Quote:"Obviously he can't play, but we're definitely going to keep our radar out for [Tate] because that was a dirty shot. We're looking forward to seeing him. We'll definitely get him back after that, but it will be within the rules, within the rules."
Wasn't even an illegal hit, but the players look for any motivation they can, and Church is no different. Have to pull for the Lions since I live here now - but hope Church plays well.
(12-31-2014 03:42 PM)MotoRocket Wrote: Wasn't even an illegal hit, but the players look for any motivation they can, and Church is no different. Have to pull for the Lions since I live here now - but hope Church plays well.
I don't follow the NFL very closely so I was unaware of the Tate incident, but it was not an illegal hit, how did the NFL justify fining Tate $21,000 (assuming the article is correct about that)?
The NFL can justify whatever they want. Tate hit him squarely in the chest and the forward momentum of Lee caused him to go down immediately and the helmet of Tate caught Lee on the chin as he was going down. Think of someone getting clotheslined where the object causing the "closeline" never moves, but the player gets caught chest high and as he is going down, his head eventually also hits the clothesline from inertia. The NFL likes to send some messages out for safety of the players, but that type of hit is not going to go away. The NFL is trying to discourage any blindside hits that are considered upper body, but have been defined as neck and head. The guy making the hit that is only 200 on a guy that goes 240 to 250 is not going to make the hit to his midsection and risk injuring himself because he would get "blown up".
(12-31-2014 03:42 PM)MotoRocket Wrote: Wasn't even an illegal hit, but the players look for any motivation they can, and Church is no different. Have to pull for the Lions since I live here now - but hope Church plays well.
I don't follow the NFL very closely so I was unaware of the Tate incident, but it was not an illegal hit, how did the NFL justify fining Tate $21,000 (assuming the article is correct about that)?
They said it was launching, hitting with the crown of the helmet. It was. Replacement refs missed the call.
Well, it looks like a legal hit, but I suppose you could ask the question, "Could he have accomplished a successful the block without blowing the guy up like that?"
Or, should Tate have maintained a little better situational awareness?
Or, does it come under the, "Sometimes that's going to happen," category?
(12-31-2014 10:41 PM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote: Well, it looks like a legal hit, but I suppose you could ask the question, "Could he have accomplished a successful the block without blowing the guy up like that?"
Or, should Tate have maintained a little better situational awareness?
Or, does it come under the, "Sometimes that's going to happen," category?
I don't see any other way to make that block.
Looks fine.
There is no way that is launching as defined by the rules. Both of his feet are on the ground as he makes the hit. Defensive players are constantly making hits on guys where they are defenseless after their forward momentum is stopped but they have not been brought to the ground or the whistle has not been blown. It was a clean hit and there is nothing but a bunch of whining about the hit because he flexed his muscles afterward and that angered a lot of Cowboy players, but it's ok to create a new dance if you do it as a defensive player.
Church is approaching this the right way. They don't like what he did, but any payback on a similar clean hit will be made if their is an opportunity to do so. Make no mistake, the NFL is no place for wimps who want to be protected by something they did - and then showed off about it afterward.
(01-01-2015 12:56 AM)MotoRocket Wrote: There is no way that is launching as defined by the rules. Both of his feet are on the ground as he makes the hit. Defensive players are constantly making hits on guys where they are defenseless after their forward momentum is stopped but they have not been brought to the ground or the whistle has not been blown. It was a clean hit and there is nothing but a bunch of whining about the hit because he flexed his muscles afterward and that angered a lot of Cowboy players, but it's ok to create a new dance if you do it as a defensive player.
Tate was vertically off his feet after the top of his helmet hit the player in the chest. That wouldn't be the normal direction after a block. Is a bullet at point blank range still not shot?
I don't see how anyone could "clearly" call that a block as I've read some do. I'd rate "blind side" a bit iffy, launching and targeting a 100%.
I do find it funny that NFL.com's labeling of the video is "Golden Tate's 'Block.'"
(01-01-2015 07:30 AM)eastisbest Wrote: Tate was vertically off his feet after the top of his helmet hit the player in the chest. That wouldn't be the normal direction after a block. Is a bullet at point blank range still not shot?
I don't see how anyone could "clearly" call that a block as I've read some do. I'd rate "blind side" a bit iffy, launching and targeting a 100%.
I just can't agree with your interpretation if what we both watched here.
Looks like a guy with 2 feet on the ground making a solid hit at an atypical angle to me.
(01-01-2015 07:30 AM)eastisbest Wrote: Tate was vertically off his feet after the top of his helmet hit the player in the chest. That wouldn't be the normal direction after a block. Is a bullet at point blank range still not shot?
I don't see how anyone could "clearly" call that a block as I've read some do. I'd rate "blind side" a bit iffy, launching and targeting a 100%.
I just can't agree with your interpretation if what we both watched here.
Looks like a guy with 2 feet on the ground making a solid hit at an atypical angle to me.
Well it's not just "my" interpretation since that's how the NF ruled after watching the replays.
Quote:The league office says the block was illegal because Tate launched himself into Lee, striking him in the chest and chin with the crown of his helmet. Tate said after the game that he didn’t think — but didn’t know for sure — that the block was illegal.
Knees bend, legs straighten, leads and hits with his helmet into the chest of the LB. I don't see any room for interpretation there and that seems to invoke the rule? Even after the hit, from the ground level replays you can see Tate's body is going mostly vertical and forward. Is there a difference between targeting from a foot, six inches or point blank?
I looked up: the rule was controversial when instituted because it makes it virtually impossible for a WR to block downfield without incurring a penalty. You basically have to be absolutely still I guess.
Not to call out intentions but I really think this dispute isn't mostly about the rule interpretation but because it was such a knock out blow. Many don't want to remove that possibility from the game and many don't like that it happened to "their" player.
Eh. ???? Players going to whine if they can't risk themselves and they're going to whine when they're going daffy because they scrambled their noggins making hits like that.
(This post was last modified: 01-01-2015 03:07 PM by eastisbest.)
worst thing u wanna do is piss off barry church. he's one of those players that could have easily played in the 50's that would hurt himself trying to hurt you even worse.
(01-01-2015 07:30 AM)eastisbest Wrote: Tate was vertically off his feet after the top of his helmet hit the player in the chest. That wouldn't be the normal direction after a block. Is a bullet at point blank range still not shot?
I don't see how anyone could "clearly" call that a block as I've read some do. I'd rate "blind side" a bit iffy, launching and targeting a 100%.
I just can't agree with your interpretation if what we both watched here.
Looks like a guy with 2 feet on the ground making a solid hit at an atypical angle to me.
Well it's not just "my" interpretation since that's how the NF ruled after watching the replays.
Quote:The league office says the block was illegal because Tate launched himself into Lee, striking him in the chest and chin with the crown of his helmet. Tate said after the game that he didn’t think — but didn’t know for sure — that the block was illegal.
Knees bend, legs straighten, leads and hits with his helmet into the chest of the LB. I don't see any room for interpretation there and that seems to invoke the rule? Even after the hit, from the ground level replays you can see Tate's body is going mostly vertical and forward. Is there a difference between targeting from a foot, six inches or point blank?
I looked up: the rule was controversial when instituted because it makes it virtually impossible for a WR to block downfield without incurring a penalty. You basically have to be absolutely still I guess.
Not to call out intentions but I really think this dispute isn't mostly about the rule interpretation but because it was such a knock out blow. Many don't want to remove that possibility from the game and many don't like that it happened to "their" player.
Eh. ???? Players going to whine if they can't risk themselves and they're going to whine when they're going daffy because they scrambled their noggins making hits like that.
Sounds like a textbook block to me. He did not lead with his helmet though. Everyone interpreting this seems to think you can block properly with just shoulder pads. The helmet is going to make contact and you are taught to keep your head up to prevent injuring yourself seriously. Unless the league thinks you should block with your legs straight/knees not bent while standing perfectly still or moving backward, I don't see how this becomes an illegal hit. You always lead with your helmet and shoulder pads unless you throw a cross body block - that relatively no one does anymore (maybe that is outlawed as well). Tate was sure as hell was not to run past him so he could turn around and square him up for the block. The officials on the field felt it was a proper block along with 90% of the cowboy fans commenting on it after seeing the replay that was posted. NFL collects the money and moves on. It was a BS act by the NFL - and I have no affinity for the Seahawks, Golden Tate, Notre Dame or even the Lions for that matter. And of course I would pull for Church to get even - but only with a clean play.
