More Banjo: Week 2 versus Vikings

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

The NFL is doubling down on supporting their officials. They are now using the Matthews hit as the textbook example of roughing the passer.

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-reporte...203822011.html

I should be surprised that they insult our intelligence with the lift and drive bullshit, but I'm not.

Wednesday, and I'm still mad about the call. I saw this and thought, oh great, now instead of one stupid asshole who blatantly blows a call, ALL the refs will be doing the same thing.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Wednesday, and I'm still mad about the call. I saw this and thought, oh great, now instead of one stupid asshole who blatantly blows a call, ALL the refs will be doing the same thing.

It is completely disheartening. I am completely on board with the pussification of the NFL - there is no option. Yet there is nothing that Matthews did that substantially harms a QB. The case is that he lifted the QB off the ground as he tackled him. That is going to happen to a small degree with any tackle below the QB's center of gravity. It is already illegal to tackle high. There is no legal target zone.

I suppose as others have suggested the way to go is to just wrap-up the QB. Hug him - kill him with kindness. The problem there is you really have to come in high to grab his arms, and an accidental contact with helmets is likely.

A tackle like Matthews made has to be kept legal.

[texaspackerbacker]

The God damned official claimed the reason he made the call was Matthews "lifted the QB" and drove him into the ground. Just look at the film. Cousins did what Rodgers, Favre, and a lot of other QBs do - he was off his feet when he threw. Matthews did not lift him, he merely caught him while Cousins was in the air from his own jump.

As for the "pussification" thing, I've said many times, for the money these guys are paid to play basically a fun game, they SHOULD be prepared to risk life and limb, including the damn concussion thing. If that is a problem for somebody, they can go the Borland route and quit.

[run pMc]

Yeah, that was my thought too - just hug the QB and walk them back to the end zone or until the whistle. You're right about a helmet to helmet though.

It's a bad rule and a worse call. The Kendricks call earlier was iffy too IMO. I think they need to rethink this rule. Yes, it will help prolong the QB's career, but there are lots of rules that already do that. Things favor the offense to where it's like Arena football.
I'm not suggesting they roll back everything to the Jack Tatum era, but they've gone way too far. You gotta let defenders play with aggression, not confusion.

If they don't fix, repeal, or call the rule better someone is going to lose a playoff game because of this. The game should be decided by the teams, not the refs.

[Rutnstrut]

If they keep putting rules in the game to baby the QB. They need to start devaluing the QB contracts? What actual risks will they be taking? Chronic hangnail?

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't know about devaluing QB contracts. Nobody but nobody has the power to determine game outcomes more than the QB - and of course, Aaron Rodgers is the obvious prime example of that. Khalil Mack, Leveon Bell, the best DBs, the best WRs, the best O and D linemen, all of them are the supporting cast/all of those need the right circumstance to make a difference. All a great QB needs is for his team to have the ball, and he either wins it like Rodgers or loses it like Kizer.

[denverYooper]

I don't know about devaluing QB contracts. Nobody but nobody has the power to determine game outcomes more than the QB - and of course, Aaron Rodgers is the obvious prime example of that. Khalil Mack, Leveon Bell, the best DBs, the best WRs, the best O and D linemen, all of them are the supporting cast/all of those need the right circumstance to make a difference. All a great QB needs is for his team to have the ball, and he either wins it like Rodgers or loses it like Kizer.

Spot on. These kinds of rule changes only make the QB more valuable.

[MadScientist]

Rodgers calls BS on the roughing penalty, including the one where he got hit:

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/201...ser-penalties/

[Carolina_Packer]

I'm a little upset at the common take here, "The rules suck. Just blame the rules." If you look at the rules they do not suck if they are imposed as written. Rushers shouldn't be able to hit the QB taking two steps or more. You shouldn't be able drive the QB body into the ground. The problem is that it is hard for referees to judge in real time. The refs aren't dummies, they aren't seeing all the TV angles and slo-mo that we are.

What do you want the NFL to do differently? Some seem to want the old days before pussification. But pussification is here to stay, football has to protect players health in order to survive.

Maybe we could have refs in the booth validate these difficult roughing calls by examining TV, like college does with targeting. Not a dumb idea, if I must say so myself.

I think that's a good take. I assume they look at replay to determine whether or not to remove a player after a helmet to helmet hit, so why not review roughing the passer calls. That way it's not just up to the ref who only saw it once in real time. Better to get it right.


The other thing you could do is make it eligible for a coaches challenge. The spot of the ball is an interpretation by the officials, and in my estimation, so is roughing. If McCarthy can challenge, and someone watching video replay has a look at the play, then they are allowed to disagree with the original refs interpretation. Sometimes I think refs defend the original call after the fact just to keep up their defense of the call. Also, some refs defend other refs out of a brotherhood mentality. If it's brutally wrong, why defend it? You can be all "big picture" and say the Packers blew other chances to salt the game away, and you'd be right. There were other questionable calls as others have mentioned, but when all was said and done in the game, at that moment, that call gave the Vikings an opportunity they did not deserve.

[Rutnstrut]

Spot on. These kinds of rule changes only make the QB more valuable.

Not quite. Part of any players argument for getting paid the amounts they do is the risk of injury. At the rate the NFL is going with the QB protection bubble. There will be no risk of injury. Therefore they should be paid like a kicker.

[MadScientist]

Not quite. Part of any players argument for getting paid the amounts they do is the risk of injury. At the rate the NFL is going with the QB protection bubble. There will be no risk of injury. Therefore they should be paid like a kicker.

Not really. The pay scale is based on how much value they add to the team. If they got injured more frequently they would get paid less because they would be expected to miss several games.

Star QBs also draw interest to the league, so it's in the league's best interests to keep them healthy. However it the protections get to be stupid, that will hurt interest in the league.

[pbmax]

Injury risk is part of the calculation, but not the major one in terms of total compensation. The replaceability of the player and their position do the most work in determining the pay level.

[red]

neither mathews or kendricks were fined for their hits. which means the NFL is completely full of shit when they tell us that they were textbook penalties. both would have been fined if the calls were correct

so the NFL is trying to have it both ways with the terrible new rule

[Harlan Huckleby]

I imagine if the NFL fined Matthews for that ridiculous call it would open up a fight with the players union.

It is back to the drawing board time.

[red]

I imagine if the NFL fined Matthews for that ridiculous call it would open up a fight with the players union.

It is back to the drawing board time.

yup, they gotta scrap that rule or rating will begin to really tank