Chris Jones roughing the passer

kired

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2008
6,482
1,445
113
I give up, why not just make it two hand touch on QBs if you don’t want them tackled?
It was an amazing play
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandwolf.sixpack

IBleedMaroonDawg

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2007
23,159
7,178
113
I give up, why not just make it two hand touch on QBs if you don’t want them tackled?
It was an amazing play
The Princess Bride Boo GIF by filmeditor


Trying to watch the game all I can hear is boooooo!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawg1976

eckie1

Well-known member
Jun 23, 2007
3,253
2,403
113
I give up, why not just make it two hand touch on QBs if you don’t want them tackled?
It was an amazing play
That was a massive swing. I’ve had to play fantasy football to remotely have any interest in this bllusiht game, and it’s still fading with crap like this.

And Darren Waller…. What a ***.
 

ckDOG

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2007
8,231
2,560
113
That was ****. How would a ref suggest he make that play differently? Pull up?
 

POTUS

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,628
3,630
113
The Falcons one on Brady was more egregious because I guess you could say Chris Jones “drove him to the ground” but good grief this is stupid. It’s like it’s a penalty for Chris Jones to obey the laws of gravity. They are ruining football.
 

IBleedMaroonDawg

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2007
23,159
7,178
113
Calling that has reception incomplete for Dante Adams was just as bad

I get tired of the NFL OVER ruling itself every game by overanalyzing these plays. There are times when I get really sick of this crap,

Sure was funny how Las Vegas got that vague defensive holding just in time to give Kansas City another chance for a touchdown after they missed the field goal

I'm sick of Kansas City too, not sorry.

I mean, I don't think they always take care of one team I just think they're ******, or was that my imagination to see Chris Jones being held and nothing called several times tonight. Obvious holding several times but then they microscopically examine a play and determine that Davante Adams didn't have what they decided was control of the ball in his hand when he first caught it and clearly tapped his toe down, yet... It was all for naught because some official said it wasn't a clean enough catch in his eyes.


And they're still whining about calling roughing the passer too quickly right now on my television. They can piss off.
 

Chesusdog

Well-known member
May 2, 2006
3,629
2,071
113
They've got to figure out a way to be consistent with this ****. This obsession with player safety is ruining the sport. I've watched the play a dozen times now and I'm not sure how else "within the rules" a player is supposed to make a play. The same goes for the flags against hits on defenseless receivers. Is the safety supposed to just let them catch it then make contact?
 

sandwolf.sixpack

Active member
Feb 19, 2013
1,132
221
63
Calling that has reception incomplete for Dante Adams was just as bad

I get tired of the NFL OVER ruling itself every game by overanalyzing these plays. There are times when I get really sick of this crap,

Sure was funny how Las Vegas got that vague defensive holding just in time to give Kansas City another chance for a touchdown after they missed the field goal

I'm sick of Kansas City too, not sorry.

I mean, I don't think they always take care of one team I just think they're ******, or was that my imagination to see Chris Jones being held and nothing called several times tonight. Obvious holding several times but then they microscopically examine a play and determine that Davante Adams didn't have what they decided was control of the ball in his hand when he first caught it and clearly tapped his toe down, yet... It was all for naught because some official said it wasn't a clean enough catch in his eyes.


And they're still whining about calling roughing the passer too quickly right now on my television. They can piss off.
I thought overruling the Devonta Adams catch was the right call. He was clearly bobbling the ball while both feet were down and only had one foot down when he secured the catch.
 

IBleedMaroonDawg

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2007
23,159
7,178
113
I thought overruling the Devonta Adams catch was the right call. He was clearly bobbling the ball while both feet were down and only had one foot down when he secured the catch.
Dude why didn't they microscopically look at all the other penalties or big plays to overrule the referees?

Two officials called it a catch on the field.


Why should we have officials when we can watch just certain plays we want to review and watch just those plays in slow motion from several different angles and cameras to make a subjective call? Why aren't the other plays just as deserving of a microscopically examined review by several officials as well?

I know I'm fighting a losing battle, but there are several little hypocritical moments in the NFL that bug me crazy as much as I love it.
 

DesotoCountyDawg

Well-known member
Nov 16, 2005
22,149
9,530
113
Dude why didn't they microscopically look at all the other penalties or big plays to overrule the referees?

Two officials called it a catch on the field.


Why should we have officials when we can watch just certain plays we want to review and watch just those plays in slow motion from several different angles and cameras to make a subjective call? Why aren't the other plays just as deserving of a microscopically examined review by several officials as well?

I know I'm fighting a losing battle, but there are several little hypocritical moments in the NFL that bug me crazy as much as I love it.
Because it happened in the last two minutes of the game. Everything is booth reviewed.
 

Coast_Dawg

Well-known member
Nov 16, 2020
1,217
658
113
Basically the only penalty reviewable in the NFL is too many players on the field.
 

The Peeper

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2008
12,109
5,331
113
I give up, why not just make it two hand touch on QBs if you don’t want them tackled?
It was an amazing play
The whole NFL game has gone to shat, started w/ kneeling, now we've got patches and slogans, made up calls, now concussion protocol is going to take over. I gave it up during Covid, I never missed the Saints or Cowboys games for many years but haven't watched either in several years now and don't miss it ANY
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darryl Steight

Dawgg

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
7,611
6,212
113
I think we're going to reach a point where NFL quarterbacks just wear flags. We're already at a point where it's practically illegal to sack the quarterback.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trojanbulldog19

DesotoCountyDawg

Well-known member
Nov 16, 2005
22,149
9,530
113
The whole NFL game has gone to shat, started w/ kneeling, now we've got patches and slogans, made up calls, now concussion protocol is going to take over. I gave it up during Covid, I never missed the Saints or Cowboys games for many years but haven't watched either in several years now and don't miss it ANY
Yes how dare the NFL try to do better about player safety with concussions.
 

MarkDallas

Member
Aug 27, 2014
2,574
80
48
The Falcons one on Brady was more egregious because I guess you could say Chris Jones “drove him to the ground” but good grief this is stupid. It’s like it’s a penalty for Chris Jones to obey the laws of gravity. They are ruining football.

They sort of alluded to it on the broadcast, but the strip happened before Jones fell on him. Technically Jones is the ballcarrier at that point and was tackled by Carr.
 

Trojanbulldog19

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2014
8,876
4,365
113
Yes how dare the NFL try to do better about player safety with concussions.
See there is this approach which is knee jerk over reaction and justification to protect players and then there is a more common sense approach but when it comes to nfl leadership common sense has no place. Common sense approach is to flag targeting snd obvious hits to the head or way late where it is roughing and then booth review the close ones. Too many defensive guys can't do their job because people don't want Brady or other qbs getting hit at all. It's 17in football. Don't play if you don't want to get hit. The more rules they they add it about not hitting people the more like soccer it becomes.
 

kired

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2008
6,482
1,445
113
They've got to figure out a way to be consistent with this ****. This obsession with player safety is ruining the sport.
The ironic thing in all of this is that they protect QBs more than anyone else, to the point that they are able to play well into their late 30s or even 40s. But I guess everyone else just has to live with the career shortening injuries that come naturally from playing football.

If they honestly want QBs to never get injured, they really should just blow the play dead soon as he gets touched. Completely eliminate tackling the QB.
 

IBleedMaroonDawg

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2007
23,159
7,178
113
Because it happened in the last two minutes of the game. Everything is booth reviewed.
You know that's not what I meant but it's a tired argument anyway. The review policy needs to be changed if the rest of the game does not matter as much as the last two minutes. I know a team can call for a review and possibly lose a time-out. I guess I'm more irritated because I still see some inconsistency in their replay calls that are subjective calls and not things like 12 men on the field.
 

POTUS

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,628
3,630
113
Yes how dare the NFL try to do better about player safety with concussions.
There was nothing about either of those hits (Jones on Carr or Garrett on Brady) that even approached a concussion or head or neck injury. They both simply tackled the QB and I doubt either hit would even rank in top 50 worst hits of either QB’s career.
 

Dawgg

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
7,611
6,212
113
Yes how dare the NFL try to do better about player safety with concussions.
I feel like I need to clarify my flag football comment. I'm a big believer in player safety and I think some (I'd even say most) of the rule changes designed to promote player safety have been good changes. My gripe is that 'passing posture' has essentially become a 'do not touch' posture. It didn't happen overnight, but these calls against Jarrett and Jones have really highlighted it over the past two days. They might as well just remove the subjectivity from it and make NFL QB's wear flags.

Of course, Brady will be the first one to have stick'em on his and we'll all discover there was no rule in place against stick'em until after Brady secures another SB.
 

thekimmer

Well-known member
Aug 30, 2012
7,194
1,052
113
I give up, why not just make it two hand touch on QBs if you don’t want them tackled?
It was an amazing play
The QB position is so vital to any team's success and the NFL wants to protect these investments I get that. So if they are going to protect them this much then they have to counterbalance this somehow for the defense. I hate to go back to the old 'in the grasp' rule but they need to do this and more. The way the roughing rules are being enforced today any contact with the QB should be considered a tackle.
 

Seinfeld

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2006
9,545
3,591
113
The QB position is so vital to any team's success and the NFL wants to protect these investments I get that. So if they are going to protect them this much then they have to counterbalance this somehow for the defense. I hate to go back to the old 'in the grasp' rule but they need to do this and more. The way the roughing rules are being enforced today any contact with the QB should be considered a tackle.
Completely agree and while I share the moaning and groaning sentiment that many posters have expressed, I also don’t think that this as easy of a nut to crack as some are saying.

#1, let’s recognize that player safety and NFL QB protection are two entirely different objectives. The whole concussion issue is its own thing, while protecting the QB is just like you said.. insuring a massive financial investment

Then, no matter whether we want to stop this roughing madness with flags, 2-hand touch, or yellow jerseys, the big issue I have is that the QB position then gets a HUGE competitive advantage on the field. Right now, even though a questionably rough play may get a flag, at least a QB knows that they’re gonna get hit. Think how this changes, though, when guys like Lamar Jackson and Mahomes know that they’re no longer going to have to take a shot.

Bottom line, if we’re gonna protect QBs, then let’s 100% protect them. No major issue from me there because as much BS as it may be compared to the good ol days, at least we can stop seeing these ridiculous roughing flags. That said, you can’t give them that massive advantage and then allow them to be scrambling weapons too. That’s what’s really BS
 

Cantdoitsal

Well-known member
Sep 26, 2022
3,359
2,705
113
The QB position is so vital to any team's success and the NFL wants to protect these investments I get that. So if they are going to protect them this much then they have to counterbalance this somehow for the defense. I hate to go back to the old 'in the grasp' rule but they need to do this and more. The way the roughing rules are being enforced today any contact with the QB should be considered a tackle.
I don't think you should take an aspect from certain QB's who are capable of breaking tackles. Why must plain common sense be ignored? Anybody with any common sense knows the two sacks we've been talking about were legit and posed almost zero risks to the QB's and the tacklers were in NO way trying to intentionally injure the QB's.
 

dog12

Active member
Sep 15, 2016
1,822
461
83
Don't play if you don't want to get hit. The more rules they they add it about not hitting people the more like soccer it becomes.
Bingo.

Every NFL player chooses to play in the NFL, meaning it's the player's voluntary choice. That person could also voluntarily choose to work a different job.

If a person chooses to play in the NFL, then he accepts the normal and typical risks involved in playing.

I think it's good to protect a QB (and all players) to an extent, but it has gone way too far.
 

Cantdoitsal

Well-known member
Sep 26, 2022
3,359
2,705
113
I guess the next rule will be for WR's in vulnerable situations coming across the middle outlawing Ronnie Lott Style Wood. I'm a believer in common sense. I think there SHOULD be a targeting rule used WISELY. It was GOOD when clotheslining was outlawed. (Remember that KC Chief secondary dude?) And I think receivers in those vulnerable situations should only be hit from below the neck to above the knees. Defenders KNOW when they are about to lay unexpected wood so I wouldn't buy "didn't mean to". I honestly think the NFL will be taking a 2nd look at the BS that is going on right now and make some changes. Hope I'm right but you never know.
 
Get unlimited access today.

Pick the right plan for you.

Already a member? Login