Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 62

Thread: Barnwell said the fumble should have been a personal foul

  1. #21
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,765
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski View Post
    I have two questions....

    1) Who the hell is Bill Barnwell?
    2) Doesn't he have a DVR of the game so he can look at the play before writing a POS article?

    There were, as usual, both bad and blown calls on BOTH teams yesterday, but this wasn't one of them. For those of you with the game on DVR, replay that last play and freeze the action when you see Cunningham's knee first touch the ground. He's already got a hand on Sanchez's pant leg as Sanchez is retreating. He's allowed under the rules at that point to take him down. The author claims "(Cunningham) falls down at the line of scrimmage in front of Sanchez and crawls at Sanchez before diving at his ankles and knocking him down." That's blatantly incorrect, he was well past the line of scrimmage and already had a hand on Sanchez before he hits the ground. Watch the play.
    Completely agree. Officiating was horrendous, but the noncall was right. The guy who wrote this article didnt watch the game. On his dive, he grasped Sanchez's leg. If the first dive attempt fell short of Sanchez and he crawled to get him that would be a penalty. But that was clearly not what happened if you rewatch the play.

  2. #22
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,765
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinstar View Post
    Yesterday in his presser,Rex was asked about the officiating and in perticular the pass interference call against Wilson. His response was : " I'll say this, It's all about the player(s).

    There's no way that Ref should have called that penalty against Wilson. He reacted to the Patriots sidelines, when he was clearly too far away to make a legitamate call.

    The Jets did enough to lose that game, but the Pats needed help to win it.
    He wasnt too far away at all. He was only a measly 25.5 yards or 76.5 feet away. Plus it turns out that ref has xray vision too.

  3. #23
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Ven0m View Post
    Yes, he was.

    That's a penalty. You can't dive at a QB's ankles. That's the Brady rule.
    The rule provides:

    A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him."

    It is quite clear Cunningham fell just short of Sanchez (may have grazed him) and literally crawled to him and grabbed him by the ankles. Hardly constitutes a "forcible hitting" as the only part of Cunningham's body that made contact with Sanchez were his hands. This clearly was not the type of hit the rule was intended to protect against and it was not enforced as such.

    Stop whining everyone.

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,207
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinstar View Post
    Yesterday in his presser,Rex was asked about the officiating and in perticular the pass interference call against Wilson. His response was : " I'll say this, It's all about the player(s).

    There's no way that Ref should have called that penalty against Wilson. He reacted to the Patriots sidelines, when he was clearly too far away to make a legitamate call.

    The Jets did enough to lose that game, but the Pats needed help to win it.
    Tinstar... Didin't you think that is was odd that CBS didn't go over that play several times to show the supposed infraction.... Hmmm their failure to do so spoke VOLUMES to me!!!!

  5. #25
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,765
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by scottyM View Post
    The rule provides:

    A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him."

    It is quite clear Cunningham fell just short of Sanchez (may have grazed him) and literally crawled to him and grabbed him by the ankles. Hardly constitutes a "forcible hitting" as the only part of Cunningham's body that made contact with Sanchez were his hands. This clearly was not the type of hit the rule was intended to protect against and it was not enforced as such.

    Stop whining everyone.
    Wow. I did not realize this was the rule that you cant hit a QB below the knees. I thought the rule was just that you couldnt tackle a QB while you were already on the ground. This post actually supports that it was a penalty.

    LOL. In the 2nd parapgraph the guy actually claims something that didnt happen, but what he claims is a penalty too! You cant crawl to the QB and tackle him while already on the ground. That is a penalty.

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    18,349
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski View Post
    Except he didn't dive toward Sanchez' ankles. He was blocked to the ground. So, no penalty.
    Oh come on, he took 2 off-balance steps past Brandon Moore and launched himself into Sanchez's ankles. Blocked into it is for when the contact couldn't be avoided, that clearly could have been avoided. That's not even borderline. It's blatant.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3,016
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Ven0m View Post
    Oh come on, he took 2 off-balance steps past Brandon Moore and launched himself into Sanchez's ankles. Blocked into it is for when the contact couldn't be avoided, that clearly could have been avoided. That's not even borderline. It's blatant.
    Moore pushed him to the ground from the side and he fell. How could he avoid that? He had a hold onto Sanchez ankle, and didn't "forcibly hit him below the knee". No call because it wasn't a penalty.

  8. #28
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jetglass View Post
    Wow. I did not realize this was the rule that you cant hit a QB below the knees. I thought the rule was just that you couldnt tackle a QB while you were already on the ground. This post actually supports that it was a penalty.

    LOL. In the 2nd parapgraph the guy actually claims something that didnt happen, but what he claims is a penalty too! You cant crawl to the QB and tackle him while already on the ground. That is a penalty.
    Cunningham grabbed him by the ankles, held him there, and Ninkovich finished him off. It was not a tackle or a "forcible hit"- all he did was grab him with his hands from the ground.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3,016
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie Brown View Post
    Tinstar... Didin't you think that is was odd that CBS didn't go over that play several times to show the supposed infraction.... Hmmm their failure to do so spoke VOLUMES to me!!!!
    CBS showed the replay from 3 different angles but they were focused on what could be reviewed, was it a fumble or did the Tuck Rule apply. The non call was not reviewable.

  10. #30
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,398
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Ven0m View Post
    Oh come on, he took 2 off-balance steps past Brandon Moore and launched himself into Sanchez's ankles. Blocked into it is for when the contact couldn't be avoided, that clearly could have been avoided. That's not even borderline. It's blatant.
    If Moore contacted him either immediately before or during those two off-balanced steps, that is enough to make his hit on Sanchez legal. If Moore had anything to do with him being slightly off-balanced, the refs aren't going to call the Brady rule.

  11. #31
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Ven0m View Post
    Oh come on, he took 2 off-balance steps past Brandon Moore and launched himself into Sanchez's ankles. Blocked into it is for when the contact couldn't be avoided, that clearly could have been avoided. That's not even borderline. It's blatant.
    The point is 1) Cunningham missed; and 2) grabbing someone by the ankles from the ground is not "forcibly hitting".

  12. #32
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Somerville, New Jersey, United States
    Posts
    1,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski View Post
    Except he didn't dive toward Sanchez' ankles. He was blocked to the ground. So, no penalty.
    the only block that came was hilliard on moore. he beat moore to the inside, was falling, and grabbed at sanchez's ankles. 15 yd penalty.

  13. #33
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    18,349
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rob, the blocked into it loophole is only in place for contact that could not be otherwise avoided. That clearly could have been otherwise avoided, Cunningham just elected not to. That's a penalty. It's as clear as it gets.

  14. #34
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,524
    Post Thanks / Like
    You mean the refs hooked the Pats up? Same as they have in every single game since the tuck rule? Pats and refs, same team.

  15. #35
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    29,328
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski View Post
    So? (BIll Simmons) is still a moron.
    Can I quote you?

  16. #36
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    14,323
    Post Thanks / Like
    Last edited by McGinley; 10-22-2012 at 01:04 PM.

  17. #37
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,524
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pats week is over, why are the losers still here?

    Rams site

  18. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3,016
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by heymangold View Post
    the only block that came was hilliard on moore. he beat moore to the inside, was falling, and grabbed at sanchez's ankles. 15 yd penalty.
    Wrong. I record the games on my computer and I've looked at the play ten times from all 3 angles replayed on CBS. Cunningham does beat Moore on the inside, and Hilliard gets in the way of letting Moore stay with his block. But Moore keeps an arm on Cunningham and pushes him off balance to the ground where he grabs Sanchez by the ankle and Ninkovich makes the tackle.

    No penalty.

  19. #39
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jzelada121 View Post
    Pats week is over, why are the losers still here?

    Rams site
    Why are the Jets fans still talking about the Pats?

  20. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3,016
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jzelada121 View Post
    Pats week is over, why are the losers still here?

    Rams site

    I hate to be the one to have to inform you but the Jets lost. Probably not smart to call them out on their own board.


    Oh. I'm still very sorry.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us