Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

The INT when TY was clearly interfered with


Recommended Posts

If you ran the ball on 3rd down burning more clock and preserving the FG, chances are we are not talking about it now.

 

If the refs had called holding, Illegal contact or pass interference then we wouldn't be talking about it.  If Luck had completed a pass, whether or not it picked up a first down, we wouldn't be talking about it.  We're only talking about it because Luck threw the ball into coverage in order to try to draw a penalty (something Manning used to do and I wasn't a fan of that strategy then either) and winds up getting intercepted.  However, since the absolute worst possible thing that could have happened on that play did actually happen it becomes a terrible play call by Pep.  

 

Personally, I had no problem with that call at all.  If you have confidence in your QB, then try to pick up the first down, especially against a team with an explosive offense like Philly.

 

theres no guarantee adam would have made the kick. its crazy how you guys complain about pep being conservative and then complain how pep is being aggressive. ty didnt even have enough for a first. luck threw it to get a flag 

 

Wish I could like this post more than once.  People are going crazy about how conservative the coaches are, they're playing not to lose rather than to win, yet this play is a perfect example of how that is not the case, but since the play didn't work out, it was still a terrible call rather than say, poor execution or a complete blunder by the refs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

 "No player shall grab the inside collar of the back or the side of the shoulder pads OR JERSEY."

 

The prep is an "or" not an "and." Meaning either or. His jersey was grabbed and yanked down. It was a penalty.

Oh my word.  The prep is not the OR , (or and and are conjuctions that link two or more nouns together) the prep is "of" the prepositional phrase is "of the shoulder pads or jersey"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my word.  The prep is not the OR , (or and and are conjuctions that link two or more nouns together) the prep is "of" the prepositional phrase is "of the shoulder pads or jersey"

Meant to say conjunction. The prep phrase does not matter once there is the "OR." For you to be right it would have to say of the shoulder pads AND jersey and that would mean pads and jersey. The OR means it is a penalty if either scenario happens. This isn't that hard, really. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps but then it's two TDs for the win or a TD and FG for a tie rather than a TD and FG for the win.

 

at the end of the day the refs blew the call

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meant to say conjunction. The prep phrase does not matter once there is the "OR." For you to be right it would have to say of the shoulder pads AND jersey and that would mean pads and jersey. The OR means it is a penalty if either scenario happens. This isn't that hard, really. 

Study English, the conjunction is not outside of the prep. phrase, the conjunction is part of the prep. phrase.  You are correct, it's not that hard to understand, if what you are saying is accurate, then anytime a player grabs a jersey it is a horse collar and that is not true, it has to be grabbed "inside the collar".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Study English, the conjunction is not outside of the prep. phrase, the conjunction is part of the prep. phrase.  You are correct, it's not that hard to understand, if what you are saying is accurate, then anytime a player grabs a jersey it is a horse collar and that is not true, it has to be grabbed "inside the collar".

No. The rule specifically states that if they jersey is grabbed from behind and used to bring the player down then it is a horse collar. Last night's tackle was classic horse tackle. Runners knees buckled and he was taken down. A grab of the jersey is one thing, grabbing from behind and using to make the tackle is the point of emphasis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The rule specifically states that if they jersey is grabbed from behind and used to bring the player down then it is a horse collar. Last night's tackle was classic horse tackle. Runners knees buckled and he was taken down. A grab of the jersey is one thing, grabbing from behind and using to make the tackle is the point of emphasis.

No, the rule clearly states the hand has to be inside the collar and the player has to grab either the pads or the jersey

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the rule clearly states the hand has to be inside the collar and the player has to grab either the pads or the jersey

I think you are missing the spirit of the rule here. The emphasis for the last couple of years from the NFL has been the intent of a player to tackle a player from behind by pulling the pads or jersey causing the knees to buckle which can end a players career when he is yanked back. I believe it was Owens who had his ankle broke before the 2004 post-season from a horse collar. I have seen the refs call that a penalty for the last couple of seasons. I think it is because of safety which I agree with. You have to let go and not take the player down from behind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing the spirit of the rule here. The emphasis for the last couple of years from the NFL has been the intent of a player to tackle a player from behind by pulling the pads or jersey causing the knees to buckle which can end a players career when he is yanked back. I believe it was Owens who had his ankle broke before the 2004 post-season from a horse collar. I have seen the refs call that a penalty for the last couple of seasons. I think it is because of safety which I agree with. You have to let go and not take the player down from behind.

Oh, so now it's the spirit of the rule.  It should not have been called a penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, so now it's the spirit of the rule.  It should not have been called a penalty.

What? I was talking about your assertion that any grab of the jersey is a penalty. That is what I meant by spirit of the rule. Not every jersey grab is a horse collar. It has to be done from behind and used to tackle the player. That is what happened last night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What? I was talking about your assertion that any grab of the jersey is a penalty. That is what I meant by spirit of the rule. Not every jersey grab is a horse collar. It has to be done from behind and used to tackle the player. That is what happened last night.

Sorry, that was my misunderstanding.  thanks for pointing that out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://vine.co/v/Oa3BHB1hqwa/embed

 

This is absurd that this wasn't called. 

 

I think it should have been an illegal contact call there  (not PI, as TY was already falling when Luck release the pass), but TY blew it.  This was in the area of the first 5 yards beyond scrimmage, so touching and grabbing isn't going to be normally called as illegal contact.  The first 5 yards beyond the line of scrimmage is a war zone and the defenses only real weapon.  We know this becasue beyond it, they're  ot even supposed to touch the receiver.

 

TY was supposed to break inside hard and run his body into the DB (jam him!), then extend his arms to push off and and bounce back out to the outside and be there for Lucks pass.  TY is not a physical receiver, so he turns in but doesn't bounce off the DB, he sticks his arm out and the Db does the same. They tangle and TY loses hisbalance and falls on his butt.  It was right near the 5 yard beyond scrimmage area so Refs don't may not want to throw a flag there, especially at the end of a game.  If TY forcefully jams his body in there, then extends his arms to bounce off and uses that momentum to get back in the pass lane, that would have been perfect.  No, it would not have been offensive P.I. because in the 1st 5 yards, the O guy can jam his defender like in a blocking position, then break free.  And the pass had not been released yet either. Since they didn't call illegal contact, it stands to reason they would not have called offensive pass interference either.

 

So I can see a ref calling it either way and being justified. It's a grey area between legal and illegal contact. But why even pass it there.  Run for the first down. If it fails, then go up by 10 points with a FG and kickoff with less than 4 minutes in the game!  If you can't bring home the win from there, you do deserve to lose because you got beat physically.  We lost the game for a mental error(s), which is far worse.

 

Now, the horsecollar call? No way, the refs plainly blew that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should have been an illegal contact call there  (not PI, as TY was already falling when Luck release the pass), but TY blew it.  This was in the area of the first 5 yards beyond scrimmage, so touching and grabbing isn't going to be normally called as illegal contact.  The first 5 yards beyond the line of scrimmage is a war zone and the defenses only real weapon.  We know this becasue beyond it, they're  ot even supposed to touch the receiver.

 

TY was supposed to break inside hard and run his body into the DB (jam him!), then extend his arms to push off and and bounce back out to the outside and be there for Lucks pass.  TY is not a physical receiver, so he turns in but doesn't bounce off the DB, he sticks his arm out and the Db does the same. They tangle and TY loses hisbalance and falls on his butt.  It was right near the 5 yard beyond scrimmage area so Refs don't may not want to throw a flag there, especially at the end of a game.  If TY forcefully jams his body in there, then extends his arms to bounce off and uses that momentum to get back in the pass lane, that would have been perfect.  No, it would not have been offensive P.I. because in the 1st 5 yards, the O guy can jam his defender like in a blocking position, then break free.  And the pass had not been released yet either. Since they didn't call illegal contact, it stands to reason they would not have called offensive pass interference either.

 

So I can see a ref calling it either way and being justified. It's a grey area between legal and illegal contact. But why even pass it there.  Run for the first down. If it fails, then go up by 10 points with a FG and kickoff with less than 4 minutes in the game!  If you can't bring home the win from there, you do deserve to lose because you got beat physically.  We lost the game for a mental error(s), which is far worse.

 

Now, the horsecollar call? No way, the refs plainly blew that one.

Good points. Why call that pattern in the first place for TY if he is soft? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vontae's hands were nowhere near the collar of the shoulder pads or jersey. He grabbed the back of the jersey below the players last name. At some point a player has to grab the back of another's jersey in order to make a tackle. I think I will trust Dilfer, young, and Lewis' interpretation of the rule. They thought it was a bad call.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is called situational play calling.

 

When you have a lead, you run to burn clock because the clock is your friend. When you are tied and have to break the tie or are playing from behind, you pass to get yardage since the clock is not your friend. I would think that is play calling 101.

 

Yes, 3rd and long in that situation, you take the 3.  It reminded me of the end of the Miami game last year.  At times when Pep should be conservative, he's oddly aggressive.  At other times, when he should be aggressive, he's strangely conservative. 

 

If you throw the ball in that situation, it's the safest pass you can conceive of - a quick out to a TE, or something of that nature. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would tell you to try it sometime but I'm sure it would be hard for you to quote every post you've ever made and then admit you were wrong.

If you can find 1 example, I will gladly admit it. I think I've proven enough to say that I would be a bettwr gm than Grigson.

I would have cut Landry, thats looking smart. Never wouldve gave up a 1 for Trent, smart again. Would've built the Oline thru free agency, but would've drafted a rt and spent money on the interior. We would be so much better if I was in charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can find 1 example, I will gladly admit it. I think I've proven enough to say that I would be a bettwr gm than Grigson.

I would have cut Landry, thats looking smart. Never wouldve gave up a 1 for Trent, smart again. Would've built the Oline thru free agency, but would've drafted a rt and spent money on the interior. We would be so much better if I was in charge.

And yet the phone in your moms basement hasn't rang.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can find 1 example, I will gladly admit it. I think I've proven enough to say that I would be a bettwr gm than Grigson.

I would have cut Landry, thats looking smart. Never wouldve gave up a 1 for Trent, smart again. Would've built the Oline thru free agency, but would've drafted a rt and spent money on the interior. We would be so much better if I was in charge.

 

:funny:

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can talk about the hold which it was and a bogus call BUT is there any doubt that it was going to be picked?  TY was bracketed and the pass was going nowhere but to the Eagles. Just throw it away. I don't care about the pass play call from Pep as Luck is supposed to be the type of QB you can trust in that spot to hit an open guy or throw it away.

TY ran the route incorrectly.  He was supposed to jam the db, push off and go back outside.  He played stiff arm with the db and lost his balance, instead.  TY might have gotten back if done right, but he is not a physical enough receiver to pull it off, and it was the wrong call to begin with.  If ever there was a place for a bowling ball full of butcher knives, that was it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absurd that the pass was even attempted. You have the chance to go up by 10 and you pass? It doesn't matter what the refs did, it was a stupid play and it got exactly what it deserved.

 

completely disagree.  I had no problem with that play call.  They also had the chance to go up by 14 instead of 10, which against a high scoring offense like Philly is not a bad thing.  I've never been a fan of the mindset of just settling for a field goal.  I'm trying for that first down no matter what unless there's less than, say, a minute left in the game.  

 

If the pass had been completed, or if the refs had made the correct call then this is a complete non-issue.  I can almost guarantee that no one would have come on the forum and said "well I know the play worked, but they shouldn't have passed on that play.  It was a stupid play call"

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can find 1 example, I will gladly admit it. I think I've proven enough to say that I would be a bettwr gm than Grigson.

I would have cut Landry, thats looking smart. Never wouldve gave up a 1 for Trent, smart again. Would've built the Oline thru free agency, but would've drafted a rt and spent money on the interior. We would be so much better if I was in charge.

You in charge, thanks for the laugh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 We ran two straight running plays, with the second one losing yardage, which made it look like they were going to run it three times and if they got a first down great, if not kick the field goal and go up two scores. My problem is, from the first down, you either you have to aggressively go after the TD or run twice to see what you get, once the second run lost yardage, you have to go with the field goal, if you were going to be aggressive you had to do it on first down, it makes no sense to run two very conservative running plays and then decide to get aggressive on third down. Make up your mind what you want to do and stick with it. This is where Pagano hurts us, its his place to step up and say, this is how we are going to approach this, but he just stands over on the sideline and hope for the best. "He needs to make sure he is putting his team in the best situation to win"  ' these are they type of situations that are lost on Pagano' motivational speeches are great, but game situations are where coaches can make a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

completely disagree.  I had no problem with that play call.  They also had the chance to go up by 14 instead of 10, which against a high scoring offense like Philly is not a bad thing.  I've never been a fan of the mindset of just settling for a field goal.  I'm trying for that first down no matter what unless there's less than, say, a minute left in the game.  

 

If the pass had been completed, or if the refs had made the correct call then this is a complete non-issue.  I can almost guarantee that no one would have come on the forum and said "well I know the play worked, but they shouldn't have passed on that play.  It was a stupid play call"

 

Late in a game on a drive to go up by two scores, i am a fan of running the ball until you are forced to take a FG (preference is run clock and run it in for a TD). Then even if they score fast, going 80 yards uses time. On ensuing possession run the ball or short check down passes to get small chunks, run clock, and keep 3rd down short and manageable for either pass or run options. Chew clock and make them use all of their timeouts. Then if your drive stalls, tell your ST and D to win it.  or at least get to OT to try again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the right call. You can't grab any part of the back of the ball carrier from behind. He grabbed his shirt and yanked him down.

huh?

 

That's not true. The call last night was a bad call, not a horsecollar. You are even allowed to pull a player down by his hair, perfectly legal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can find 1 example, I will gladly admit it. I think I've proven enough to say that I would be a bettwr gm than Grigson.

I would have cut Landry, thats looking smart. Never wouldve gave up a 1 for Trent, smart again. Would've built the Oline thru free agency, but would've drafted a rt and spent money on the interior. We would be so much better if I was in charge.

See ^ this is why you don't block ppl hahalmao rofl
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing the spirit of the rule here. The emphasis for the last couple of years from the NFL has been the intent of a player to tackle a player from behind by pulling the pads or jersey causing the knees to buckle which can end a players career when he is yanked back. I believe it was Owens who had his ankle broke before the 2004 post-season from a horse collar. I have seen the refs call that a penalty for the last couple of seasons. I think it is because of safety which I agree with. You have to let go and not take the player down from behind.

It had nothing to do with the "spirit of the rule". The ref thought it was a horsecollar because of the awkward way that the Eagles player fell. The ref screwed up.

 

Either way, we let Sproles blast us 2 plays after that, so the loss is still on us. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've read the rule, "Article 15: Horse-Collar Tackle. No player shall grab the inside collar of the back or the side of the shoulder pads or jersey 

pads or jersey, and pull the runner toward the ground. This does not apply to a runner who is in the tackle box or to a 
quarterback who is in the pocket. 
Note: It is not necessary for a player to pull the runner completely to the ground in order for the act to be illegal. If his knees 
are buckled by the action, it is a foul, even if the runner is not pulled completely to the ground. "
 
This is where understanding of the English language comes into play; everything after "insider collar" are prepositional phrases which means that what precedes the prep. phrase must happen.  So in order for it to be a horse collar the hand must be inside the collar either on the back or the side.  This was not the case, the hand was never inside the jersey or pads.

 

Thanks, was just about to post myself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...