The Good, the Bad, the Kansas City Zebras

[Darbsk]

On 10/11/2022 at 5:06 AM, jpaulthe1st said:

McDaniels is not the problem. I believe he is going to grow into a really good Coach. He went toe to toe with Andy Reid tonight and was not out coached. The 4th and 1 play call sucked but Carr should have checked to a toss when the defense sold out up the middle. He Just needs to ****can Graham and find a good DC. 

Agree with this except the firing DC Graham part. Unpopular as it may be, I’d see what he can do this whole year before making a decision as in fairness he doesn’t have great talent to work with. The D are playing well in patches and ****ting teams down for stretches (something I could never, ever say with Paul Guenther or guys like Chuck Bresnahan). He’s got average talent with one or two really good players and we are getting results as expected I feel.

[Darbsk]

As it seems a hot topic, the refs were very poor IMHO but I think it was very poor for both teams:

The Chris Jones penalty IMO was a bad call that severely affects the game.
 
There was a terrible call on Koonce which severely affects the game.

I think the Adams out of bounds call was the right one, he bobbled the ball in my eyes.

Refs missed a blatant hold on Chris Jones which could have been a sack or a pressure at least.

Refs missed a really bad hold on our CB Webb on the Kelsey TD run. Severely affects the game.

Refs missed a bad hold by Chandler Jones on a crossing receiver on an incomplete pass.

Refs missed at least two clear holds on Crosby, one would have been a pressure at least. 
 

Refs got the right call on intentional grounding on Carr.

The Chris Jones sack fumble and the Koonce hold are literally game altering plays. At least the Chris Jones penalty you can see why he was penalised even if, like me, you don’t agree with it. Koonce penalty was just unbelievable, absolute nonsense.

[drfrey13]

37 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

As it seems a hot topic, the refs were very poor IMHO but I think it was very poor for both teams:

The Chris Jones penalty IMO was a bad call that severely affects the game.
 
There was a terrible call on Koonce which severely affects the game.

I think the Adams out of bounds call was the right one, he bobbled the ball in my eyes.

Refs missed a blatant hold on Chris Jones which could have been a sack or a pressure at least.

Refs missed a really bad hold on our CB Webb on the Kelsey TD run. Severely affects the game.

Refs missed a bad hold by Chandler Jones on a crossing receiver on an incomplete pass.

Refs missed at least two clear holds on Crosby, one would have been a pressure at least. 
 

Refs got the right call on intentional grounding on Carr.

The Chris Jones sack fumble and the Koonce hold are literally game altering plays. At least the Chris Jones penalty you can see why he was penalised even if, like me, you don’t agree with it. Koonce penalty was just unbelievable, absolute nonsense.

Here is my issue with the Chris Jones call.  If Carr holds onto the ball is it roughing the passer.  With the way the rules are written it is.  He fell on Carr with his full body weight.  He can try to put his hands down but the issue is he did not try to come off the side of Carr and landed squarely on top of him.  I do not like the rule but it is the rule and it has been called against us.  Now is it still roughing the passer if the QB loses the ball when hit is the real question.  I would say yes and here is my reasoning.  If Carr drops back to pass, Clark comes off the edge, and strips the ball.  Just after Jones comes up the middle and hits Carr in the head.  It is still roughing the passer for hitting Carr up around the head and neck.  Same as if he got hit just after releasing the ball.  The rules are in place to protect QBs because of their ability to protect themselves while acting as an active passer.  Therefore it does not matter if Jones strips Carr or not.  The penalty is for landing with his full body on top of the QB who was not in a position to protect himself.  You can not like the rule but until it is changed the play was a penalty.  Now I agree with the rest of what you said.  Refs had a very bad night.

[Darbsk]

16 hours ago, drfrey13 said:

Here is my issue with the Chris Jones call.  If Carr holds onto the ball is it roughing the passer.  With the way the rules are written it is.  He fell on Carr with his full body weight.  He can try to put his hands down but the issue is he did not try to come off the side of Carr and landed squarely on top of him.  I do not like the rule but it is the rule and it has been called against us.  Now is it still roughing the passer if the QB loses the ball when hit is the real question.  I would say yes and here is my reasoning.  If Carr drops back to pass, Clark comes off the edge, and strips the ball.  Just after Jones comes up the middle and hits Carr in the head.  It is still roughing the passer for hitting Carr up around the head and neck.  Same as if he got hit just after releasing the ball.  The rules are in place to protect QBs because of their ability to protect themselves while acting as an active passer.  Therefore it does not matter if Jones strips Carr or not.  The penalty is for landing with his full body on top of the QB who was not in a position to protect himself.  You can not like the rule but until it is changed the play was a penalty.  Now I agree with the rest of what you said.  Refs had a very bad night.

I can totally see your point and I did mention at the end of the post I saw why they flagged it. By the letter of the law you are absolutely correct it is a penalty, so maybe I should have not said ‘bad call’ but that I don’t agree with the law 😄.

I just feel it is very, very harsh on the defender and if it wasn’t called I would have no issue with that even with the current laws.  

I don’t think they’ll change the laws there but I hope they do.

Edited October 15, 2022 by Darbsk

[NCOUGHMAN]

20 hours ago, drfrey13 said:

Here is my issue with the Chris Jones call.  If Carr holds onto the ball is it roughing the passer.  With the way the rules are written it is.  He fell on Carr with his full body weight.  He can try to put his hands down but the issue is he did not try to come off the side of Carr and landed squarely on top of him.  I do not like the rule but it is the rule and it has been called against us.  Now is it still roughing the passer if the QB loses the ball when hit is the real question.  I would say yes and here is my reasoning.  If Carr drops back to pass, Clark comes off the edge, and strips the ball.  Just after Jones comes up the middle and hits Carr in the head.  It is still roughing the passer for hitting Carr up around the head and neck.  Same as if he got hit just after releasing the ball.  The rules are in place to protect QBs because of their ability to protect themselves while acting as an active passer.  Therefore it does not matter if Jones strips Carr or not.  The penalty is for landing with his full body on top of the QB who was not in a position to protect himself.  You can not like the rule but until it is changed the play was a penalty.  Now I agree with the rest of what you said.  Refs had a very bad night.

Curious if replay showed the ball was in Jones possession before he fell on carr would it’s still be roughing the passer? When it’s a turnover qbs become targets 

[drfrey13]

4 hours ago, Darbsk said:

I can totally see your point and I did mention at the end of the post I saw why they flagged it. By the letter of the law you are absolutely correct it is a penalty, so maybe I should have not said ‘bad call’ but that I don’t agree with the law 😄.

I just feel it is very, very harsh on the defender and if it wasn’t called I would have no issue with that even with the current laws.  

I don’t think they’ll change the laws there but I hope they do.

I think if you hit the QB and land on him that is okay.  What I do not like is what Siragusa did to Gannon.  

[drfrey13]

30 minutes ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

Curious if replay showed the ball was in Jones possession before he fell on carr would it’s still be roughing the passer? When it’s a turnover qbs become targets 

I think you would end up with a situation similar to completing the catch.  You can still get a roughing the passer even on an Int and the QB I believe is protected still as long as he does not try to get involved in chasing the defensive player.  I would think the protections last until the play transitions to the next phase.  Similar to the QB fumbling and until he is trying to recover the ball he maintains his protective rules.  Just the way I think it makes since but I could be wrong.

[NCOUGHMAN]

3 minutes ago, drfrey13 said:

I think you would end up with a situation similar to completing the catch.  You can still get a roughing the passer even on an Int and the QB I believe is protected still as long as he does not try to get involved in chasing the defensive player.  I would think the protections last until the play transitions to the next phase.  Similar to the QB fumbling and until he is trying to recover the ball he maintains his protective rules.  Just the way I think it makes since but I could be wrong.

Would the flag come after the play meaning kc gets the ball?

[drfrey13]

7 hours ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

Would the flag come after the play meaning kc gets the ball?

That is an interesting point and would say if the action drawing the flag is not the same action that caused the TO while at the same time there is clear possession before the penalty is committed then I would say it should be treated like a personal foul on an attempted run back of a TO.

What is driving me crazy right now is people saying this needs to end and it is only happening because of Tua.  I have seen this call made against us under similar circumstances before this year.  I think the rule is BS but I have no problem benefiting from it because we have been hurt from it on multiple occasions.

Edited October 15, 2022 by drfrey13

[NCOUGHMAN]

43 minutes ago, drfrey13 said:

That is an interesting point and would say if the action drawing the flag is not the same action that caused the TO while at the same time there is clear possession before the penalty is committed then I would say it should be treated like a personal foul on an attempted run back of a TO.

What is driving me crazy right now is people saying this needs to end and it is only happening because of Tua.  I have seen this call made against us under similar circumstances before this year.  I think the rule is BS but I have no problem benefiting from it because we have been hurt from it on multiple occasions.

I was just thinking crazy out the box shii cause then it would be treated like carr made the tackle 

I think carr gets treated like a running qb when it comes to getting calls so I was surprised but happy he got one

[drfrey13]

4 hours ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

I was just thinking crazy out the box shii cause then it would be treated like carr made the tackle 

I think carr gets treated like a running qb when it comes to getting calls so I was surprised but happy he got one

You brought up some good points and I wish the league would think through stuff like this when they make rules.