MD4L Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 Watson is getting roughed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted October 8, 2018 Author Share Posted October 8, 2018 Watson taking too many hits for my liking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeEvans Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, mse326 said: You misspelled obvious. That was clearly a penalty. Completely disagree. The defender has left his feet before the WR is falling down. He can't control where he'll hit the WR. If you can't try and break up that pass what can you do? That's not dirty and it's not reckless, it's a guy trying to break up a pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargers Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 That looked like intentional grounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 4 minutes ago, mse326 said: You misspelled obvious. That was clearly a penalty. Yea because it was obvious he was targeting and not trying to break up that pass. So if a receiver bobbles a catch the defender is just supposed to let him follow through and not attempt to break it up? Yea BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 4 minutes ago, MD4L said: Watson is getting roughed up. Hes a warrior. Even if he does keep getting stopped in the red zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 3 minutes ago, LeeEvans said: Completely disagree. The defender has left his feet before the WR is falling down. He can't control where he'll hit the WR. If you can't try and break up that pass what can you do? That's not dirty and it's not reckless, it's a guy trying to break up a pass. That is an excellent reason to change the rule. But that isn't the rule. Under the rule it was clearly a penalty. That's all that matters right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted October 8, 2018 Author Share Posted October 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, Classic said: That looked like intentional grounding. Out of the back of the pocket. No intentional grounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, Calvert28 said: Yea because it was obvious he was targeting and not trying to break up that pass. So if a receiver bobbles a catch the defender is just supposed to let him follow through and not attempt to break it up? Yea BS. No, he's supposed to not hit him in the head. This has been a rule for what 5ish years now? Why are you just hearing about it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 Just now, ET80 said: Out of the back of the pocket. No intentional grounding. No such thing. Refs ruled there was a guy in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I'm loving all these QB runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 1 minute ago, mse326 said: No, he's supposed to not hit him in the head. This has been a rule for what 5ish years now? Why are you just hearing about it now? The ball was is in a awkward position and up near the facemask. Plus this wasnt a helmet to helmet hit. He was clearly looking to make the breakup. Again it's a BS call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, mse326 said: No such thing. Refs ruled there was a guy in the area. Lol I actually think your biased. How is a guy in the area with the ball 20 yards over his head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 Just now, Calvert28 said: The ball was is in a awkward position and up near the facemask. Plus this wasnt a helmet to helmet hit. He was clearly looking to make the breakup. Again it's a BS call. What he is looking to do is 100% irrelevant. It was helmet to helmet and even if not that is also irrelevant as you aren't allowed to hit the receiver in the helmet at all whether with your helmet or other body part. Nothing about that call was BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 Just now, Calvert28 said: Lol I actually think your biased. How is a guy in the area with the ball 20 yards over his head? I didn't say I agreed, I said what was ruled and corrected a mistake of the rule. I would have ruled it IG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.