Unnecessary Roughness 101

[CRA]

5 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

I don't get this.  Nor do I agree with it.

Just because a guy has to go to the office during the week and balance a companies books forces him to make bad calls on Sunday?

These refs have been officiating at almost every level for over 20 years (for the majority of them).  Are high school refs full time?  Because I don't see high school refs make as many mistakes as the supposedly "high level" NFL refs.

You either know the rules and implement them without bias or you don't.  What does "full time" or "higher pay" have to do with that?  At all?  Under what realistic, full-speed conditions will these new "full time" refs be practicing during the week to give them more experience?  Because NFL practices are no longer done at full speed (or even full time) anymore.

I think the "full time" excuse for officials is just that... an excuse.  A throw-away comment to EXCUSE their horrible performance.

I remember the replacement refs from a few years ago.  Those replacements didn't have near the experience that the "professional" refs had.  What I've discovered in that time is that the current "professional" refs who have MORE TIME and MORE SALARY to encourage better performance than those replacements are just as bad as the replacements were.

The one and ONLY thing that will improve officiating in this league and in every league for that matter isn't "full time" or "higher pay"...

It's ACCOUNTABILITY.

When you're not accountable for your performance, these are the results that you get.

this is professional football.  billions of dollars are made here.

it is either to hold people ACCOUNTABLE when it is their livelihood.  These old farts refereeing  are currently part of a good ole boy system.  An old fraternity of sorts.  They look after each other and they make sure their sweet part time gig stays what it is.  NFL could fire them tomorrow and they lose their part time job they had on the side.

Age is age.  You telling me a 70 year old man can processes high paced action as well as he could at 30-40? 

They need to literally clean house in regards to their refs and go full time.  That doesn't SOLVE the issues but it is a step in the right direction.  Then they addresss all the other issues that suck.

[Darth Biscuit]

I didn't see this last night, but damn... I'm not surprised, but it's fuging ridiculous.

 

Anyone that says they aren't treating Cam differently is a fool. 

[CRA]

13 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

 

 

I don't see much gray area in the rule above.

According to Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1(d), Note 2, "A defender must pull up when a runner begins a feet-first slide. This does not mean that all contact by a defender is illegal. If a defender has already committed himself and the contact is unavoidable, it is not a foul unless the defender makes forcible contact into the head or neck area of the runner with the helmet, shoulder, or forearm, or commits some other act that is unnecessary roughness."

see how that put that in there.  only a certain type of contact to the head or neck.....and that is subjective contact.

[WarHeel]

rules state you can't make "forcible" contact....doesn't say you can't make contact.

Rules state you can't make contact to the head and neck area (regardless of forcible or unforcible). I think we agree on the main point. We are tired of seeing our QB abused week after week while the NFL makes excuses.

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

[CRA]

2 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

Rules state you can't make contact to the head and neck area (regardless of forcible or unforcible). I think we agree on the main point. We are tired of seeing our QB abused week after week while the NFL makes excuses.

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

no, the rule specifically says forcible.  Which is why Blandino has nitpicked that word out over and over this year.

According to Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1(d), Note 2, "A defender must pull up when a runner begins a feet-first slide. This does not mean that all contact by a defender is illegal. If a defender has already committed himself and the contact is unavoidable, it is not a foul unless the defender makes forcible contact into the head or neck area of the runner with the helmet, shoulder, or forearm, or commits some other act that is unnecessary roughness."

[hitman80]

2 hours ago, Castavar said:

This year, I have watched less football than I ever have in my 13 years of watching tbh Between the bullsh*t rules that don't apply to everybody, the BLATANT disrespect towards my favorite QB on my favorite team, no celebration anymore, and loads of bullsh*t commercials, it's just unwatchable now. I literally have no interest in the NFL anymore besides the Panthers, and even that is getting hard to watch. It's just so watered down and filled with piss poor quality and reality show drama from media.

Same here.  I used to watch every prime time game just because I was a fan of football.  This year, I haven't watched a single snap from any game besides the Panthers.

[WarHeel]

no, the rule specifically says forcible.  Which is why Blandino has nitpicked that word out over and over this year.

According to Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1(d), Note 2, "A defender must pull up when a runner begins a feet-first slide. This does not mean that all contact by a defender is illegal. If a defender has already committed himself and the contact is unavoidable, it is not a foul unless the defender makes forcible contact into the head or neck area of the runner with the helmet, shoulder, or forearm, or commits some other act that is unnecessary roughness."

Rule 7. Section 2 also states:

"Note: Defenders are required to treat a sliding runner as they would a runner who is down by contact.
(1) A defender must pull up when a runner begins a feet-first slide. This does not mean that all contact by a defender is illegal. If a defender has already committed himself, and the contact is unavoidable, it is not a foul unless the defender commits some other act, such as helmet-to-helmet contact or by driving his forearm or shoulder into the head or neck area of the runner."

We agree that Cam was contacted to the helmet after the slide, correct?


Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

[TheRed]

2 hours ago, grimesgoat said:

Could be a race thing.  But I suspect its more a personality thing.  Cam is a little demonstrative and flamboyant and that's a turnoff to many.

I just don't buy this at all.

Aaron Rodgers, and Tom Brady are both plenty flamboyant, and display their own level of arrogance.

Rodgers made a string of commercials out of his touchdown celebration, and Brady chases down refs screaming at them on nationally televised games.

Someone would have to really have their head in the sand to think race plays no factor whatsoever.

[AceBoogie]

2 hours ago, WarHeel said:

^This

I asked myself if Wilson gets the call. Absolutely.
Taylor? Yeah probably.
Winston? We haven't seen anything to prove otherwise.

All of it comes down to Cam being a polarizing personality. People either love or loathe the guy and no matter the amount of good he does for the community it will never be enough for some people because their mind is already made up about him. Maybe it's a race thing for some, but you aren't going to convince me that the NFL as an organization is "out to get Cam" because he is a black QB.


Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

All you have to do is look at Tom Brady to know it's a race thing 

[WarHeel]

All you have to do is look at Tom Brady to know it's a race thing 

I'm going to need a little more than "Tom Brady is white" to convince me that Cam is being head-hunted by the entire NFL. Let's see some rational thought.

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

[CRA]

11 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

Rule 7. Section 2 also states:

"Note: Defenders are required to treat a sliding runner as they would a runner who is down by contact.
(1) A defender must pull up when a runner begins a feet-first slide. This does not mean that all contact by a defender is illegal. If a defender has already committed himself, and the contact is unavoidable, it is not a foul unless the defender commits some other act, such as helmet-to-helmet contact or by driving his forearm or shoulder into the head or neck area of the runner."

We agree that Cam was contacted to the helmet after the slide, correct?


Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Yes, it should of been a flag.  I am not saying it wasn't.

I am merely pointing out how the NFL purposefully puts in words so they can play games.

forcible is the BS loophole they repeatedly use on Cam.  It's BS.  

[WarHeel]

Yes, it should of been a flag.  I am not saying it wasn't.

I am merely pointing out how the NFL purposefully puts in words so they can play games.

forcible is the BS loophole they repeatedly use on Cam.  It's BS.  

I can agree that they go out of their way to cover up their tracks of BS. I think it all comes down to owning up to their inadequacies instead of back pedaling. Especially in regards to Cam when this stuff has been a focal point of discussion since week 1 with player safety/concussions/etc.


Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

[grimesgoat]

1 hour ago, truthjuice said:

I can answer that and say no, it wouldn't happen. Take out the cocky and dress, Aaron Rogers discount doublecheck move is a showboating move but Aaron gets the call. So yes, I think the white QB would be handled way differently. He'd be seen as being passionate.

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

There are lots of players, white and black, that celebrate TDs.  But with all due respect, Aaron Rogers is nothing like Cam. 

How many QBs are 6'6", 260, celebrates every first down, pretends he's superman every time he scores, wears crazy clothes to press conferences, smiles a lot - perhaps in a cocky way, doesn't do well talking to the media after a tough loss, etc.?  There is exactly 1 of these guys. If there were 2, one black and 1 white and the white guy got the calls, then you would have a valid argument, although with a painfully small sample size. 

I found this article from 2010 that talks about a certain QB that never gets a roughing the passer call, possibly because he's really big and strong or possibly due to off-field issues.  He happens to be white.  Substitute Cam for Ben and the article could be written today.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/541997-ben-roethlisberger-gets-treated-unfailry-on-and-off-the-field

[TheRed]

2 minutes ago, grimesgoat said:

There are lots of players, white and black, that celebrate TDs.  But with all due respect, Aaron Rogers is nothing like Cam. 

How many QBs are 6'6", 260, celebrates every first down, pretends he's superman every time he scores, wears crazy clothes to press conferences, smiles a lot - perhaps in a cocky way, doesn't do well talking to the media after a tough loss, etc.?  There is exactly 1 of these guys. If there were 2, one black and 1 white and the white guy got the calls, then you would have a valid argument, although with a painfully small sample size. 

I found this article from 2010 that talks about a certain QB that never gets a roughing the passer call, possibly because he's really big and strong or possibly due to off-field issues.  He happens to be white.  Substitute Cam for Ben and the article could be written today.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/541997-ben-roethlisberger-gets-treated-unfailry-on-and-off-the-field

Uhhhh, Ben tries to rape women in bathrooms dude.

Please do not ever make that comparison again.