emoney_33
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Messages
- 5,218
- Reaction score
- 42
Folks, lunging at a QBs legs in order to tackle him is legal, just like lunging at a RBs legs in order to make a tackle is legal.
No, no it is not
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Folks, lunging at a QBs legs in order to tackle him is legal, just like lunging at a RBs legs in order to make a tackle is legal.
No, no it is not
Yes it is, so long as you aren't diving at the legs when you have other options to make a play - i.e. you blitz untouched and instead of hitting the QB high, you dive at his knees. If you are blocked to the ground, you don't need to stand up before trying to tackle the opposing QB.
Did you even watch the game? Morris took him to the ground and Pollard had to dig and claw at the turf with his hands and feet just to get in a crawling position to get to Brady, all the while with Morris on his back. Go to NFL.com and watch the actual play. Keep your eye on #34.
No, no it is not
Can someone please post the rule against hitting below the knees. And not the one previously listed, as this rule was not broken.
You are actually arguing stuff that doesn't matter. Trying to prove futile points with STILL pictures as if momentum and real-time has nothing to do with anything.
THe fact is he was blocked to the ground, Sammy got off him, he got to all 4's and LUNGED at Brady's legs... He didn't attempt to tackle anywhere, he just LUNGED at the knees. At best you can say is that it was a horrible decision by him without intent to injure. Regardless of intent, he should NOT have lunged at Brady's legs.
Can someone please post the rule against hitting below the knees. And not the one previously listed, as this rule was not broken.
Gross hyperbole is not going to win you this argument.
Morris took him to the ground and once Pollard was down, Morris was allowing him to get up because you can't lay on a blocked player. Morris wasn't allowing him to get up, stand up, he just wasn't laying on him. Pollard was knocked down and had a 230 pound RB badgering him. All the while, Brady still held the ball. Pollard, having to do his job, never relented and attempted to tackle Brady by reaching his arms out and hooking his legs. Brady, unfortunately, got injured on a play that has happened to him and countless other quarterbacks countless times without injury. It sucks.
But that doesn't make it illegal or dirty.
How the hell was Wilfork's path to the QB last year any less "restricted" than Pollard's? Wilfork was pushed into Losman, Pollard had Morris on his back.
Wilfork hit Losman while falling down and trying to break his fall.
Pollard lunged from the ground helmet first into Brady's knee.
If what Wilkford did was against the rules, and apparently it was because he was fined, then what Pollard did is against the rules as well. Wilfork was restricted by a lineman pushing him, Pollard was restricted by Morris. What is the difference?
What does this rule only cover completely unblocked blitzers? Thats not how they enforced it against Wilfork.
I'm fairly certain the league ruled Wilfork's hit dirty not because of the actual hit, but because the hit happened after Losman threw the ball (although not very long after). You can argue unnecessary roughness with Wilfork's, you can't with Pollard's (as per the NFL Rule Book).
WATCH THE PLAY AGAIN. He did not "reach his arms out", he LUNGED his entire body in a direct stream to Brady's knee.
So you are saying that Morris HAD to get off him and that he SHOULD have lunged at Brady's knees and not get up? Yea that's not friggin asking for more QB injuries or anything. Seriously, listen to yourself. IT WAS DIRTY...
Lunging at the knees, whether starting from standing or lying, is dirty period.
You are being irrational by trying to force yourself to be rational so as to not look biased.
Whatever. Continue to argue "dirtiness," which assumes knowledge of intent and in doing so you allow for interpretation. I am arguing legality and defining dirty as illegal.
How many times must I point to the actual rule book, actual visual evidence, or actual reasoning for you to realize that the play was in no way illegal and will, therefore, have no repercussions aside from the terrible one of losing a league MVP in week one?
| 30 | 2K |
| 6 | 1K |
| 29 | 6K |
| 17 | 566 |
| 19 | 1K |
From our archive - this week all-time:
June 4 - June 19 (Through 26yrs)











