"Scattered" thoughts...

[Synovia]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

The point on which i disagree with you is that he went in there intending to rough the passer. T

So you're arguing against a strawman.

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

Is that the equivalent of throwing a flag against me? Ok, I probably did not read all the posts. That said, poor technique or not, Chung's helmet made contact with the QB's head (on the initial hit). Like it or not that will elicit a flag almost every time.

My argument was that I did not think it was Chung's intention to rough the passer.

I am not arguing that Chung's helmet didn't make contact with Henne's facemask.

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

I can find no such reference to an incidental clause in any documentation of the "illegal touching" penalty.

Please provide a reference.

Illegal touching - The Official Forum

Keep in mind, those are actual referees talking about this, not homers.

 

[stcjones]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

The point I am arguing was that it was NOT blatant as Synovia made it out to be. It was simply poor technique on Chung's part. He aimed for upper chest and of course his helmet slid up and made contact with Henne's facemask, that's simple physics because Henne is falling backwards, so the force Chung is applying has to go somewhere so it took the path of least resistance.

and of course his helmet slid up and made contact with Henne's facemask

That is ALL THAT MATTERS......helmet hits face mask (regardless of what he (chung) was "aiming for"......and it is a PENALTY.....cut and dry........

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

and of course his helmet slid up and made contact with Henne's facemask

That is ALL THAT MATTERS......helmet hits face mask (regardless of what he (chung) was "aiming for"......and it is a PENALTY.....cut and dry........

Again, my argument is not about that.

It is about whether Chung was intentionally roughing the passer.

blatant |?bl?tnt|
adjective
(of bad behavior) done openly and unashamedly : blatant lies.
• completely lacking in subtlety; very obvious

 

[PatsDeb]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

Absolutely not.

It was blatant roughing. He put the crown of his helmet up into henne's face. It SHOULD have been 15, and hes SHOULD get a fine.

And yes, I'm a patriots fan. That was a clear blatant penalty.

Have to agree. Henne's head snapped way up on the hit. The top of Chung's helmet hit Henne in the chin. It was a good call against Chung and a bad play by him.

 

[FloridaPatsFan]

Outside of Ed Hocculi, I usually like seeing Mike Carey do our games.

Today, I thought his crew didn't have a very good day.

It's no secret anymore that the NFL has someone at every NFL game that has control over what plays can be reviewed for instant replay. There were almost no replays on several flags today....and that usually happens when a play is controversial....or the flag/play result could be viewed as questionable.

I thought the hit from Chung on Henne looked cleaner than originally called. Chung just put such a violent hit on Henne that if Chung had just put his shoulders into Henne's midsection, it still would have caused that shocking whiplash of Henne's head. Not convinced the NFL will fine him, but they may send him a warning...Chung's intentions were not dirty. It was just a great football play....Still can't understand why the result of the play becomes moot (interception) when the hit happened after the ball was thrown...

The 1st down that wasn't becuase of the flag holder tilting the pole away from the ball...not the first time i've seen them do that. And the camera angle was perfect...that was about as close as a close-up gets on TV....The ref leaned that pole away from the ball until there was the tiniest fraction of daylight between the ball and the stick...pathetic.

We are not a great third down team on defense...which bothers me going into Indy....I hate seeing Peyton get an extra set of downs...no matter how they come.....We need to do better.

Maroney....played great today. He fought for every inch of turf today. I loved seeing that....That could cause headaches for Indy if he takes that kind of mentality into next weeks game...

Miami and the Jets......really hate us. We have been the big bully on the block for a long time and it is really obviously eating away at them....Which makes beating them all the much sweeter and losing more painful.

Finally, Thanks for the great post PFK....I always enjoy your post.

 

[Synovia]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

My argument was that I did not think it was Chung's intention to rough the passer.

1. Thats a ludicrous argument.

2. Thats not the argument you presented.

 

[SpiderFox53]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

Absolutely not.

It was blatant roughing. He put the crown of his helmet up into henne's face. It SHOULD have been 15, and hes SHOULD get a fine.

And yes, I'm a patriots fan. That was a clear blatant penalty.

Yes it was RtP, but, it was also a picture perfect tackle until his helmet slid up and hit Henne in the facemask. I don't know about you, but that's how I was taught to tackle. "put your face through their chest, wrap up". I freely admit I haven't played anything since JV in high school and that was over 20 years ago so things could have changed. He'll get fined, but I think it will be on the low end of fines.

There was nothing "blatant" about it, if his helmet hadn't slid up, it would have been a great play.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

I'm pretty sure the penalty wasn't called on Chung, but on Burgess, who hit Henne helmet to helmet from the rear after Chung's hit. They called it on "53", it was the announcers who decided the ref got the wrong number.

 

[Synovia]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

There was nothing "blatant" about it, if his helmet hadn't slid up, it would have been a great play.

Unfortunately, the nfl doesn't play in the land of Ifsies.

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

1. Thats a ludicrous argument.

2. Thats not the argument you presented.

RE: #2

It was a good tackle, but his helmet slid up and hit the crown of Henne's facemask. That is where it turned into a penalty.

Poor technique on Chung's part for going on a high angle. He should aim for the waist if he is going to hit hard. That is the angle that leaves you a safe margin for error.

This is post #2.

I have no idea how you would interpret this as me disagreeing with the fact that it was a roughing the passer penalty, which in fact I concurred with in my first statement.

My only disagreement was that Chung was going in there with the intent to rough the passer. That is ludricious and will put him in BB's doghouse as I have said elsewhere.

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

Unfortunately, the nfl doesn't play in the land of Ifsies.

But you do, apparently.

 

[Synovia]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

My only disagreement was that Chung was going in there with the intent to rough the passer.

Could you please point out where someone said he did?

I don't think anyone in the NFL goes in with the intent to "rough the passer"

 

[upstater1]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

and of course his helmet slid up and made contact with Henne's facemask

That is ALL THAT MATTERS......helmet hits face mask (regardless of what he (chung) was "aiming for"......and it is a PENALTY.....cut and dry........

I thought Chung was just tired of looking at Henne's mask hanging over his eyes. He was trying to do Chad a favor. First off, Chad's vision was obstructed. Second, he looked like Will Ferrell.

 

[SpiderFox53]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

again, you're wrong.

No he's not. They changed the rule so that if a pass accidentally hits a lineman it's no longer a penalty. I think it has to hit him in the back but don't quote me on that.

 

[Synovia]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

No he's not. They changed the rule so that if a pass accidentally hits a lineman it's no longer a penalty. I think it has to hit him in the back but don't quote me on that.

put up a reference.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

My argument was that I did not think it was Chung's intention to rough the passer.

I am not arguing that Chung's helmet didn't make contact with Henne's facemask.

From what I saw I agree. I thought Chung was going in for a good, hard, clean tackle. I think the helmet to helmet contact was just by a little. He lowers his helmet down 2 more inches and I think the tackle is good (though is leading with the helmet a penalty? I think Chung would have been close to being flagged for that). Chung will look at the film and BB&co will tell him what he needs to do next time. Lesson learned.....

 

[SpiderFox53]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

Unfortunately, the nfl doesn't play in the land of Ifsies.

I wasn't talking about the NFL. I even said he'd get fined. I was talking about your over the top use of the word blatant.

By the way. "Ifsies"? What are you? Five?

 

[Kontradiction]

Why the hell do people try to argue what a player's intent was? It's pretty clear that, unless you're a psychic, you're NOT going to know what the intent was in any case. All we know is that it was a blatent roughing the passer penalty that deserved the 15 yard penalty that it got. Whether or not there was intent is just a pointless argument.