Welcome to PatsFans.com

Rules Clarification - Whitlock Crying

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by patsfaninpittsburgh, Sep 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. patsfaninpittsburgh

    patsfaninpittsburgh Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Can anyone provide a rule clarification?

    McNabb homer, Whitlock is whining and wondering if the league will come up with a "McNabb Rule" after his injury Sunday akin the the "Brady Rule". Here's what seems confusing:

    McNabb scored and was on the ground. NFL rules are already in the books concerning late hits. He got hit with an apparent "late hit". Why the officials didn't call I don't know. Maybe they thought it wasn't "late".

    Does this infer a "late hit" on the QB will be more severe or just McNabb.

    He's whining that the hit on Brady was legit. What exactly happened to the Carson Palmer rule? At one point, the rule specified hitting the QB. Did that rule get actually removed?

    Was big Vince tagged for the "Brady Rule" or the "Palmer Rule"?

    :confused:
     
  2. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    31,048
    Likes Received:
    578
    Ratings:
    +1,749 / 16 / -5

    Re: Rules Clarification- Whitlock Crying

    Whitlock is just upset that when McNabb went down that they didn't consider his best friend, Jeff George, to replace him.
     
  3. ALP

    ALP Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    7,524
    Likes Received:
    20
    Ratings:
    +56 / 2 / -0

    Re: Rules Clarification- Whitlock Crying

    mcNabb got hit late, there is no real question...

    he was on the ground, with the ball, and had a TD, for a WHILE, before he got hit....it should have been flagged

    HOWEVER, philly was up quite handily, and he went for the TD, and yea he really should have, but carolina got pissed, and hit him....he should have been watching out for himself as well....

    and no, no new rule needs to be applied, b/c more often than not, it will prob be misinterpreted by the damn refs, kinda like our last game and its two bogus calls
     
  4. BradyManny

    BradyManny Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +101 / 4 / -0

    Re: Rules Clarification- Whitlock Crying

    IMO, the ESPN broadcast was completely incorrectly citing the Brady Rule the other nite:

    Brady rule: Steps taken to protect QBs' knees - The Boston Globe

    The Brady Rule is specific to the Pollard instance. If you're on the ground in front of the QB, you can't lunge at him. That's all it is.

    That had nothing to do with the Wilfork hit, yet Jaws & Gruden claimed that it did.

    The Wilfork hit was simply called for being a low-hit, which was illegal before Brady got hit. Why the hit on Brady wasn't called RTP or a personal foul for going low, who knows? If #75 for the Pats had delivered that hit, you can be damn sure he would've gotten a hefty fine.
     
  5. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    31,048
    Likes Received:
    578
    Ratings:
    +1,749 / 16 / -5

    Re: Rules Clarification- Whitlock Crying

    Yeah, I said it at the time that I thought that you had to be on the ground and lunged at the QB to be the Brady rule.
     
  6. signbabybrady

    signbabybrady Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    8,999
    Likes Received:
    109
    Ratings:
    +184 / 1 / -1

    #24 Jersey

    kind of off topic but I think thi thread makes a good segway.


    Am I the only one who thinks late hits are called much quicker when your out of bounds than in the middle of the field????

    I think the out of bounds late hits a really annoying. Unless it is blatant you should be OK to many times you see players fake out of bounds and go up field for more so as a defender as long as you aren't being cheap you should be OK. I think the play should have to be clearly over and not just a step out of bounds.

    to get back on topic I also think the QB protection rules are getting a little out of hand if you add them all up it is pretty crazy. You can't hit him high even a tap on the head can be called, you can't hit him low, you can't hit him if your on the ground, you can't bear all your weight on them so that limits how you can drive thru them even in the legal areas, and you can't fling them down a la AD. Did I miss anything? It is ridiculous I know the QBs are important to the league and teams but this is supposed to be TACKLE football now it seems you are better off wrapping the guy up and waiting for the whistle rather than tackling him. And the worst part is it doesn't really seem to liimit injuries to the QB that much or at least it doesn't seem like we lose QBs any more or less than in the past.
     
  7. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    21,050
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +393 / 33 / -5

    The hit on McNabb was much more flagrant than Wilfork's hit. No new rules are needed, just clarifications of the exisiting rules. I have no question that this will happen in the weekly evaluations of the calls and non-calls of the week. Of course, that won't prevent us from believing that the refs are out to get us. There is no real solution for conspiracy theorists.
     
  8. patsfaninpittsburgh

    patsfaninpittsburgh Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0


    Watching NFL Replay last night, AD referred to that, and a certain play in Arizona.

    Both "roughing" calls were important and materially affected the game.
     
  9. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    Yet one was called and the other not. And in fact Vince's has universally been pronounced as a phantom call and McNabb's a blown call given. Not the only ones of the opening weekend either. Still no one here said anything about consipiracy theories. Until you did...:rolleyes:
     
  10. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    21,050
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +393 / 33 / -5

    I give up. I will only refer to comments that appear on the last two pages so not to tax your memory. If you don't believe that there have been hundreds of threads about the NFL and its refs making calls purposely against the patriots, then you can choose to believe that.

    I will agree that no one has posted such a post in the last couple of pages.

     
  11. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I didn't see the McNabb play, but I believe in McNabb's situation he loses the special rules protecting quarterbacks. Now don't get me wrong... he can still slide (where he isn't supposed to be hit) and a late hit is still a late hit. But I am not really sure what Whitlock is suggesting. Maybe he feels QB's out of pocket should still have extra protection?
     
  12. Two Eight

    Two Eight On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    #11 Jersey

    I think McNabb's hit definitely should have been a late hit flag regardless if it was a QB or not.

    Wilfork's penalty was 75% reputation....Vince needs to stop poking other players in the eye though, that's not helping him.
     
  13. italia44

    italia44 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    beneath his criticism,Whitlock has this black/white phobia in his writings.....not overt,but it's there.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>