Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
What are the rules around a receiver initiating contact?
Gladstone
Member Posts: 16,425
It seemed like Rudolph ran right into Chancellor and Chancellor's contact after the hit was an effort to shed Rudolph and stay in the play.
What are the rules? If a receiver runs directly into the defender and initiates contact, can the defender do nothing at all?
What are the rules? If a receiver runs directly into the defender and initiates contact, can the defender do nothing at all?
Comments
-
That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball
-
Depends on the player, the teams playing and whether or not the right team has momentum in the game when the play happens.Gladstone said:It seemed like Rudolph ran right into Chancellor and Chancellor's contact after the hit was an effort to shed Rudolph and stay in the play.
What are the rules? If a receiver runs directly into the defender and initiates contact, can the defender do nothing at all? -
Actually that's not correct. Provided the ball is in the air is all that determines pass interference vs illegal contact or holding. Who intiates the contact hardly matters either, it's basically a block vs charge judgement call. Personally I feel the refs got it right, Chancellor was beat to the inside because he was cheating to the outside and out of position.section_332 said:That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball
-
I agree, I thought it was a good call.Bob_C said:
Actually that's not correct. Provided the ball is in the air is all that determines pass interference vs illegal contact or holding. Who intiates the contact hardly matters either, it's basically a block vs charge judgement call. Personally I feel the refs got it right, Chancellor was beat to the inside because he was cheating to the outside and out of position.section_332 said:That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball
Cam may be the player who's legacy changed the most thanks to Walsh's miss (well, besides Walsh). He was going to be the goat if Seattle lost that. Complete opposite from their first playoff game last year. Now his forced fumble will last longer in the memory banks. -
I can see that. But Rudolph engaged with him also. And when that happens, the 5 yard rule comes into play.Bob_C said:
Actually that's not correct. Provided the ball is in the air is all that determines pass interference vs illegal contact or holding. Who intiates the contact hardly matters either, it's basically a block vs charge judgement call. Personally I feel the refs got it right, Chancellor was beat to the inside because he was cheating to the outside and out of position.section_332 said:That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball
In the end it was only a 6 yard difference I think. -
If you think it should have been illegal contact, then you are admitting it was pass interference. Ball was in the air, there is no illegal contact with ball in the air. Engaging is irrelevant also Ref saw Chancellors reaction and will always make the call he did when the defender is beaten or in a slightly disadvantaged position.section_332 said:
I can see that. But Rudolph engaged with him also. And when that happens, the 5 yard rule comes into play.Bob_C said:
Actually that's not correct. Provided the ball is in the air is all that determines pass interference vs illegal contact or holding. Who intiates the contact hardly matters either, it's basically a block vs charge judgement call. Personally I feel the refs got it right, Chancellor was beat to the inside because he was cheating to the outside and out of position.section_332 said:That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball
In the end it was only a 6 yard difference I think. -
Ok. I'm convinced. Didn't think about ball already in the air.Bob_C said:
If you think it should have been illegal contact, then you are admitting it was pass interference. Ball was in the air, there is no illegal contact with ball in the air. Engaging is irrelevant also Ref saw Chancellors reaction and will always make the call he did when the defender is beaten or in a slightly disadvantaged position.section_332 said:
I can see that. But Rudolph engaged with him also. And when that happens, the 5 yard rule comes into play.Bob_C said:
Actually that's not correct. Provided the ball is in the air is all that determines pass interference vs illegal contact or holding. Who intiates the contact hardly matters either, it's basically a block vs charge judgement call. Personally I feel the refs got it right, Chancellor was beat to the inside because he was cheating to the outside and out of position.section_332 said:That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball
In the end it was only a 6 yard difference I think. -
section_332 said:
That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball
The very next play after that should have answered your question.
