders touching the heads of Flacco and Brady, and one for Suggs dive at Brady’s legs below the knee.

There was one play where Mike Wright had Flacco wrapped up, still standing, in his arms (sounds goofy, but you know what I mean) waiting for the whistle to blow. Flacco’s still trying to get free to throw the football and Wright knows he can’t use his leverage to throw him down or he’ll get flagged and fined like Adalius Thomas did in week 2. He can’t let him go and he can’t tackle the guy – damned either way.

Say what you will about the rule itself, and I personally don’t like it, but if it is there then it has to be called consistently and I don’t see how a team can argue about that. If Flacco was getting his helmet slapped and there were no calls then I’d agree that there was a bigger problem going on.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Oct 5, 2009 1:32 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

One side-note

Belichick and Harbaugh are good friends. Belichick strongly recommended Harbaugh for the Ravens’ head coaching position and the two have a good relationship. What Belichick would understand is how it’s sometimes hard for a competitor to want to shake hands and talk about old times when they’ve just lost a hard-fought, down-to-the wire game.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Oct 5, 2009 1:38 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

10 years from now

Quarterbacks will not be allowed to be hit. It’s unfortunate, but I believe that this is without a doubt true.

Visit FanIQ.com for sports news, bloggings, polls, and more!

by MrNFL on Oct 5, 2009 1:46 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

You're probably right,

QBs will just have to have a flag on their person, and to ‘stop’ the QB, defenders will have to pull the flag off the QB’s body. It’s getting ridiculous to say the least. In other words, tackle football for everyone except he quarterback, flag football for him.

by Ayrshire on Oct 5, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe the NFL will realize it's killing itself before then

Nothing will stop QBs from getting hurt like all other players get hurt. So a QB will get hurt again, and they’ll make a new rule to penalize whatever the defender did. As these rules progress, it will mean less and less to say a QB is brave or patient for staying in the pocket longer to make a throw. It will also become less important to get rid of the bad quickly if any pressure that might disrupt a throw is a penalty anyway. So the quality of play will deteriorate. Some pencil neck pretty-boy will break all of Peyton’s records, because he never had to feel pressure, and all his incomplete throws and picks were wiped out by penalties.

Arguments that protecting the QBs to this extent is good for the game or all about money are short-sighted. This rule undermines the whole sport, and like TMQ says, there is no law of nature that says the NFL must always be the top sport. In the long run, the administrators of the league are destroying the game, and then they’ll see how bad for business their Brady rules really are.

by LukeM on Oct 5, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's not killing itself

It’s making more money then ever.

The NFL is first, foremost and always a business. If it makes money, it’ll be done.

by eltharion_doa on Oct 5, 2009 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is it Favre Bowl yet?

/espn
//yes i know I am annoying… :)

Go Colts!

by Marked Hoosier on Oct 5, 2009 1:57 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

-4

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on Oct 5, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You know it!!!

LOL

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on Oct 5, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think you missed the point BBS

Tony Dungy said it himself, the rule says forcibly. I don’t know about the one, but the later one where Brady campaigned for the flag was bullshit. There was no such thing as force there. He couldn’t have pushed an empty shopping cart with that much force. That’s why subjective words like that should NEVER be in rules or laws. And THAT is why the call was bullshit, and why Brady is a girl. If he is that worried about his knee, get the hell out of professional football.

I also wish I had time and motivation to blog at Speed Blue Nation

by Bullard47 on Oct 5, 2009 2:01 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Good point

However, as a referee, it is near impossible to determine whether or not a blow to a QB’s legs was done “forcibly” or not. That type of subjectivity is left up to the referee, which why the rule is horse dung.

Basically, the way a ref has to interpret the rule is if someone hits the QB’s knee (or lower) and he is not blocked into the legs, yellow flag.

SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Oct 5, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

+18

Exactly. If Suggs was actually trying to take out his knee, I can see the call. It appeared that he stumbled or lost balance or maybe neither but he didn’t go into Brady with any force at all which shows he was restraining himself.

A BS call, but since they made that rule I have been waiting for it to be called and it looks like it is just as controversial as I thought it would be.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

by AceOfSpades on Oct 5, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Forget those flags.. The REAL terrible "call" of the game was...

.. when the pats did the gadget place holder throw instead of field goal in the fourth quarter. If the receiver was going for the touchdown then yes he crossed the plane and it would have been a touchdown. But in terms of him getting the first down, HE DID NOT and the fact that they even reviewed it and still gave him the first down was a joke. My buddy had money on the pats and was cheering for them and even he said that call was a GIFT. If the correct call was made (never got the first down), the ravens would have got the ball and there would have been no field goal. The Ravens could have gone for a field goal for the tie!

by ColtKing on Oct 5, 2009 2:07 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Good teams overcome penalties...

or something.

What I really hate is when a player pleads for a flag, and gets it. THAT is what pisses me off. I would be ticked off too if I was a Raven’s fan and saw Tom Terrific turn and beg to a ref and then get it..

I just hope we all remain consistent in hating this penalty, because some of us might change our tune if other teams start going after Mr. Manning’s knees. (not saying I would though… well maybe. Probably…)

Go Colts!

by Marked Hoosier on Oct 5, 2009 2:11 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

A Closer look at the Brady Rule...

Dear Mr. BigBlueShoe,

Although you do make a lot of good points in your article, you are absolutely wrong that the referee enforced the Brady rule correctly on T. Suggs for hitting below the waist. Here is why.

A) Suggs was pushed into Brady. Watch the film. "It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer. "
B) The keyword to the Brady Rule is “forcibly.” Suggs didn’t impact Brady’s knee with force. Watch the film. Brady slid his knee back, saw that the pass was incomplete, then asked the referee for a flag.

The rule:
The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: “A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him.”

Also, Flacco is getting overlooked in all of this. The Pats hit him consistently after release. Almost everytime and this is why Harbaugh was livid with the refs. You protect one qb, you protect the other.

by fbfan1983 on Oct 5, 2009 2:44 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Response

A) I did not see Suggs pushed into Brady. If that was the case, you’d be seeing more “He was pushed into him” comments instead of “the rule is an embarrassment.”
B) Objectively judging “force” is very tricky, and it is why the wording of the rule makes it so terrible. I apply “force” when I poke you with my finger. I also apply “force” when I dive at your knees.

Your last point is very valid. Someone else made the point that Texans players were flying all over JaMarcus Russell’s knees this past Sunday. I’ll just flat out say what some of the comments suggested: Bob Kraft is a very powerful owner within the NFL, and if Tom Brady were to go down again with a knee injury this season, it would greatly undermine a unified ownership front against the players when they start negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement.

SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Oct 5, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Suggs went down with his elbow out

that made the difference, regardless of whether he was pushed

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Oct 5, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Really?

How can you control your elbows when a 300-lb lineman is pushing you to the ground?

"Winning is not everything;the desire to win is" - Vince Lombardi

by rangerover76 on Oct 5, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have no idea

that’s the reason given for one of Vince Wilfork’s fines. If you can figure it out, go tell the officials.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Oct 6, 2009 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It can really go either way

For A…
Fbfan — was Suggs really pushed? While I didn’t get a clear view at the replay myself, the one replay I saw that got played on SNF seemed like Suggs was diving at TB’s leg. I don’t know how many OL players would be dumb enough to push a scary LB like Suggs to his own QB, especially a star QB.
BBS — I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve seen a number of comments about Suggs being pushed in other places, although it is true that there are far more comments about the rule being an embarrassment.

For B…
The key word is forcibly. The problem is “force” is really hard to define universally. Physics would tell you that Suggs didn’t apply any force to TB because TB dodged the hit (at least based on the replay SNF played in the half time). Heck, even Tony Dungy and Rodney Harrison (!!!!!!) said that penalty was a bad call. Dungy said that if the “hit” didn’t have enough force to bring TB down (which it didn’t), then it obviously wasn’t powerful enough to hurt the QB.
But if Sugg’s intent is clearly shown to be diving for the knees, then the situation would be in NE’s favor. I only got to see one angle of replay, so I didn’t get to see what Suggs was exactly trying to do.

So I’d say that there is really no absolutely wrong or right answer here. It all depends on one ref’s definition of “forcibly” and the footage the cameras were (un)lucky enough to film.

Oh no!

by Bluedude on Oct 5, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

on your point

the coaches tapes should provide different angles than what was shown on TV and maybe Mike Perierra will offer an explanation on behalf of the referees to clear it up a bit.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Oct 5, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is all pointing in one direction and I will suggest some rules to make the game the safest possible…

1. No sacks
2. No offensive line blocking to prevent defensive players being pushed towards the QB
3. Defensive players cannot push offensive line so that offensive linemen dont fall on QB.
4. QB must take 10 steps back before throwing the ball

I feel for Palmer though. He is right in saying that the game is more violent than it used to be. How can you protect Palmer without over-protecting QBs? If the league was only considering the safety of the QBs it would be ok. But Brady using the rules in an instance were the call was dubious to get ahead in the game undermines any legitimate effort to protect the QB.

"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG

by LasEspuelas on Oct 6, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The rule is stupid

but if it is in place it has to be enforced consistently. This particular refereeing crew is a sticker for calling by-the-book. Other crews are not so whistle-happy. This is going to blow the league apart if something isn’t done to bring some kind of common sense to the rulebook. Helmet to helmet is one thing – a hand to the helmet is nothing, and should be treated as such.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Oct 5, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

to: BigBlue Shoe

 the rule as u pointed out is:

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: “A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him.”

1. i must disagree with your assessment of the call being correct based on the rule as it is written. the key words id like to point out in the begining of the rule are forcibibly which i see u already adressed but will add something allong with the word Hit.

ill just start with saying in the instance of suggs that there was NO hit whatsoever. a brush of the side of a players leg which in game speed if u are not looking at the player and focusing on him at that time u dont even see doesn’t constitute as being called a hit. i can see what u are saying about “force” being subjective however i think there is a diffrence between " forcibly hitting" and skimming or brushing past a persons leg after u have basically hit the ground already. remember he didn’t run into or roll into or anything into his leg he was landing beside him and his arm made contact with the side of his leg.

also in generally we know how much bull this rule as stated though. i say that because of the last line and something that jumps out at me. as u see it says that it is not a foul if the passer is blocked or fouled into him and ahs no oprotunity to stop himself. well that w
ord blocked into happens on many playes as u are being blocked as long as u are going toward the quarterback and many times see the O line in the process of duing that send the defender toward the quarterback when they are coming around them.

anyway i agree it is worded horribly, and that is why it is so subjective but i think there is a big diffrence between what was called yest. and what the rules said. we saw the subjectivity yest. if u saw what happended with plays on QB’s such as guarard and russell yest where they were blatent and followed the letter of the law of what the rule states and that is probably why some commenters find it favoritism toward certain quarterbacks which may happen but that isn’t the issure that i see.

by ANGELSFAITH on Oct 5, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Suggs into Brady

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnmGSMccDuU&feature=player_embedded

Here is the clip of the Suggs into Brady play, judge for yourself, to me it looks like Suggs was stumbling.

by Ufanforreal on Oct 5, 2009 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

good point out

i looked at yrou clip and it does and if u look close at who was defending him u see his arm extended as if he was holding him or his jersey trying to hold him back. also another thing i will point out about it and the other angles i have seen is that im not even sure that he got touched cause brady spun and hoped the direction suggs was going i think he played that call all the way when he saw suggs falling and was going to be right next to him as u see he pled with the official then when the official called it he pumped his fist which is the sadest part of it to me.

by ANGELSFAITH on Oct 5, 2009 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Completely Disagree w/ Big Blue

While the “Brady Rule” is a good rule, but that call interpreting the Brady Rule was terrible. The Ravens player barely brushed Brady’s legs because they were thrown that way by Patriot players. Watch the replay. Brady isn’t even moved by this contact, but he immediately points to the player – no doubt because he just had a flashback to last year – and the ref threw his flag.

It was a bad call.

by MileHighHoosier on Oct 5, 2009 3:09 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

One for all...

I listened to Trent Dilfer on The Heard this morning and he brought up some great examples of how this rule is the Superstar QB rule. He mentioned Russell as has been mentioned before so I won’t get into that. He actually brought up a similar hit in the SAME GAME with the SAME RON WINTERS making the no call this time. The only difference Flacco was the QB with the ball in his hands. I think the rule is stupid and thought so 7 months ago. However, if the rule is there it MUST be called the same for ALL QBs. Not just the ones that make the NFL money. Are we going to start having different sades of green for the QB jerseys based on the amount of endorsements they have and how much money they make the NFL? NFL Live on the Empire today is supposed to have a great piece from Dilfer on this situation. As much as I hate to say it, I think I must watch.

by emiller17 on Oct 5, 2009 4:21 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Rule Misinterpreted Here:

The whole premise of the article is flawed because it’s based on: the rule is bad, the calls were right. The rule is not confusing, inconclusive, nor means what BBS has said it means. The idea that a defender’s “intent” is irrelevant in the rule is incorrect. The first sentence, alone, is highly suggestive of intent. The defender must forcibly hit a quarterback at or below he knees. Not forcibly contact, run into, brush, breath, fart on, or yell at a quarterback at or below the knees… hit, strike, deliver a blow.

Okay, so the language of that sentence is suggestive of intent but not clear… taken literally “forcibly hitting” someone doesn’t have to be “intended.” The rule clears up the issue in the second unbolded sentence which BBS seemingly ignores. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked into or fouled into the quarterback in the same manner as described in the previous sentence. This makes “intent” a clear requirement in the rule. The rule was created for, and written to, stop defensive players from intentionally running into the quarterback at or below the knees… IE – defenders who are going to the ground lunging at a QBs knees or lower legs to get a body on him. Now we’ll go to the specific plays and see if they’re correct.

On the Terrell Suggs play, he was coming off of a block, was tripped up and fell down… where he fell happened to take him into Brady… who was “struck” around his knees as Suggs went down (barely if at all, some say he wasn’t contacted and I’ve been only able to see it from one angle where it looks like there was contact). Brady turns to the ref and says, “he hit my boo boo” and the ref said “oh I know Tommy, we’ll take care of this right now” and tosses a flag.

Did Suggs “forcibly hit” Brady at or below the knees? Well, he definitely came in contact, but was he driving through Brady, did he go after Brady’s lower legs? No. How about getting blocked into him? Did the offensive lineman strike Suggs as he attempted to rush Brady? Yes. Did it knock him off balance? Yes. Did his lack of balance result in a fall to the ground? Yes. That sounds strangely familiar to be “blocked into” the quarterback to me. Don’t let the distance from where he was hit and lost his balance fool you, because I’m sure some will get caught up there. Unless you can argue that Suggs was not hit, was not driven off balance, and did not fall to the ground but forcibly drove into Brady’s knee area, then there’s no question what the call should have been.

As for the call on Ngata, that was silliness. He didn’t hit, touch, stroke, or otherwise contact Brady at or below the knees. Brady flopped like a fish out of water. If he hit Brady in the helmet, I guess you have to call that because Ngata intentionally hit Brady. But if there was not contact to his helmet, the call was bogus, Brady flopped, and the refs were suckered into handing the Patriots a first down and 15 yards.

Thanks to MarkFive05 I have a new theme video that I hope you all will remember me by: BAM BAM

by bamock on Oct 7, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Indianapolis Colts, 2006 NFL Champions!
Start posting about the Colts »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

RedZone Moments from SB Nation

Pride Of Detroit
Comcast Red Zone Recap: Week 11
Baltimore Beatdown
Ravens Game Release: Week 12 vs. Pittsburgh
Mile High Report
Comcast Redzone Report - Behind the losing streak

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Greatest compliment ever
Bob_sanders4_small
Jerraud Powers: Old Man
Bilde_small
Sebastian Vollmer had help on Freeney 36 out of 44 passing attempts
Bruce-treetops1_small
Ask Baltimore Beatdown: Questions for the Ravens Blogger
Nnamdi_small
Why The Colts Really Won and the State of the Rivalry

Recent FanPosts

They-are-everywhere_small
injury report
Medium_jabe_small
Wednesday Injury Report
Colts_small
Bill Polian Radio interview - Fan 590 Toronto - Today Wed 11/25/09
Small
Freeney Injury
Catscratchreader_m_small
Panthers Sign LB Senn; Feedback on Senn anybody?
Peyton-manning_small
MVP: #4 for #4? Don't Count out #18!
6a00d8341c630a53ef010536a2ca2b970b-800wi_small
Peyton Manning has 42 Game-Winning Drives in his Career. (Including Playoffs)
Small
AFC Playoff Picture
No_1_small
Power Rankings - Week 12 - Final Update
Images_small
ARE THE COLTS UNDERRATED?????

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

Revenge Of The Birds
Arizona Cardinals Kicker Neil Rackers Has Tweaked Groin, Team Considering Options
Turf Show Times
Random Ramsdom: Thanksgiving Edition
Niners Nation
Golden Nuggets: Oh no, not Brown..

Head Writer, Editor-In-Chief

Stampedeblue_small BigBlueShoe

Site Editor

Bob-sanders-081107_small shake n bake

Contributing Writers

Masonair_small JakeTheSnake

Mgrex03_avatar_small mgrex03

Seyton_manning_feature_small KingRichard

Change_small Colts Homer