Elmgrovegnome
Legend
It looked like it should have been flagged to me.
That hit on Cooks
- Thread starter Jacobarch
- Start date
-
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.
Am I the only who:
1. Doesn’t understand how the hit on Cooks was not a penalty?
2. Expects a fine to be assessed this week.
There is no team or coach I dislike more than Pete Carrol and the Seahawks. Beating them in their house when they gave us there best game was so satisfying. #hornsup
1. Doesn’t understand how the hit on Cooks was not a penalty?
2. Expects a fine to be assessed this week.
There is no team or coach I dislike more than Pete Carrol and the Seahawks. Beating them in their house when they gave us there best game was so satisfying. #hornsup
“Turbo set!”
Pro Bowler
I am not certain but I think the defender can still be fined even though a penalty was not called.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #64
No, we all know it should have been called. and I'm sure he will get fined this week. Ive seen lesser hits get flagged and fined.
I'm still pissed it didn't get called. I expect to hear more about it as the week progresses.
Can't add much more than has already been said...
I try to be as objective as I can when it comes to calls against the Rams, but yesterday really was awful.
Don't see how that wasn't a personal foul. Just can't.
And I saw quite a few holds on our defensive linemen.
Just a poorly called game...
I try to be as objective as I can when it comes to calls against the Rams, but yesterday really was awful.
Don't see how that wasn't a personal foul. Just can't.
And I saw quite a few holds on our defensive linemen.
Just a poorly called game...
“Turbo set!”
Pro Bowler
The problem with Cooks is that he is not tall so any hit is going to effect his head. A definite worry going forward.
Shoulda been a flag and ejection.
League fine to follow. Possible suspension.
These league rules and flags are Sooooo inconsistent. Ticky tack hit on a QB negates a sack and gives O a 1st down.
And letting this criminal assault go unpunished? Gimme a break!
League fine to follow. Possible suspension.
These league rules and flags are Sooooo inconsistent. Ticky tack hit on a QB negates a sack and gives O a 1st down.
And letting this criminal assault go unpunished? Gimme a break!
I can't believe that a fine hasn't been issued, I guess the NFL thinks it was an ok hit.
I wouldn't.
The Rams, especially under Fisher, had some hits that I was disgusted with. It wasn't hard football, it was bad. Maybe even dirty.
Also, when I look at that, I dunno what Cooks was supposed to do. Jump? He couldn't get lower, so what? Twist?
Basically, the defender took a deliberate head shot and I honestly couldn't see anything Cooks could do to prevent that.
It was maybe the cleanest ejection call since the first week on the season when someone was ejected for a H2H hit.
Yep.
Intent means nothing. If you go H2H, you get the flag. Period.
Same has been the case with sacking the QB. You fall on him, you get flagged. Doesn't matter if there's no alternative.
They always have work to do, but up until that Ram game, the refs have been remarkably consistent on those two calls with none of this parsing.
Defender goes in head first. He does NOT use the "heads up, wrap up" technique, which funnily enough was popularized in Seattle by Coach Carroll. Defender goes in head first.
At that point, unless the runner is trying to deliver a blow with his head, which he most certainly was not, it's a personal foul of the ejectable variety.
We can differ on if the rule should be the way it is, but not in how it's called insofar as the NFL has consistently called it this way this season and no one should be surprised to see it called the same the rest of the year.
That's why it's so surprising this wasn't called. This non-call was atypical for how the entire NFL has been called this season thus far. I don't know of any hits like this that was completely ignored by refs.
None.
I'm not saying he did it on purpose. I'm saying *because both players went low and ended up colliding helmet to helmet, it's hard to assign blame to the defender. Especially since he appeared to turn his shoulder into the hit. Either way, that's just the way I see it. I'm not really on anyone's side, per se.
Is this confirmed? It doesn't matter if it was intentional (which I don't think it was) or not. I understood when you lead with your head or shoulder into an opposing players helmet it is considered a penalty. I would like to know why it was called during the game.
I also noticed later in the game when Joyner (I believe) was leading with his helmet for a shot on a receiver who was going to the ground. In the process he missed an opportunity to pick off a tipped ball (Peters I believe). I was pissed when I saw this because I know if he had made contact with the receiver's helmet he would have been flagged - and - he gave up a chance on an interception in an attempt to lay a helmet leading hit on the receiver. Luckily he didn't make contact but it was a sloppy play by Joyner.
Ramhusker, I've been searching the web for any info on a fine. Are you saying what you think the fine will be? or did you find some info about the NFL fineing him.
same here, very surprising if at least a fine is not given
At this point it appears the NFL will worry about litigation against CTE down the road
rather then endure the bad publicity they have gotten from penalties on hits.
They basically stopped calling almost all types of these penalties.
rather then endure the bad publicity they have gotten from penalties on hits.
They basically stopped calling almost all types of these penalties.
I saw it on of the NFL.com website one day. It was one of the story lines they list on the right hand side of the site daily.