Adams Cheap Shot

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
7,615
Name
Wil Fay
I didn’t think it was cheap. It was a designed run play. If you want to run the ball with the QB, the QB is going to get hit.

We are seeing this evolution in the NFL with the dual threat QBs - but this has always been the fly in the ointment with that type of offense.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: CGI_Ram and G-Ram-#1

OntarioRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,475
Not a dirty hit, IMO. Wolford was a runner sliding head first. He gets no extra protection. You better believe QBs are going to get a little extra force to the hits they receive when they start running around - that's life in the NFL. It was a bang-bang play. Adams is not a dirty player. But he is very intense, plays physical, and sometimes unfortunate results happen.

It definitely was contact to the head, however, even if I do not think that was Adams' intent. A flag for PI was warranted. It should have been a 15 yard penalty. It was ridiculous that they picked up the flag. I've never seen that before - a hit to the head of the most coddled position in the NFL (QB), flag thrown, but refs then decided to retract it.... only against the Rams.
 

badnews

A new era
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
4,209
Name
Dave
Come'on'man... Football is a physical game. Wolford was playing like he had a red jersey on with that "forward slide".
It doesn't matter. Adams had a choice to make: to try to hit Wolford as hard as he could or to try to avoid it.
Nobody is breaking a tackle after heading to the ground.

We all know that these guys pride themselves in punishing young QBs for running. Thats clearly what happened here so even if he didn't intend injury, he did intend to punish him and his choice to go low, take his eyes off his target and hit with everything he had - its not a clean play.
That lead to the kind of hit the league has been trying to stop. So it's a penalty at best and some headhunting dirty shit at worst. Either way, it wasn't clean imo.

And I have criticized refs who have called personal fouls against the opposing team when the play didn't deserve it and I hate the way the league has made it so unfair for the defense... but this one I can't defend.
 

iamme33

Starter
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
936
Name
dan
two things i seen in this play. one was that this looked like a designed run which takes away the protect the qb rules. #2 is wolfman went head first. anyway i have been complaining that the league is trying to make football into a two touch league so hate that this happened to our guy but things like this are going to happen unless they make it two touch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OnceARam

RamDino

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
1,155
This is what happens when the NFL tries to make the refs responsible for judgement calls... inconsistency.

Almost every play results in defenders lowering their heads to make a tackle. Conversely, almost all running backs lower their heads to hit defenders. If both sides are allowed to lower their heads, how the fuck are the refs supposed to call it? Then throw in the new QB rules..., they can slide, but not head first, he gave himself up... whatever, and you now have a clusterfuck of rules designed to make the game safer. Unfortunately, this has caused a lot of inconsistent calls. IMO... they could call "lowering the head" on almost every play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ramstien

Ellard80

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 11, 2016
Messages
3,499
i like how some people are acting like the hit was okay....

If you dove head first to the ground and someone ran up and smashed you when clearly you going to the ground.

you'd be pissed big time.
 
  • Cheers
Reactions: JackAttack85

dang

Hall of Fame
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
2,479
What exactly was the explanation of specific infraction for why the flag was thrown in the first place? and an explanation of why a review of the foul resulted in a reversal?
 

blackbart

Hall of Fame
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
3,903
Name
Tim
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #69
This is actually not the case.


A feet first slide is given additional protection under the rules. Any contact with the head or neck in a feet first slide is a penalty, regardless of timing. Not the case with a head first dive. E.g. you can put a shoulder into a QB trying to launching head first across the line to gain in a qb sneak.

There are 11 ways in which a player is considered defenseless.



I think the best argument for the penalty is that he was "on the ground" or that the defensive player dived into him.

The problem comes with reconciling Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9(b)(1)


with Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1(d)(2)(3):



and Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8(e)


Rule 7, Section 2 talks about when a player is down and the ball is dead. It's not clear what "this protection" means. Does it mean Rule 12?
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9 is about defenseless players and just requires that a player is "on the ground." It's not clear exactly what on the ground means (a player on his hands and feet is technically "on the ground" but not down).
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 talks about unnecessary roughness. Does "throwing" your body at someone require you to leave your feet?

I think they got it wrong, but it's definitely a judgment call and not cut and dry.
Any player in a defenseless position is protected. Diving to the ground to give yourself up is a defenseless position.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
2020 ROD Survivor Champion
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
14,969
What exactly was the explanation of specific infraction for why the flag was thrown in the first place? and an explanation of why a review of the foul resulted in a reversal?
They didnt say, but the ref said they picked up the flag because QB had identified as a runner, so there was no roughing.
Which is BS....
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: majrleaged and Ewe83

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
2020 ROD Survivor Champion
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
14,969
i like how some people are acting like the hit was okay....

If you dove head first to the ground and someone ran up and smashed you when clearly you going to the ground.

you'd be pissed big time.
I'm surprised people are still saying "head first" as if he was trying to gain extra yardage. He merely collapsed to get down as quick as possible
 

Karate61

What's your record last year? That's why I'm here!
Camp Reporter
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
4,246
Name
Jeff
This is actually not the case.


A feet first slide is given additional protection under the rules. Any contact with the head or neck in a feet first slide is a penalty, regardless of timing. Not the case with a head first dive. E.g. you can put a shoulder into a QB trying to launching head first across the line to gain in a qb sneak.

There are 11 ways in which a player is considered defenseless.



I think the best argument for the penalty is that he was "on the ground" or that the defensive player dived into him.

The problem comes with reconciling Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9(b)(1)


with Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1(d)(2)(3):



and Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8(e)


Rule 7, Section 2 talks about when a player is down and the ball is dead. It's not clear what "this protection" means. Does it mean Rule 12?
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9 is about defenseless players and just requires that a player is "on the ground." It's not clear exactly what on the ground means (a player on his hands and feet is technically "on the ground" but not down).
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 talks about unnecessary roughness. Does "throwing" your body at someone require you to leave your feet?

I think they got it wrong, but it's definitely a judgment call and not cut and dry.
Actually, it is the case. A qb can either slide feet first or dive head first to get the protections of giving himself up. Read this:

Screenshot_20210111-110432_Google.jpg
 

matt30

Rookie
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
Messages
168
Name
Matt
Any player in a defenseless position is protected. Diving to the ground to give yourself up is a defenseless position.
That is not the rule. The rule specifically identifies what a defenseless player is. As a runner, diving/lunging/collapsing/tripping/whatever without being "down" is not defenceless. Intent doesn't matter under the rule.
 
Last edited:

matt30

Rookie
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
Messages
168
Name
Matt
Actually, it is the case. A qb can either slide feet first or dive head first to get the protections of giving himself up. Read this:

View attachment 42802
That quote isn't from the actual rule. You do get more protections sliding feet first than sliding head first. That's in Rule 7. And according to Rule 12, you only get defenceless protection once you're "on the ground." That picture in the article is misleading. A running back that is "falling forward" can still be hit.

For example, a running back falling forward to get a first down can still be hit to prevent the ball from passing the line to gain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karate61

blackbart

Hall of Fame
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
3,903
Name
Tim
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #78
That is not the rule. The rule specifically identifies what a defenseless player is. As a runner, diving/lunging/collapsing/tripping/whatever without being "down" is not defenceless. Intent doesn't matter under the rule.
RULE SUMMARY VIEW OFFICIAL RULE
PLAYERS IN A DEFENSELESS POSTURE
operations.nfl.com

Defenseless Player | NFL Football Operations

operations.nfl.com
operations.nfl.com



His knee was down and he already had the first down.

And as others have said, do that to Brady, Wilson or Mahoney and let’s see how many flags come out.

Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
  1. forcibly hitting the defenselessplayer’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 defenselessplayer by encircling or grasping him
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: Ellard80 and Karate61

Karate61

What's your record last year? That's why I'm here!
Camp Reporter
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
4,246
Name
Jeff
That quote isn't from the actual rule. You do get more protections sliding feet first than sliding head first. That's in Rule 7. And according to Rule 12, you only get defenceless protection once you're "on the ground." That picture in the article is misleading. A running back that is "falling forward" can still be hit.

For example, a running back falling forward to get a first down can still be hit to prevent the ball from passing the line to gain.
The way I read it, the official rules state:

An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended:

(d) When a runner declares himself down by:


(1) falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance.

(2) sliding. When a runner slides, the ball is dead the instant he touches the ground with anything other than his hands or his feet.

It states "sliding". Just like baseball, you can slide feet first or head first. The rule does not discern between the two.

So, my observation is that Wolford was down the second he was on the ground, and the hit was a penalty.
 

Ramstien

Pro Bowler
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
1,430
Name
Ramstien
I am in the camp that it was a dirty hit by a punk ass player, with an over inflated ego. Like I said on an earlier post, they should have sent Brown out on the next play and leveled him with a blind side block, after the whistle was blown, just to sent a message.