How is that a blindside block. He is clearly blocking in the direction the ball is moving and not parallel or backwards.
*****************
It is a foul if a player initiates a block when his path is toward or parallel to his own end line and makes forcible contact to his opponent with his helmet, forearm, or shoulder. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wazu:
I did, and none of them looked like last night's play. Hitchens was directly between his guy and the runner. There's no way that the player blocked would have not been aware of his presence. In the examples in the video, in each instance the would-be tackler had his focus on a ball runner, with a blocker coming in from an angle other than directly in front of them.
I think the Packers one is pretty close, but OK, fine.
I still believe it meets the definition, as Jenson and kstater pointed out.
Again, I'm not defending the rule. But that's how they call those things now. [Reply]
That wasn't anywhere near the worst call last night anyway.
Can we talk about the false start on Mahomes? I'm not convinced it met the letter of the rule, and even if it did, Terry McAuley said that kind of false start hasn't been called in a long time.
I almost wonder if the Broncos coaches met with the officials before the game and told them to look for it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by siberian khatru:
I think the Packers one is pretty close, but OK, fine.
I still believe it meets the definition, as Jenson and kstater pointed out.
Again, I'm not defending the rule. But that's how they call those things now.
If not parallel is close enough to parallel then we have a problem in my opinion. The angle was similar to a Running back blocking a defensive end On a jet sweep the opposite direction.
I don’t need a protractor, look at the original picture in the thread.
Originally Posted by siberian khatru:
That wasn't anywhere near the worst call last night anyway.
Can we talk about the false start on Mahomes? I'm not convinced it met the letter of the rule, and even if it did, Terry McAuley said that kind of false start hasn't been called in a long time.
I almost wonder if the Broncos coaches met with the officials before the game and told them to look for it.
I think the blindside call just stung more because that block was actually a great play. Hits like that are part of football, and Hitchens should be praised for that, not penalized. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wazu:
I think the blindside call just stung more because that block was actually a great play. Hits like that are part of football, and Hitchens should be praised for that, not penalized.
Originally Posted by SupDock:
If not parallel is close enough to parallel then we have a problem in my opinion. The angle was similar to a Running back blocking a defensive end On a jet sweep the opposite direction.
I don’t need a protractor, look at the original picture in the thread.
That isn’t even close to parallel
I did and I disagree. It's close enough for the refs to call it. And don't tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about or I need glasses or I'm a pussy. Not getting into that CP juvenile bullshit.
Originally Posted by siberian khatru:
I did and I disagree. It's close enough for the refs to call it. And don't tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about or I need glasses or I'm a pussy. Not getting into that CP juvenile bullshit.
Agree to disagree.
Fair enough. Agree to disagree.
If 95 for the Chiefs turned around and blocked one of the Broncos in the frame, that is the definition of a blindside block. Towards our own end zone [Reply]