"Brady, take off the skirt" (1 Viewer)

[Steady Mooobin]

Like it or not, Tom Brady has played a direct role in skewing these rules even closer towards the point where the QBs will be also wearing the red jerseys on Sunday. Because Tom Brady got injured on a play that had a legitimately clean play in football for 80 years last year, the NFL was "forced" to make such play illegal.

What rule change came about as a result of Brady's injury?

Link

The rule does not have an official name, but most folks in the NFL are calling it the "Brady Rule."

If you hit a quarterback below the waist, no matter how innocently or lightly, it's a 15-yard penalty. And it's not setting well with some of those who are being victimized by it.

So basically this goes back to the Ravens' whining about the one play yesterday? IMO Suggs clearly went at his kness, and that's against the rules that were in place for some time before Brady was ever injured.

:backpeddle:

 

[zed2283]

Like it or not, Tom Brady has played a direct role in skewing these rules even closer towards the point where the QBs will be also wearing the red jerseys on Sunday. Because Tom Brady got injured on a play that had a legitimately clean play in football for 80 years last year, the NFL was "forced" to make such play illegal.

What rule change came about as a result of Brady's injury?

Link

The rule does not have an official name, but most folks in the NFL are calling it the "Brady Rule."

If you hit a quarterback below the waist, no matter how innocently or lightly, it's a 15-yard penalty. And it's not setting well with some of those who are being victimized by it.

So basically this goes back to the Ravens' whining about the one play yesterday? IMO Suggs clearly went at his kness, and that's against the rules that were in place for some time before Brady was ever injured.

Yeah, I thought it was the Carson Palmer rule.

 

[perry147]

Like it or not, Tom Brady has played a direct role in skewing these rules even closer towards the point where the QBs will be also wearing the red jerseys on Sunday. Because Tom Brady got injured on a play that had a legitimately clean play in football for 80 years last year, the NFL was "forced" to make such play illegal.

What rule change came about as a result of Brady's injury?

Link

The rule does not have an official name, but most folks in the NFL are calling it the "Brady Rule."

If you hit a quarterback below the waist, no matter how innocently or lightly, it's a 15-yard penalty. And it's not setting well with some of those who are being victimized by it.

So basically this goes back to the Ravens' whining about the one play yesterday? IMO Suggs clearly went at his kness, and that's against the rules that were in place for some time before Brady was ever injured.

Not quite right.The league's Competition Committee adopted a clarification of the current rule on hits to a quarterback in the knee area or below.

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him." This new provision was anounced at the owners meeting on March 23, 2009.

 

[Steady Mooobin]

I miss the two steps rule.QB's today don't even have to worry about getting lambasted. How many of those hits Aikman took would be roughing the passer today?Imagine the stats and rings if Montana, Elway, or Marino didn't have to ever worry about getting touched?

Aikman? Frankly, I think he had it easy compared to the guys in the 50s and 60s. Watching Meridith, Unitis, and Blanda get their helmets ripped off makes me cringe.

True, but the point still stands.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I miss the two steps rule.QB's today don't even have to worry about getting lambasted. How many of those hits Aikman took would be roughing the passer today?Imagine the stats and rings if Montana, Elway, or Marino didn't have to ever worry about getting touched?

Aikman? Frankly, I think he had it easy compared to the guys in the 50s and 60s. Watching Meridith, Unitis, and Blanda get their helmets ripped off makes me cringe.

Yes. Just another reason why it's so difficult to compare players from different eras with the league constantly changing the rules. I don't really mind the rule tweaks as they meddle with the game. Baseball isn't immune to that problem, but not because of rule tweaks. It can be a fun conversation debating the greatest shortstop of all time stuff but it's apples and oranges. For football, it's pretty much impossible in my opinion to have a meaningful comparison because of the rule tweaks.J

 

[parrot]

:backpeddle:

Backpedal from what? I was asking if there were actual rule changes that came about as a result of the Brady hit as I didn't know for sure if there were or not. I did however, know for sure it was illegal to hit a QB at the knees well before the Brady play. Maybe Brady's injury has led to stricter enforcement and maybe some people are referring to it as the "Brady rule", I could see that, but I wouldn't say that necessarily equates to "the NFL was "forced" to make such play illegal".

 

[parrot]

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him." This new provision was anounced at the owners meeting on March 23, 2009.

Thanks. I'm not sure how this can really be attributed to the Brady play, since Pollard initial contact was right at the knee, but I suppose that the Brady injury maybe did make them more cognizant of it all around.Pollard's hit was deemed legal at the time, due to being engaged with a blocker, and as far as my knowledge would still be deemed legal, wouldn't it?

 

[treat88]

Thing is, given the current slate of rules what Suggs did is a penalty. Total BS, but it is a penalty. I hate to even say it, but it's true.

Sure Brady's the whiniest of the bunch, but the fact that these QB's even expect a call tells you everything you need to know about the current environment.

Harrison would be correct if he directed his comments at Goodell, not Brady.

The QB's wear the dresses but the commish is the one buying the clothes.

I 100% hate the way the game is changing.

 

[zoonation]

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him." This new provision was anounced at the owners meeting on March 23, 2009.

Brady was not "forcibly hit" anywhere on that play. It was a terrible, terrible call.There is no interpretation of that rule which suggests intent is enough to satisfy the criteria for a penalty.

 

[perry147]

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him." This new provision was anounced at the owners meeting on March 23, 2009.

Thanks. I'm not sure how this can really be attributed to the Brady play, since Pollard initial contact was right at the knee, but I suppose that the Brady injury maybe did make them more cognizant of it all around.Pollard's hit was deemed legal at the time, due to being engaged with a blocker, and as far as my knowledge would still be deemed legal, wouldn't it?

Still it is called the Brady Rule - which is what my post is pointing out.

 

[perry147]

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him." This new provision was anounced at the owners meeting on March 23, 2009.

Brady was not "forcibly hit" anywhere on that play. It was a terrible, terrible call.There is no interpretation of that rule which suggests intent is enough to satisfy the criteria for a penalty.

I am just stating the rule - not in anyway saying that the call was legit.

 

[g5jamz]

Flacco>>>Brady

See the sandwich shot he took? Got up...brushed off...continued playing and if Clayton didn't have hands of stone...may have won that one.

 

[Chaka]

The hit attempt was dirty as hell. Suggs went for his knees and that play deserved a flag.

You either did not watch the game or you watched it with your Patriots foam finger in front of your face.

I watched the game and I'm watching the replay right now.

Move your Pats foam finger to the side so you can see that Brady didn't even break a nail on the play.

Does there actually have to be an injury for there to be a penalty? I don't recall that part in the rule book.

 

[Chaka]

Pats hater here and even i will admit that per the rules there should have been a flag. Clearly a player dove at QBs knees and by the rule that is a penalty. If you want to complain that the NFL protects that QB position too much, you can have that conversation, but your eyes dont lie.

Exactly. Maybe the rule sucks (like the "completing a catch" rule) but he came in basically untouched and clearly went low at Brady's knees. Absolutely deserved a flag and probably a fine.

I agree though I don't think that Suggs made enough (if any) contact to warrant a flag.

That was only because Brady was able to get out of the way. Does that mean it doesn't count as unsportsmanlike conduct?

It is also unsportsmanlike conduct to horsecollar a runner. Should a penalty be called if the guy tries to grab a player by the collar but misses?

Should the horsecollar only be called a penalty if the player gets injured?The rule states that a flag must be thrown when defensive players dive at the knees of the QB while he is in the pocket. Suggs did therefore it was a good call. Sucks for the Ravens but it was a good call.

 

[AB in DC]

If yall want to talk about whining, what's much more annoying is the way WRs always beg for a pass interference call every time that they don't make a catch.

 

[Bad_Mo]

I think Rodney said..."take of your shirt!"

 

[Bad_Mo]

If yall want to talk about whining, what's much more annoying is the way WRs always beg for a pass interference call every time that they don't make a catch.

 

[Kit Fisto]

I absolutely love the irony of a Dolphins fan calling Tom Brady "the biggest whiner in NFL history".

Has it been so long that you've already forgotten Dan Marino?

Keep it up, man.

 

[Ghost Rider]

If yall want to talk about whining, what's much more annoying is the way WRs always beg for a pass interference call every time that they don't make a catch.

 

[Kit Fisto]

Can't believe we're on Page 3 and I'm the first to do this...

 

[az_prof]

That's why I said hit attempt. Read the entire post and don't just take from it what you want to take from it. This is silly we all saw the play and half of us will see it one way and the other half the other way. I'm done with this childish discussion. Have a great day.

So now we are giving flags for ATTEMPTING to hit the QB? Not for actually hitting him? Wow. Take the skirt off Brady and NE fans need to take the rose colored homer glasses off.

 

[RudeDog]

Thing is, given the current slate of rules what Suggs did is a penalty. Total BS, but it is a penalty. I hate to even say it, but it's true.

Sure Brady's the whiniest of the bunch, but the fact that these QB's even expect a call tells you everything you need to know about the current environment.

Harrison would be correct if he directed his comments at Goodell, not Brady.

The QB's wear the dresses but the commish is the one buying the clothes.

I 100% hate the way the game is changing.

Sig line that one !

 

[zed2283]

This is the best clip I could find. Granted, Phil Simms says he could have stumbled, but IMO you can clearly see that he comes through the block, no one trips or pushes him, and he goes low for Brady's knees.

http://www.patsfans.com/ian/blog/2009/10/0...hould-be-fined/

 

[Hooper31]

I miss the two steps rule.QB's today don't even have to worry about getting lambasted. How many of those hits Aikman took would be roughing the passer today?Imagine the stats and rings if Montana, Elway, or Marino didn't have to ever worry about getting touched?

Aikman? Frankly, I think he had it easy compared to the guys in the 50s and 60s. Watching Meridith, Unitis, and Blanda get their helmets ripped off makes me cringe.

True, but the point still stands.

True. I guess its just a variation in the amount of cringe involved.

 

[az_prof]

This is the best clip I could find. Granted, Phil Simms says he could have stumbled, but IMO you can clearly see that he comes through the block, no one trips or pushes him, and he goes low for Brady's knees.

http://www.patsfans.com/ian/blog/2009/10/0...hould-be-fined/

Good video. The ref is not pulling the flag out until after Brady gives him the 'the Look.' I remember when QBs were tough and when football was football. Anyone else remember Joe Kapp? This is ridiculous.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

This is the best clip I could find. Granted, Phil Simms says he could have stumbled, but IMO you can clearly see that he comes through the block, no one trips or pushes him, and he goes low for Brady's knees.

http://www.patsfans.com/ian/blog/2009/10/0...hould-be-fined/

You cant tell on the first angle in that clip, but in the second angle he clearly takes two steps and then some invisible force causes him to fall forward in the direction of Brady's knee.

 

[renesauz]

As much as I hate the way the NFL coddles its QBs (some more than others, probably), I expected the flag on Suggs' play even though he barely (if at all) touched Brady. What gets me is the hypocrisy. Because if you're gonna flag Suggs for "intent", then how can you flag Ngata earlier for roughing when all he was trying to do was block a pass? He put his hand up as Brady threw and his hand touched Brady's helmet when he missed. Brady jumped back & grabbed his face like he was shot between the eyes when the replay clearly showed that he wasn't hit hard at all, wasn't in a vulnerable position, and moved towrds Ngata as much as Ngata was moving towards him. Ngata was not going for his head, he was simply trying to deflect a pass & Brady happened to move into the arc of his arm. It was incidental contact of the first order.

This, IMO, strikes at the heart of the matter. It was irritating watching the flag go out when Brady was hardly touched, but it at least made sense to me. The far more common, and infinitely more irritating call is every graze to the helmet on plays where the defender was clearly trying t block the pass.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think it was a good call, as he clearly went low on Brady, but I wonder if the same Patriots fans who acted like Vince Wilfork's cheap shot on J.P. Losman a few years ago was no big deal are now talking about this being a good call...it was essentially the same kind of play except Wilfork's hit was more blatant.

 

[zed2283]

As much as I hate the way the NFL coddles its QBs (some more than others, probably), I expected the flag on Suggs' play even though he barely (if at all) touched Brady. What gets me is the hypocrisy. Because if you're gonna flag Suggs for "intent", then how can you flag Ngata earlier for roughing when all he was trying to do was block a pass? He put his hand up as Brady threw and his hand touched Brady's helmet when he missed. Brady jumped back & grabbed his face like he was shot between the eyes when the replay clearly showed that he wasn't hit hard at all, wasn't in a vulnerable position, and moved towrds Ngata as much as Ngata was moving towards him. Ngata was not going for his head, he was simply trying to deflect a pass & Brady happened to move into the arc of his arm. It was incidental contact of the first order.

This, IMO, strikes at the heart of the matter. It was irritating watching the flag go out when Brady was hardly touched, but it at least made sense to me. The far more common, and infinitely more irritating call is every graze to the helmet on plays where the defender was clearly trying t block the pass.

I agree with this. I hate the graze to the helmet calls. Total b.s. But again, I think it was the right call on Suggs.

 

[sinatravolta]

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him." This new provision was anounced at the owners meeting on March 23, 2009.

Brady was not "forcibly hit" anywhere on that play. It was a terrible, terrible call.There is no interpretation of that rule which suggests intent is enough to satisfy the criteria for a penalty.

Yes - this is correct. Everyone making the "intent" argument is just not paying attention.

 

[zed2283]

I think it was a good call, as he clearly went low on Brady, but I wonder if the same Patriots fans who acted like Vince Wilfork's cheap shot on J.P. Losman a few years ago was no big deal are now talking about this being a good call...it was essentially the same kind of play except Wilfork's hit was more blatant.

I'm not a Pats fan, per se, but I've got Brady in dynasty so I always root for them to do well, albeit indirectly. And I thought the Wilfork shot was definitely dirty.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I think it was a good call, as he clearly went low on Brady, but I wonder if the same Patriots fans who acted like Vince Wilfork's cheap shot on J.P. Losman a few years ago was no big deal are now talking about this being a good call...it was essentially the same kind of play except Wilfork's hit was more blatant.

Just re-watched the wilfork / losman play on youtube. Wilfork was going to the ground as a result of his engagement with a tackle (cant tell if Bills player is #57 or #67). Going to the ground, he made the cheap / dirty decision to extend his elbow into the area of Losman's knee. I believe he was fined for it.Compare that with Suggs, who had disengaged from the block, and taken two steps, and launches himself directly at Brady's knee. I would call both plays dirty, but Suggs' was the more calculated of the two.

 

[perry147]

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him." This new provision was anounced at the owners meeting on March 23, 2009.

Brady was not "forcibly hit" anywhere on that play. It was a terrible, terrible call.There is no interpretation of that rule which suggests intent is enough to satisfy the criteria for a penalty.

Yes - this is correct. Everyone making the "intent" argument is just not paying attention.

I am citing the rule in my post - I am in no way saying that the call was justified.

 

[Chaka]

That's why I said hit attempt. Read the entire post and don't just take from it what you want to take from it. This is silly we all saw the play and half of us will see it one way and the other half the other way. I'm done with this childish discussion. Have a great day.

So now we are giving flags for ATTEMPTING to hit the QB? Not for actually hitting him? Wow. Take the skirt off Brady and NE fans need to take the rose colored homer glasses off.

Which clip are you watching? There is no question that Suggs hit Brady. Again I ask: Does the QB need to be injured before some of you would support throwing a flag in that situation?

 

[Chaos Commish]

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him." This new provision was anounced at the owners meeting on March 23, 2009.

Brady was not "forcibly hit" anywhere on that play. It was a terrible, terrible call.There is no interpretation of that rule which suggests intent is enough to satisfy the criteria for a penalty.

These posts appear to be correct to me. It was a bad call according to the written NFL rule as far as I can tell. You can interpret 'forcibly' to certain degrees, but if you apply that to what Suggs did you're in denial. This was quoted by Dungy immediately after Rodney Harrison's comment. I don't understand why so many are conceding this as an appropriate call. I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion until people involved understand first that it appears to have been a bad call, not because the rule is bad, but because the rule was not violated. There was no forcibly via intent or reality. I have looked for the rest of Rule 12 online and haven't been able to find it, that's why I said "appears to be a bad call". If someone has access to the complete wording of Rule 12, I'd be interested in seeing it. Honestly, this a couple in the Chiefs game, another in the Charger game... man, this is getting silly, and I honestly started losing interest. The Jarrad Page hit on Steve Smith, called a personal foul, was a thing of beauty and the next play is a TD to Smith. That's just ruining football. It's a violent game. That's a major part of its appeal.

 

[Chaka]

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him." This new provision was anounced at the owners meeting on March 23, 2009.

Brady was not "forcibly hit" anywhere on that play. It was a terrible, terrible call.There is no interpretation of that rule which suggests intent is enough to satisfy the criteria for a penalty.

Yes - this is correct. Everyone making the "intent" argument is just not paying attention.

The argument is not about intent it is about action. Suggs dove/fell/stumbled (whatever) and hit Brady in the knee, that's against the rules and the flag was thrown.I think some of you might not throw the flag even if Suggs went Napoleon McCallum on Brady's knee.

Sorry guys it was the correct call. Sucks for the Ravens but it was legit.

 

[benm3218]

I can't believe I am the only one who thinks it looks like he was trying to miss him. He was going high, brady got the pass off, so he tried to avoid him even falling to miss him and BARELY grazed him. Brady is a huge sissy.

 

[Chaos Commish]

That's why I said hit attempt. Read the entire post and don't just take from it what you want to take from it. This is silly we all saw the play and half of us will see it one way and the other half the other way. I'm done with this childish discussion. Have a great day.

So now we are giving flags for ATTEMPTING to hit the QB? Not for actually hitting him? Wow. Take the skirt off Brady and NE fans need to take the rose colored homer glasses off.

Which clip are you watching? There is no question that Suggs hit Brady. Again I ask: Does the QB need to be injured before some of you would support throwing a flag in that situation?

If I gently stroke your cheek are you going to accuse me of 'forcibly' slapping your face?

 

[zed2283]

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him." This new provision was anounced at the owners meeting on March 23, 2009.

Brady was not "forcibly hit" anywhere on that play. It was a terrible, terrible call.There is no interpretation of that rule which suggests intent is enough to satisfy the criteria for a penalty.

These posts appear to be correct to me. It was a bad call according to the written NFL rule as far as I can tell. You can interpret 'forcibly' to certain degrees, but if you apply that to what Suggs did you're in denial. This was quoted by Dungy immediately after Rodney Harrison's comment. I don't understand why so many are conceding this as an appropriate call. I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion until people involved understand first that it appears to have been a bad call, not because the rule is bad, but because the rule was not violated. There was no forcibly via intent or reality. I have looked for the rest of Rule 12 online and haven't been able to find it, that's why I said "appears to be a bad call". If someone has access to the complete wording of Rule 12, I'd be interested in seeing it. Honestly, this a couple in the Chiefs game, another in the Charger game... man, this is getting silly, and I honestly started losing interest. The Jarrad Page hit on Steve Smith, called a personal foul, was a thing of beauty and the next play is a TD to Smith. That's just ruining football. It's a violent game. That's a major part of its appeal.

I kept seeing that replay on the Smith hit but never heard what was being said. So there was a roughing call on that? For what? I thought they kept showing it because it was a good hit.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Sorry guys it was the correct call. Sucks for the Ravens but it was legit.

Can you quote the rule that was broken? All I've seen from one article of it validates the Ravens whining.

 

[Chaos Commish]

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him." This new provision was anounced at the owners meeting on March 23, 2009.

Brady was not "forcibly hit" anywhere on that play. It was a terrible, terrible call.There is no interpretation of that rule which suggests intent is enough to satisfy the criteria for a penalty.

These posts appear to be correct to me. It was a bad call according to the written NFL rule as far as I can tell. You can interpret 'forcibly' to certain degrees, but if you apply that to what Suggs did you're in denial. This was quoted by Dungy immediately after Rodney Harrison's comment. I don't understand why so many are conceding this as an appropriate call. I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion until people involved understand first that it appears to have been a bad call, not because the rule is bad, but because the rule was not violated. There was no forcibly via intent or reality. I have looked for the rest of Rule 12 online and haven't been able to find it, that's why I said "appears to be a bad call". If someone has access to the complete wording of Rule 12, I'd be interested in seeing it. Honestly, this a couple in the Chiefs game, another in the Charger game... man, this is getting silly, and I honestly started losing interest. The Jarrad Page hit on Steve Smith, called a personal foul, was a thing of beauty and the next play is a TD to Smith. That's just ruining football. It's a violent game. That's a major part of its appeal.

I kept seeing that replay on the Smith hit but never heard what was being said. So there was a roughing call on that? For what? I thought they kept showing it because it was a good hit.

For being scary, I guess. The official called it a blow to the head. It wasn't. They then said Page left his feet. He didn't. The it was argued he led with his helmet. He didn't.

 

[Gr00vus]

Btw, here's the video for those that missed it:

Hadn't seen it until just now. That's a BS call and a BS move by Brady. He's like the Danny Ainge of the NFL.

 

[Chaka]

That's why I said hit attempt. Read the entire post and don't just take from it what you want to take from it. This is silly we all saw the play and half of us will see it one way and the other half the other way. I'm done with this childish discussion. Have a great day.

So now we are giving flags for ATTEMPTING to hit the QB? Not for actually hitting him? Wow. Take the skirt off Brady and NE fans need to take the rose colored homer glasses off.

Which clip are you watching? There is no question that Suggs hit Brady. Again I ask: Does the QB need to be injured before some of you would support throwing a flag in that situation?

If I gently stroke your cheek are you going to accuse me of 'forcibly' slapping your face?

I don't understand the problem here. Suggs broke the rule, it does not matter to what degree it was broken.And don't touch me.

 

[VTjkru]

I can't believe I am the only one who thinks it looks like he was trying to miss him. He was going high, brady got the pass off, so he tried to avoid him even falling to miss him and BARELY grazed him. Brady is a huge sissy.

That's the first thing I thought of as well. He was going high to get to him before the ball was thrown, ball was thrown so he stumbles off to the left of Brady instead of continuing at him. Grazes him as he avoids him.

 

[Chaos Commish]

That's why I said hit attempt. Read the entire post and don't just take from it what you want to take from it. This is silly we all saw the play and half of us will see it one way and the other half the other way. I'm done with this childish discussion. Have a great day.

So now we are giving flags for ATTEMPTING to hit the QB? Not for actually hitting him? Wow. Take the skirt off Brady and NE fans need to take the rose colored homer glasses off.

Which clip are you watching? There is no question that Suggs hit Brady. Again I ask: Does the QB need to be injured before some of you would support throwing a flag in that situation?

If I gently stroke your cheek are you going to accuse me of 'forcibly' slapping your face?

I don't understand the problem here. Suggs broke the rule, it does not matter to what degree it was broken.And don't touch me.

What rule did he break? Can you quote what was violated. Tony Dungy quoted the rule and said it was a bad call. I've been searching for the complete rule because Article 2 section 12, or whatever, exonerates Suggs by any definition of "forcibly". If you come up with the rule, that's cool. I'm just going by what I've been able to find online and that is incomplete, but it does seem to specifically address this play (going low); and Suggs is innocent by that section of the rule. I won't be around to respond again for several hours, so take your time finding the rule.And your too skinny for me.

 

[zed2283]

I can't believe I am the only one who thinks it looks like he was trying to miss him. He was going high, brady got the pass off, so he tried to avoid him even falling to miss him and BARELY grazed him. Brady is a huge sissy.

That's the first thing I thought of as well. He was going high to get to him before the ball was thrown, ball was thrown so he stumbles off to the left of Brady instead of continuing at him. Grazes him as he avoids him.

So you guys are saying that instead of staying on his feet, he falls to the ground to AVOID Brady? I'll have to watch the clip again with that in mind (when I get home from work) but right now that sounds like a pretty big reach.

 

[Chaka]

What rule did he break? Can you quote what was violated. Tony Dungy quoted the rule and said it was a bad call. I've been searching for the complete rule because Article 2 section 12, or whatever, exonerates Suggs by any definition of "forcibly". If you come up with the rule, that's cool. I'm just going by what I've been able to find online and that is incomplete, but it does seem to specifically address this play (going low); and Suggs is innocent by that section of the rule. I won't be around to respond again for several hours, so take your time finding the rule.And your too skinny for me.

This will simply turn into an argument about the definition of the word forcibly. We can argue it back and forth and nothing will get resolved.Suggs hit Brady in the knee with force (not much force but I see no qualification for degree in the quoted rule). It was the correct call and it still sucks for the Ravens.This rule is nowhere near as bad as the new interpretations of what is and is not a catch.

 

[Nigel]

Yeah, shocking that a guy fresh off a year of knee reconstruction rehab would take offense to a 300+ lb dude trying to wreck his knees.

 

[davper]

Well he was clearly joking with Brady but it's not Brady's fault the ref threw the flag. Now the call was terrible but IMO that was dirty of Suggs to go for his knee.

Exactly, Rodney looked like he was trying to hold back the laughter.

 

[Tenacious]

What rule did he break? Can you quote what was violated. Tony Dungy quoted the rule and said it was a bad call. I've been searching for the complete rule because Article 2 section 12, or whatever, exonerates Suggs by any definition of "forcibly". If you come up with the rule, that's cool. I'm just going by what I've been able to find online and that is incomplete, but it does seem to specifically address this play (going low); and Suggs is innocent by that section of the rule. I won't be around to respond again for several hours, so take your time finding the rule.And your too skinny for me.

This will simply turn into an argument about the definition of the word forcibly. We can argue it back and forth and nothing will get resolved.Suggs hit Brady in the knee with force (not much force but I see no qualification for degree in the quoted rule). It was the correct call and it still sucks for the Ravens.This rule is nowhere near as bad as the new interpretations of what is and is not a catch.