Official Super Bowl LIII game thread: Rams vs. Patriots

[PSUdraw]

That would mean that the Rams actually have fans, I don't think thats the case.
Didnt they have to go to some kind of silent count a couple of weeks ago when they played the Cowboys at home?

LA does not care about professional sports except for maybe the Lakers.

 

[BBrown]

LA does not care about professional sports except for maybe the Lakers.

and then I think its only when they are doing well.

 

[PSUdraw]

and then I think its only when they are doing well.

Yes I think LA is the biggest band wagon fan group in any sports. Funny part is the Kings are there only original franchise as all other teams moved there from somewhere else.

 

[AvgUser]

I am still trying to figure out the hitting a defensive receiver in the 1st half when he had the ball.

Two Questions (to anyone in general, but using this reply for context):
1. Do we actually know if the penalty was hitting the receiver when he had the ball in his possession but could not yet establish himself as a runner? The reason is, they cited #56 with the call. Inexplicably CBS chose to never show what 56 did on that play.

2. If the call really was as in #1, can anyone find/site the exact rule? I cannot believe it even though I think the referee explained it as such. If that really is a rule, then anytime a player goes up in the air for a catch and is hit by a defender, it should automatically be a penalty. That cannot possibly be correct. Then again, the NFL rule book does have some very strange rules.

 

[PSUdraw]

Two Questions (to anyone in general, but using this reply for context):
1. Do we actually know if the penalty was hitting the receiver when he had the ball in his possession but could not yet establish himself as a runner? The reason is, they cited #56 with the call. Inexplicably CBS chose to never show what 56 did on that play.

2. If the call really was as in #1, can anyone find/site the exact rule? I cannot believe it even though I think the referee explained it as such. If that really is a rule, then anytime a player goes up in the air for a catch and is hit by a defender, it should automatically be a penalty. That cannot possibly be correct. Then again, the NFL rule book does have some very strange rules.

I believe #1 they called the wrong number in the replay #56 rushed Brady and did not touch anyone on the play after the ball was thrown. The call was supposed to be on the CB who interfered in the Saints-Rams game that was not called.

 

[Connorpozlee]

That was an absolutely absurd penalty. And if is actually a penalty in the rulebook, the rulebook needs to be tossed out.

 

[PSUdraw]

That was an absolutely absurd penalty. And if is actually a penalty in the rulebook, the rulebook needs to be tossed out.

The funny part is the Flag i think hit the ground before Burkhead did.

 

[PSUdraw]

Prohibited contact against a defenseless player includes:

forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him

lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or ”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body

 

[AvgUser]

Prohibited contact against a defenseless player includes:

forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him

lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or ”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body

Making contact with a head or helmet has to happen on at least 50% of every football play. The word "forcibly" cannot be included in the rule (by a sane parson) because one then has to know intent. No referee can possibly know the intent of the defender.

Moreover, the receiver planted both feet before he was hit. He is therefore, not defenseless.

What an F'ed up rule.

Is there a another rule that defines "defenseless". IF so, how was the receiver defenseless?

 

[PSUdraw]

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defenseless-player/

 

[Mister Magoo]