The Early and Late Games - Week 3

[Angry Ram]

Almost none you mentioned were straight shots like Matthews had...and I’ll be buggered if I could tell the difference between the Matthews sack today and the Von Miller 3rd sack on Wilson last week.

https://www.denverbroncos.com/video/von-miller-s-biggest-plays-vs-seahawks-week-1

I'm assuming you are talking about the second one in that video.

1. Von is wrapping up high, not launching or spearing him, shoulders aren't squared ready to drive him down. There was no spearing to the ground, as Clay Matthews did. In fact, it was more similar to what Ndamukong Suh did to Phillip Rivers than Clay Matthews.

2. Von is clearly not driving him to the ground, no weight. Yes, he will bounce off Russell Wilson, but that is not violent.

It's obvious to why this wasn't called. Now if you are talking about this third one:

1. Von is obviously not in spear mode. This is textbook wrap and tackle.

2. No where in the rule does it state does the wrap and tackle have to be gentle. Aaron Donald does this type of sack all the time.

Also, why was Rodgers allowed to be suplexed to the ground WITH the weight of the defender on him and have his head bounced off the carpet and... nothing. THAT play was a primo example of what should be a roughing call and the ref didn’t see it? NONE of the refs saw it?

He wasn't suplexed, you are exaggerating. It was nearly identical to this Von Miller play. It was wrap and tackle.

I seriously give up trying to figure out this league. Finally figure out what a catch is and now we don’t know what differentiates roughing and a sack?

That's on you. The rule clearly states what this new rule is for and what it isn't. The calls are being correctly made. Now, if you disagree with the rule, I'm not going to change your opinion on that. But the way it's written and enforced is what I'm agreeing with.

Lastly, the rule was never intended to be ANY weight on the QB. This was discussed preseason.

No, as I said earlier it's the driving the QB to the ground along with it.

The “intentionally and violently” part was meant to apply to both parts of the sentence. It’s only in the blind support for the refs union (another bit for the conspiracy crowd) that this silly and wrong argument is being had.

I don't believe in conspiracy. Seems like the only one that's having a tough time following the rule is Clay Matthews.

 

[Mackeyser]

If you don’t think he was suplexed then you don’t know what a suplex is.

Bottom line: this is a crap rule and an even worse implementation.

 

[Angry Ram]

If you don’t think he was suplexed then you don’t know what a suplex is.

Bottom line: this is a crap rule and an even worse implementation.

So this is the retort I get? After I offered counter points to your statements? Cool, then.

 

[Mackeyser]

So this is the retort I get? After I offered counter points to your statements? Cool, then.

Well, let me demonstrate, then.

This a textbook suplex. It occurs around halfway through he 36 second video.



This what the Washington defender did to Rodgers


View: https://twitter.com/WildeAndTausch/status/1043945839859773440


This is why I was saying what I said.

The Washington defender ABSOLUTELY suplexed Rodgers. It was a textbook suplex.

We all have opinions and that's fine. I just take issue with arguing over something that's definitional. The fact that he twists to land on the QB as opposed to going straight back in order to go for the pin is immaterial insofar as both are considered suplexes. Lastly, just because the defender doesn't get the height on a spin only makes it a weak suplex, but it's still a suplex.

Sort of like if my old, fat ass tried a cartwheel. It'd still be a cartwheel, but it'd be super weak.

 

[Angry Ram]

Well, let me demonstrate, then.

This a textbook suplex. It occurs around halfway through he 36 second video.



This what the Washington defender did to Rodgers


View: https://twitter.com/WildeAndTausch/status/1043945839859773440


This is why I was saying what I said.

The Washington defender ABSOLUTELY suplexed Rodgers. It was a textbook suplex.

We all have opinions and that's fine. I just take issue with arguing over something that's definitional. The fact that he twists to land on the QB as opposed to going straight back in order to go for the pin is immaterial insofar as both are considered suplexes. Lastly, just because the defender doesn't get the height on a spin only makes it a weak suplex, but it's still a suplex.

Sort of like if my old, fat ass tried a cartwheel. It'd still be a cartwheel, but it'd be super weak.

LOL no. A suplex, by definition, is slamming someone over one's head and on back. Redskins guy didn't do that.

It's the exact same type of rag doll type sack that Aaron Donald did to Russell Wilson (which wasn't called last year), and why it wasn't called on this play. Because it's not the rule.

 

[Mackeyser]

We're not getting anywhere.

Time to move on. Take care.