Harrison TD Return- Penalty should have been called on Fitz (1 Viewer)

[drdgreenlove]

On the amazing James Harrison TD, one thing I havent heard mentioned is Larry Fitzgerald chsed him from out of bounds, came on the field and tried to tackle him... Isnt that illegal? Once there is a turnover, the Offense becomes the Defense... I thought defenders were not allowed to run out of bounds and come in the field of play for the tackle..

Fitz ran about 30 yards on the out of bounds white line before reemerging at the one yard line to tackle him..its not even clear to me if he was pushed out of biunds or intentionally ran out of bounds to avoid a Steelers blocker

if that TD was overruled, and he was ruled down at the one yard line, it would have been a potentially bad oversight by the NFL officials

am i right here?

If harrison was ruled down at the 1 yard line, shouldnt Fitz have been penalized for running off the field and re-entering?

You can see Fitz go out of bounds around 12 seconds in.. re-enter at 19 seconds

 

[CrossEyed]

On the amazing James Harrison TD, one thing I havent heard mentioned is Larry Fitzgerald chsed him from out of bounds, came on the field and tried to tackle him... Isnt that illegal? Once there is a turnover, the Offense becomes the Defense... I thought defenders were not allowed to run out of bounds and come in the field of play for the tackle..Fitz ran about 30 yards on the out of bounds white line before reemerging at the one yard line to tackle him..its not even clear to me if he was pushed out of biunds or intentionally ran out of bounds to avoid a Steelers blockerif that TD was overruled, and he was ruled down at the one yard line, it would have been a potentially bad oversight by the NFL officialsam i right here?If harrison was ruled down at the 1 yard line, shouldnt Fitz have been penalized for running off the field and re-entering?

I don't think it's illegal to make a tackle after being out of bounds.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I know that coverage team players who go out of bounds must re-enter the field of play directly and at the first opportunity or they will not be allowed to make a legal tackle. I am unaware of the rule applying beyond that scenario.

 

[Uber]

I think if you go out of bounds you can't be the first player to touch the ball...I don't think it's the same with tackles. Like Ditka said you have to re-establish yourself ASAP after going out of bounds, but I've certainly never seen a penalty about a player going out of bounds and contributing to a tackle.

 

[drdgreenlove]

I know that coverage team players who go out of bounds must re-enter the field of play directly and at the first opportunity or they will not be allowed to make a legal tackle. I am unaware of the rule applying beyond that scenario.

Perhaps that is what I was thinking of...

 

[tombonneau]

I think it's only a penalty if a player willfully stays out of bounds en route downfield. I've seen it called once or twice on punt returns where the guy has been kind of forced out, then continues to run unimpeded out of bounds.

Basically, as long as a player in good faith tries to re-establish himself back in bounds he's fine.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I know that coverage team players who go out of bounds must re-enter the field of play directly and at the first opportunity or they will not be allowed to make a legal tackle. I am unaware of the rule applying beyond that scenario.

Perhaps that is what I was thinking of...

I'm no expert on the rules so don't go by my sorry recollections. Around here someone wil ferret out the rule for our reading. thee are some real fact diggers around here.

 

[drdgreenlove]

I think it's only a penalty if a player willfully stays out of bounds en route downfield. I've seen it called once or twice on punt returns where the guy has been kind of forced out, then continues to run unimpeded out of bounds.Basically, as long as a player in good faith tries to re-establish himself back in bounds he's fine.

If that is the rule then it should be a penalty.. Fitz ran for over 30 yards without reentering and never tried to re-enter

 

[brettdj]

In high school it would be illegal participation.

The only reference I can find in the 2006 NFL rulebook relates only to the kicking team returning from out of bounds. So this appears to be legal.

 

[tombonneau]

I think it's only a penalty if a player willfully stays out of bounds en route downfield. I've seen it called once or twice on punt returns where the guy has been kind of forced out, then continues to run unimpeded out of bounds.Basically, as long as a player in good faith tries to re-establish himself back in bounds he's fine.

If that is the rule then it should be a penalty.. Fitz ran for over 30 yards without reentering and never tried to re-enter

I don't think he was really paying attention to where he was though. When I've seen it called it's been a conscious effort on the part of a player to gain an advantage by staying out of bounds. Like I've seen guys covering kicks get bumped out of bounds, then literally running behind players on the sideline and then cutting back in. I believe it has to be that egregious to merit a flag.

 

[Blick]

If I remember correctly, one of the deciding plays of one of the AFC games between the Steelers and Patriots was when Troy Edwards was penalized for running out of bounds (down the side lines) which cause a re-kick and subsequent punt return TD.

I don't remember the exact specifics of the play, but I recall it to be a similar situation.

 

[David Yudkin]

IIRC, going out of bounds is an issue for kick coverage and maintaining eligibity status as a receiver on passing plays. I don't believe there are any additional rules other than a player cannot run the length of the field out of bounds and then jump back into the field of play. A player out of bounds would have to make a reasonable effort to get back in bounds.

 

[guderian]

Pretty sure Pittsburgh would have declined the penalty if it were one.

 

[The Jerk]

IIRC, going out of bounds is an issue for kick coverage and maintaining eligibity status as a receiver on passing plays. I don't believe there are any additional rules other than a player cannot run the length of the field out of bounds and then jump back into the field of play. A player out of bounds would have to make a reasonable effort to get back in bounds.

I was going to ask if anyone knows the rule for this specific instance. I'm with Yuds on this one: definitely an issue on coverage teams but not certain of how it applies to non-special teams plays. However, I would argue that reasonable effort would exclude this situation from penalty regardless of whether it is "known" or not. I'm a rule buff, but no official, so I don't know the specifics or how "reasonable effort" would be defined/enforced. According to ESPN radio, Antrel Rolle bumped Fitzgerald as he ran down the sideline, which almost certainly delayed his ability to reach Harrison. So this situation may have taken care of itself.

 

[drdgreenlove]

Pretty sure Pittsburgh would have declined the penalty if it were one.

true but what if Harrison was ruled down at the one yard line?(This is all hypothetical, but what else is there to talk about now??)

 

[Sheriff66]

I think it's only a penalty if a player willfully stays out of bounds en route downfield. I've seen it called once or twice on punt returns where the guy has been kind of forced out, then continues to run unimpeded out of bounds.Basically, as long as a player in good faith tries to re-establish himself back in bounds he's fine.

If that is the rule then it should be a penalty.. Fitz ran for over 30 yards without reentering and never tried to re-enter

I was thinking the same thing when it happened

 

[David Yudkin]

IIRC, going out of bounds is an issue for kick coverage and maintaining eligibity status as a receiver on passing plays. I don't believe there are any additional rules other than a player cannot run the length of the field out of bounds and then jump back into the field of play. A player out of bounds would have to make a reasonable effort to get back in bounds.

I was going to ask if anyone knows the rule for this specific instance. I'm with Yuds on this one: definitely an issue on coverage teams but not certain of how it applies to non-special teams plays. However, I would argue that reasonable effort would exclude this situation from penalty regardless of whether it is "known" or not. I'm a rule buff, but no official, so I don't know the specifics or how "reasonable effort" would be defined/enforced. According to ESPN radio, Antrel Rolle bumped Fitzgerald as he ran down the sideline, which almost certainly delayed his ability to reach Harrison. So this situation may have taken care of itself.

I can look up the rule but not right at the moment.

 

[Wheezer34]

On the amazing James Harrison TD, one thing I havent heard mentioned is Larry Fitzgerald chsed him from out of bounds, came on the field and tried to tackle him... Isnt that illegal? Once there is a turnover, the Offense becomes the Defense... I thought defenders were not allowed to run out of bounds and come in the field of play for the tackle..

Fitz ran about 30 yards on the out of bounds white line before reemerging at the one yard line to tackle him..its not even clear to me if he was pushed out of biunds or intentionally ran out of bounds to avoid a Steelers blocker

if that TD was overruled, and he was ruled down at the one yard line, it would have been a potentially bad oversight by the NFL officials

am i right here?

If harrison was ruled down at the 1 yard line, shouldnt Fitz have been penalized for running off the field and re-entering?

What about the illegal block in the back put on by Woodley at about 13 seconds?

 

[tombonneau]

On the amazing James Harrison TD, one thing I havent heard mentioned is Larry Fitzgerald chsed him from out of bounds, came on the field and tried to tackle him... Isnt that illegal? Once there is a turnover, the Offense becomes the Defense... I thought defenders were not allowed to run out of bounds and come in the field of play for the tackle..

Fitz ran about 30 yards on the out of bounds white line before reemerging at the one yard line to tackle him..its not even clear to me if he was pushed out of biunds or intentionally ran out of bounds to avoid a Steelers blocker

if that TD was overruled, and he was ruled down at the one yard line, it would have been a potentially bad oversight by the NFL officials

am i right here?

If harrison was ruled down at the 1 yard line, shouldnt Fitz have been penalized for running off the field and re-entering?

Exactly. Cards fans have much more to gripe about on that play than Pitt fans about Fitz running out of bounds (on a play they scored on no less!).What I thought was interesting on that play though, is did anyone else think that Fitz might have made the tackle short of the goal line had Breaston not come in late and sort of propelled Harrison forward across the goal line. That's kind of how it looked to me.

ETA: Wow, I just watched the replay. I was expecting a typical inconsequential shove in the back away from the play, but that was a pretty egregious one that definitely affected the play. Oh well. Steelers were still the better team when it mattered.

 

[UW72]

On the amazing James Harrison TD, one thing I havent heard mentioned is Larry Fitzgerald chsed him from out of bounds, came on the field and tried to tackle him... Isnt that illegal? Once there is a turnover, the Offense becomes the Defense... I thought defenders were not allowed to run out of bounds and come in the field of play for the tackle..

Fitz ran about 30 yards on the out of bounds white line before reemerging at the one yard line to tackle him..its not even clear to me if he was pushed out of biunds or intentionally ran out of bounds to avoid a Steelers blocker

if that TD was overruled, and he was ruled down at the one yard line, it would have been a potentially bad oversight by the NFL officials

am i right here?

If harrison was ruled down at the 1 yard line, shouldnt Fitz have been penalized for running off the field and re-entering?

I posted it already in another thread: The Cards did not lose because of the Interception-Return-TD but because of the penalties and bad defensive play in the last two minutes but some disputable calls from the reffs helped at least a bit...There are two fouls on the play, first Warner is pulled on his jersey by the #26 while he tries to tackle Harrison and than the block in the back on Hightower.

IMHO the TD should have been called back, unfortunately those fouls can not be reviewed...

 

[tombonneau]

On the amazing James Harrison TD, one thing I havent heard mentioned is Larry Fitzgerald chsed him from out of bounds, came on the field and tried to tackle him... Isnt that illegal? Once there is a turnover, the Offense becomes the Defense... I thought defenders were not allowed to run out of bounds and come in the field of play for the tackle..

Fitz ran about 30 yards on the out of bounds white line before reemerging at the one yard line to tackle him..its not even clear to me if he was pushed out of biunds or intentionally ran out of bounds to avoid a Steelers blocker

if that TD was overruled, and he was ruled down at the one yard line, it would have been a potentially bad oversight by the NFL officials

am i right here?

If harrison was ruled down at the 1 yard line, shouldnt Fitz have been penalized for running off the field and re-entering?

Refs are in a tough spot on those plays, at that play was total chaos, it being the Super Bowl and all, and these guys are human and you can't fault them for getting caught up in the magnitude of a play and maybe not paying 100% attention to every part of the play.End of the day, the Cards lost because they couldn't cover Holmes on the final drive. Hell, Holmes was even wide open on the play before his TD but let it go through his hands. To the Cards credit, at least they had three guys on him on the TD catch.

 

[Browns Rule!]

I saw this too. It should have been a penalty on Fitzgerald. Just like it would have been a penalty if a Pitt defender would have gone out of bounds to hit Fitzgerald while he was running down the field.

 

[wadegarrett]

funny...you can see LaMarr Woodley clip at that exact moment

 

[The Ghost of Common]

The Steelers won right?

Haven't checked the newspaper yet

 

[Sinrman]

I know that coverage team players who go out of bounds must re-enter the field of play directly and at the first opportunity or they will not be allowed to make a legal tackle. I am unaware of the rule applying beyond that scenario.

Yeah that was my first impression after seeing him run out of bounds and back in was that it was illegal and he should have been flagged. But this wasn't a punt or kick return, so I wasn't sure if that applied here or not...

 

[treat88]

You obviously don't understand clipping.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Probably the toughest play to call is the long return the other way on a play at the goal line. The officials are set up to be watching the goalline, the end line, and both boundary lines. They are grouped closely and are shifted a little toward the endzone. When that play comes back the other way they are starting out behind the play with the exception of one official who is in the middle of the field. Quickly these world class atheletes get past him and soon he is trailing a world of traffic as one after another guy rapidly outpaces him. These situations are ripe for missed calls. It happens all the time. This is the one scenario where it might make sense to allow penalties to be called by replay since there is really no way, absent installing much larger crews, that the oficails will ever be in position to make calls in this scenario. i doubt the league looks at this though since that would be opening Pandoras box.

BTW, the Players know the officials are not in position to make calls in these situations. They receive coaching to this effect.

 

[wadegarrett]

a lot more than you do apparently

 

[treat88]

From the 2007 NFL rulebook bro:Section 5 Clipping

Clipping is throwing the body across the back of the leg of an eligible receiver or charging

or falling into the back of an opponent below the waist after approaching him from

behind, provided the opponent is not a runner.

Sorry. None of that applies.

 

[David Yudkin]

I saw this too. It should have been a penalty on Fitzgerald. Just like it would have been a penalty if a Pitt defender would have gone out of bounds to hit Fitzgerald while he was running down the field.

I do not believe this to be true and am still looking for clarification in the rules.Section 8-1-7 deals with receivers being ineligible to catch passes after going out of bounds,Section 9-1-5 deals with members of the kicking team being ineligible to be the first to touch the ball if they went out of bounds.I do not see anything about defenders being penalized for making a tackle after being out of bounds. I believe it could deemed unsportsmanlike conduct if a player ran out of bounds and behind players on the sideline and gained an advantage to tackle someone (by not being able to be blocked) and made no effort to get back to the field of play. Such an occurance conceivably be viewed as a "palbaly unfair act" and deemed unsportsmanlike conduct.However, I do not see anything specifically spelled out in the copy of the rules that I have that says what Fitzgerald did was a penalty.

 

[wadegarrett]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.Thanks Mike!

 

[treat88]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.Thanks Mike!

Happy to help man. You called it clipping when it obviously wasn't. Not sure why you're being the smartass in this conversation.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I don't know if it is legal for a player to run out of bounds and then come back in and make a tackle.However, one thing that I do know is NOT legal is to put both your hands in the square of someone's back, and then push. Which is exactly what sprung this play for a touchdown instead of Pittsburgh getting the ball at the 30 with under 5 seconds left and having to kick a long FG.

Refs are in a tough spot on those plays, at that play was total chaos, it being the Super Bowl and all, and these guys are human and you can't fault them for getting caught up in the magnitude of a play and maybe not paying 100% attention to every part of the play.

Really? The guy is an NFL referee paid to do a job. And not just any NFL ref, an NFL referee in the SUPER BOWL.So no, I'm sorry but "oh sorry about that one guys, I got too excited watching the game to do my job and make a call that could determine the champion of a multi-billion dollar league" is not a reasonable excuse.

Probably the toughest play to call is the long return the other way on a play at the goal line. The officials are set up to be watching the goalline, the end line, and both boundary lines. They are grouped closely and are shifted a little toward the endzone. When that play comes back the other way they are starting out behind the play with the exception of one official who is in the middle of the field.

Doesn't the head ref line up well behind the QB? That might have been the guy you were talking about in the middle of the field, but I would think that even if they ran past him he could have seen that block if he were running behind the play. It was right out in the open.And if they legitimately can't see it, why not think about employing another guy to stand way behind the play to make those calls, even if it's just in the playoffs/Super Bowl? It's not like the NFL doesn't have the money, and it seems kind of crazy for them to know that they have no one in position to make the call on those types of plays and just say "meh, whatever, they can just play without refs for a few seconds". We've seen how big of an effect that can have now.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

You know the funniest thing about that play? I just noticed after watching it that Fitzgerald ran into an Arizona bench player on the sidelines and came to a complete stop, otherwise he would've caught Harrison about 10-15 yards earler.

 

[tombonneau]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.Thanks Mike!

Happy to help man. You called it clipping it obviously wasn't. Not sure why you're being the smartass in this conversation.

You're right, it wasn't clipping; it was a Block in the Back, and a textbook one at that. But as a previous poster rather cogently posted, it's tough to come down too hard on the officials for missing penalties like that when the defense gets a turnover, as everyone is out of position and running with their hair on fire. Just part of the game.Another hypothetical: Had the block in the back been called, would the ball have been spotted back from the foul with the time on the clock at time of penalty, or would the half have ended as time expired at the end of the play? I believe the latter, correct? A half cannot end on a defensive penalty, but can on an offensive one. (Pitt obviously was on "offense" as they had the ball.)

 

[wadegarrett]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.Thanks Mike!

Happy to help man. You called it clipping when it obviously wasn't. Not sure why you're being the smartass in this conversation.

Blocks in the back are routinely (and erroneously) called clipping. You could have just stated that from the beginning instead of your "You obviously don't understand clipping" comment. An obvious attempt to belittle another poster.

 

[treat88]

Blocks in the back are routinely (and erroneously) called clipping. You could have just stated that from the beginning instead of your "You obviously don't understand clipping" comment. An obvious attempt to belittle another poster.

I didn't mean to start a pissing contest. Apologies if it came across that way. Typing doesn't convey off-hand comments well. It was glib and i could have expressed myself better. My bad.

You're right, it wasn't clipping; it was a Block in the Back, and a textbook one at that.

No. It was borderline and the type of play that is not called as frequently as it is called. In fact, as close as that was it's a pretty good no call.

However, one thing that I do know is NOT legal is to put both your hands in the square of someone's back, and then push.

The side/back of the shoulder is hardly the square of someone's back. Particularly as Hightower rotated to avoid contact as he saw Woodley approaching.I understand the point people are trying to make about this play, but it's a play that is awfully tough to criticize in context.

 

[David Yudkin]

Blocks in the back are routinely (and erroneously) called clipping. You could have just stated that from the beginning instead of your "You obviously don't understand clipping" comment. An obvious attempt to belittle another poster.

I didn't mean to start a pissing contest. Apologies if it came across that way. Typing doesn't convey off-hand comments well. It was glib and i could have expressed myself better. My bad.

You're right, it wasn't clipping; it was a Block in the Back, and a textbook one at that.

No. It was borderline and the type of play that is not called as frequently as it is called. In fact, as close as that was it's a pretty good no call.

However, one thing that I do know is NOT legal is to put both your hands in the square of someone's back, and then push.

The side/back of the shoulder is hardly the square of someone's back. Particularly as Hightower rotated to avoid contact as he saw Woodley approaching.I understand the point people are trying to make about this play, but it's a play that is awfully tough to criticize in context.

I coach youth football, and that was not a block in the back. As long as you have an angle and hit someone in the shoulder it's not a penalty. An illegal block in the back has to be from directly behind the player, not from the side.I've watched the replay a dozen times and don't see a penalty on either side.

 

[toenail_23]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.Thanks Mike!

Happy to help man. You called it clipping when it obviously wasn't. Not sure why you're being the smartass in this conversation.

Blocks in the back are routinely (and erroneously) called clipping. You could have just stated that from the beginning instead of your "You obviously don't understand clipping" comment. An obvious attempt to belittle another poster.

What's your thoughts on Fitzgerald's block in the back on Boldin's 45 yard catch in the second quarter. Two hands square in the back. More obvious than hands on the shoulder IMO.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

My understanding was that "tacklers" are not allowed to run out of bounds to avoid being blocked: special teams is where it usually appplies but it certainly applies in this instance. Heck Fitzgerald was out of bounds when he finally tackled Harrison. Funny thing is that if you watch the whole play Fitz runs into Antrel Rolle on the sideline at the Cards 30 because Rolle wasn't back the standard 5 yards (also could be a penalty). This may have cost the Cards the game as Fitz surely would have run Harrison down. Also, when Harrison finally hits the ground there are 2 seconds left on the clock. Lots of controversy on that single play.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.

Thanks Mike!

Happy to help man. You called it clipping when it obviously wasn't. Not sure why you're being the smartass in this conversation.

Blocks in the back are routinely (and erroneously) called clipping. You could have just stated that from the beginning instead of your "You obviously don't understand clipping" comment. An obvious attempt to belittle another poster.

What's your thoughts on Fitzgerald's block in the back on Boldin's 45 yard catch in the second quarter. Two hands square in the back. More obvious than hands on the shoulder IMO.

Anyone trying to somehow rationalize that as being his shoulder has clearly already made up their mind about what they want to believe, is not really worth discussing it with.And FWIW, I don't recall seeing anything on the player you're talking about so I can't really comment on it, unless there's a video somewhere.

 

[David Yudkin]

My understanding was that "tacklers" are not allowed to run out of bounds to avoid being blocked: special teams is where it usually appplies but it certainly applies in this instance. Heck Fitzgerald was out of bounds when he finally tackled Harrison. Funny thing is that if you watch the whole play Fitz runs into Antrel Rolle on the sideline at the Cards 30 because Rolle wasn't back the standard 5 yards (also could be a penalty). This may have cost the Cards the game as Fitz surely would have run Harrison down. Also, when Harrison finally hits the ground there are 2 seconds left on the clock. Lots of controversy on that single play.

Special teams is where it applies . . . becuase there are rules designated for special teams plays (ie, change of possession kicking/punting plays). To the best of my knowledge, there are no such SPECIFIC rules for "regular" plays.For those suggesting that what Fitzgerald did was illegal, please cite a specific rule (as in rule number, section, and paragraph).

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

My understanding was that "tacklers" are not allowed to run out of bounds to avoid being blocked: special teams is where it usually appplies but it certainly applies in this instance. Heck Fitzgerald was out of bounds when he finally tackled Harrison. Funny thing is that if you watch the whole play Fitz runs into Antrel Rolle on the sideline at the Cards 30 because Rolle wasn't back the standard 5 yards (also could be a penalty). This may have cost the Cards the game as Fitz surely would have run Harrison down. Also, when Harrison finally hits the ground there are 2 seconds left on the clock. Lots of controversy on that single play.

Special teams is where it applies . . . becuase there are rules designated for special teams plays (ie, change of possession kicking/punting plays). To the best of my knowledge, there are no such SPECIFIC rules for "regular" plays.For those suggesting that what Fitzgerald did was illegal, please cite a specific rule (as in rule number, section, and paragraph).

I don't have the NFL rulebook handy, nor am I sure what the specific rules are on defenders being out of bounds. I am just stating that an interception return and a punt return have similar dynamics and clearly Larry Fitz was running out of bounds in order to avoid being blocked. In the end it's not a big deal either way as the Steelers scored the TD.

 

[David Yudkin]

Anyone trying to somehow rationalize that as being his shoulder has clearly already made up their mind about what they want to believe, is not really worth discussing it with.

No one has to rationalize it not being a block in the back or a block in the shoulder pad. A block in the back, as told to me by several officials, is a block between the numbers and between the shoulder pads FROM BEHIND. In this case, the blocker hits the right shoulder pad from the side and does not have two hands between the player's numbers between both shoulder pads from the back when he pushes him.You may think it's a block on the back, but it will never be called that way.

 

[toenail_23]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.

Thanks Mike!

Happy to help man. You called it clipping when it obviously wasn't. Not sure why you're being the smartass in this conversation.

Blocks in the back are routinely (and erroneously) called clipping. You could have just stated that from the beginning instead of your "You obviously don't understand clipping" comment. An obvious attempt to belittle another poster.

What's your thoughts on Fitzgerald's block in the back on Boldin's 45 yard catch in the second quarter. Two hands square in the back. More obvious than hands on the shoulder IMO.

Anyone trying to somehow rationalize that as being his shoulder has clearly already made up their mind about what they want to believe, is not really worth discussing it with.And FWIW, I don't recall seeing anything on the player you're talking about so I can't really comment on it, unless there's a video somewhere.

Video1:54 mark. Not a real big difference in terms or yards but if you want to complain about Woodley then you should about this too.

If you stop the video at 2:45, you'll see where Woodley's hands are.

 

[David Yudkin]

My understanding was that "tacklers" are not allowed to run out of bounds to avoid being blocked: special teams is where it usually appplies but it certainly applies in this instance. Heck Fitzgerald was out of bounds when he finally tackled Harrison. Funny thing is that if you watch the whole play Fitz runs into Antrel Rolle on the sideline at the Cards 30 because Rolle wasn't back the standard 5 yards (also could be a penalty). This may have cost the Cards the game as Fitz surely would have run Harrison down. Also, when Harrison finally hits the ground there are 2 seconds left on the clock. Lots of controversy on that single play.

Special teams is where it applies . . . becuase there are rules designated for special teams plays (ie, change of possession kicking/punting plays). To the best of my knowledge, there are no such SPECIFIC rules for "regular" plays.For those suggesting that what Fitzgerald did was illegal, please cite a specific rule (as in rule number, section, and paragraph).

I don't have the NFL rulebook handy, nor am I sure what the specific rules are on defenders being out of bounds. I am just stating that an interception return and a punt return have similar dynamics and clearly Larry Fitz was running out of bounds in order to avoid being blocked. In the end it's not a big deal either way as the Steelers scored the TD.

I do have an official rule book handy, and I can tell you that there are specific rules on kicking plays. Interceptions ARE NOT kicking plays. One would think that they would specifiy "on all plays" if they wanted it to apply to all plays.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Anyone trying to somehow rationalize that as being his shoulder has clearly already made up their mind about what they want to believe, is not really worth discussing it with.

No one has to rationalize it not being a block in the back or a block in the shoulder pad. A block in the back, as told to me by several officials, is a block between the numbers and between the shoulder pads FROM BEHIND. In this case, the blocker hits the right shoulder pad from the side and does not have two hands between the player's numbers between both shoulder pads from the back when he pushes him.You may think it's a block on the back, but it will never be called that way.

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2311/blockinthebackor5.jpg

 

[Sheriff66]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.

Thanks Mike!

Happy to help man. You called it clipping when it obviously wasn't. Not sure why you're being the smartass in this conversation.

Blocks in the back are routinely (and erroneously) called clipping. You could have just stated that from the beginning instead of your "You obviously don't understand clipping" comment. An obvious attempt to belittle another poster.

What's your thoughts on Fitzgerald's block in the back on Boldin's 45 yard catch in the second quarter. Two hands square in the back. More obvious than hands on the shoulder IMO.

Anyone trying to somehow rationalize that as being his shoulder has clearly already made up their mind about what they want to believe, is not really worth discussing it with.And FWIW, I don't recall seeing anything on the player you're talking about so I can't really comment on it, unless there's a video somewhere.

Video1:54 mark. Not a real big difference in terms or yards but if you want to complain about Woodley then you should about this too.

Is this the Fitz block in the back on McFadden during the Boldin catch ?

 

[toenail_23]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.

Thanks Mike!

Happy to help man. You called it clipping when it obviously wasn't. Not sure why you're being the smartass in this conversation.

Blocks in the back are routinely (and erroneously) called clipping. You could have just stated that from the beginning instead of your "You obviously don't understand clipping" comment. An obvious attempt to belittle another poster.

What's your thoughts on Fitzgerald's block in the back on Boldin's 45 yard catch in the second quarter. Two hands square in the back. More obvious than hands on the shoulder IMO.

Anyone trying to somehow rationalize that as being his shoulder has clearly already made up their mind about what they want to believe, is not really worth discussing it with.And FWIW, I don't recall seeing anything on the player you're talking about so I can't really comment on it, unless there's a video somewhere.

Video1:54 mark. Not a real big difference in terms or yards but if you want to complain about Woodley then you should about this too.

Is this the Fitz block in the back on McFadden during the Boldin catch ?

Yes.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Anyone trying to somehow rationalize that as being his shoulder has clearly already made up their mind about what they want to believe, is not really worth discussing it with.

No one has to rationalize it not being a block in the back or a block in the shoulder pad. A block in the back, as told to me by several officials, is a block between the numbers and between the shoulder pads FROM BEHIND. In this case, the blocker hits the right shoulder pad from the side and does not have two hands between the player's numbers between both shoulder pads from the back when he pushes him.

This says otherwise...http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2311/blockinthebackor5.jpg