Studs & Duds in Chicago

[Pokerbrat2000]

This is the way it has always been called as well: leverage is something you do yourself, not something that is done to you, if that makes sense.
Vaulting off a player's shoulder pads is leverage. Pushing off a fellow defender's shoulder pads to elevate *yourself* is leverage. Being pushed in the back/butt is *not*.

I'm sounding like a broken record now (and I suspect it is falling on deaf ears, at least when it comes to the ones who need to hear it), but the rule only states that you can be called for unsportsmanlike conduct for "Picking up a teammate to block or attempt to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick" (12.3.1q)

And I think we all understand that there is a big difference between "picking up" your teammate vs pushing their back and continuing to push them as they elevate *themselves* by jumping. Even using the absolute most generous interpretation of "picking up" you'd have a hard time to justify a foul there.

Agree. Let's just say that any forward momentum that you intentionally or unintentionally give a teammate would be considered a penalty, which it isn't. But if it were, defensive players technically couldn't come into contact with each other. Why? Since they are all moving forward and if player A is 2 inches behind Player B, his contact into Player B could be considered "pushing".

 

[Magooch]

Honestly, the more I dive into the rules and as @Magooch points out, what LVN did wasn't a penalty.

What I did miss is this and it is what Eberflus is trying to argue. The defense isn't allowed to line up over the LS, the Packers didn't. However, the defense is also not allow to contact the LS until 1 second after the snap.

I hope Eberflus had his stop watch out!

as far as I can tell, I don't know if there's a firm "one second" rule in place either. I think that's what it's practically interpreted as, but I don't think it's written with any specific time constraint attached - just that the LS is no longer considered defenseless "after he has had time to defend himself"

And as I was saying yesterday, it almost looked like he went "downward" on purpose. Feels like the same as the "football move" interpretation, you know? Obviously some contact with the LS is allowed within a reasonable time, otherwise teams would just tell their snapper to keep their head down every time and get a free penalty if they're touched.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

as far as I can tell, I don't know if there's a firm "one second" rule in place either. I think that's what it's practically interpreted as, but I don't think it's written with any specific time constraint attached - just that the LS is no longer considered defenseless "after he has had time to defend himself"

And as I was saying yesterday, it almost looked like he went "downward" on purpose. Feels like the same as the "football move" interpretation, you know? Obviously some contact with the LS is allowed within a reasonable time, otherwise teams would just tell their snapper to keep their head down every time and get a free penalty if they're touched.

I got the 1 second rule from the article below. I actually tried to do a little research on it yesterday, and didn't find anything about when you can contact the LS.

"League rules prohibit defensive players from making contact with the long snapper until a full second after the ball is snapped."

Bears' excuse for blocked field goal vs. Packers is beyond embarrassing

Bears head coach Matt Eberflus is already making embarrassing excuses for the blocked field goal against the Packers.

lombardiave.com

 

[Magooch]

Agree. Let's just say that any forward momentum that you intentionally or unintentionally give a teammate would be considered a penalty, which it isn't. But if it were, defensive players technically couldn't come into contact with each other. Why? Since they are all moving forward and if player A is 2 inches behind Player B, his contact into Player B could be considered "pushing".

Yeah, that's what I was going to say. It's a case of common sense - spirit of the law vs letter of the law. If we wanted to call every single play strictly by the book, every single scrum and push for yards would be called for a penalty.

 

[Calebs Revenge]

I don’t know. I live the draft and having Capital, but I’d rather qualify as a lowly #7 seed. The whole reason you draft is to make the Playoffs, when it becomes more exciting to draft high? You’ve lost the vision needed. Fans deserve better than to draft high every season

Personally I’d rather finish strong with winning 4 of my last 6 and pick #18 in the draft

That's bc you've had 30 years of stellar QB play. Losing isn't fun but the Fail Mary was a mortal wound to the season. This loss was the end for Flus and it's ok. We'll have a top 5 pick and 2 top 5 second rnd picks( ours and Carolinas) we'll get Ben Johnson(we should've fired Eberl last year and gone all in for Harbaugh) but I'll be more than happy with Ben Johnson and I think with a full compliment of draft picks plus an extra second rounder and Caleb Williams where the job that he's going to want to take.

 

[Calebs Revenge]

Yeah, that's what I was going to say. It's a case of common sense - spirit of the law vs letter of the law. If we wanted to call every single play strictly by the book, every single scrum and push for yards would be called for a penalty.

Bro, it says literally in the rules you cannot push or lift another player now of course in football there's incidental contact all the time but when Lucas Van Ness says, yeah, I pushed and lifted the guy. It's a damn penalty. It's just up to you guys are embarrassing yourselves, not admitting it.
You're not just disagreeing with me you're disagreeing with Teddy brewski and Pat McAfee and I would trust Pat and his opinion on pretty much all things to do with the kicking game of the NFL

 

[Calebs Revenge]

Yeah, that's what I was going to say. It's a case of common sense - spirit of the law vs letter of the law. If we wanted to call every single play strictly by the book, every single scrum and push for yards would be called for a penalty.

I hope the spirit of the law comforts you when this doesn't go your way in the future. Trust me because of this there's gonna be a spotlight on your special team the rest of the season and I guarantee if they do this again y'all are gonna get flagged.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yeah, that's what I was going to say. It's a case of common sense - spirit of the law vs letter of the law. If we wanted to call every single play strictly by the book, every single scrum and push for yards would be called for a penalty.

Yes and we have seen plays called that cost the Packers a game as well.

Bottom line, if you want to blame a loss on a single penalty (called or not), you better be prepared to be called out on the rest of the snaps that your team played that day.

As you said/implied, I think a ref. could find a penalty on just about every play, if he looked hard enough. The key is being consistent on the calls. I actually went back and watched the XP's and FG attempts by BOTH teams in the game. The players were consistent on how they rushed, both teams contacted the LS after the snap. If Eberflus was so upset about it, he should have point it out at 7:49 of the first Q, when Santos booted a 53 yard FG. Of course in doing so, he would have had to prepare himself for the same penalty to be called against the Bears on the Packers next kicks.

 

[Calebs Revenge]

Yes and we have seen plays called that cost the Packers a game as well.

Bottom line, if you want to blame a loss on a single penalty (called or not), you better be prepared to be called out on the rest of the snaps that your team played that day.

As you said/implied, I think a ref. could find a penalty on just about every play, if he looked hard enough. The key is being consistent on the calls. I actually went back and watched the XP's and FG attempts by BOTH teams in the game. The players were consistent on how they rushed, both teams contacted the LS after the snap. If Eberflus was so upset about it, he should have point it out at 7:49 of the first Q, when Santos booted a 53 yard FG. Of course in doing so, he would have had to prepare himself for the same penalty to be called against the Bears on the Packers next kicks.

I have admitted my coach is an idiot. It still doesn't change the fact that it was a penalty and we should've gotten another kick 5 yards closer.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Bro, it says literally in the rules you cannot push or lift another player now of course in football there's incidental contact all the time but when Lucas Van Ness says, yeah, I pushed and lifted the guy. It's a damn penalty. It's just up to you guys are embarrassing yourselves, not admitting it.

LOL....

Show us the NFL rule about pushing, not leverage...pushing.

While you are at it, show us where Van Ness said he lifted Brooks.

BTW....Eberflus is upset about the contact with the LS, from what I have read, he said nothing about LVN's contact with Brooks.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I have admitted my coach is an idiot. It still doesn't change the fact that it was a penalty and we should've gotten another kick 5 yards closer.

Go back and watch every XP and FG attempt by both teams. By your "rulings", a penalty should have been called on EVERY kick, by both teams. There is a ton of contact by most of the defenders, into their teammates, moving forward.

 

[Magooch]

I have admitted my coach is an idiot. It still doesn't change the fact that it was a penalty and we should've gotten another kick 5 yards closer.

Well the penalty you're asking for would be a 15 yard one, for starters. Again, learn the rules.

 

[Magooch]

Bro, it says literally in the rules you cannot push or lift another player now of course in football there's incidental contact all the time but when Lucas Van Ness says, yeah, I pushed and lifted the guy. It's a damn penalty. It's just up to you guys are embarrassing yourselves, not admitting it.
You're not just disagreeing with me you're disagreeing with Teddy brewski and Pat McAfee and I would trust Pat and his opinion on pretty much all things to do with the kicking game of the NFL

Speaking of trusting Pat regarding the kicking game then I'm sure you would be inclined to trust former Bears LS Pat Mannelly on 670 saying there's no penalty there? Hmmm...

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Fail Mary was a mortal wound to the season

Hey!! GREAT NEWS!!!! The Bears didn't lose that game either!!! The refs totally missed a hold by #73, Trent Scott of the Commanders!!!

OMG dude! Call Eberflus, we need to contact the NFL right away!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Speaking of trusting Pat regarding the kicking game then I'm sure you would be inclined to trust former Bears LS Pat Mannelly on 670 saying there's no penalty there? Hmmm...

No, only trust someone that says what YOU want to hear.

 

[tynimiller]

Bottom line pushing happens A ton but if the refs saw and felt LVN was lifting that is a flag everyday that ends in Y.

The contact with the LS is normal and it seems very consistently called as nothing across the league unless you line up over him and/or obliterate them as they complete the snap.

A bears player was flat holding a guy down on the same play as well...

Packer fans pretending like they wouldn't be pissed over this are just being dishonest.

FTR I agree with a lot of the players we've heard discuss, some of which have even been on Chicago radio and past players saying no flag should have been thrown BUT I know full well if roles were reversed there are some even on this very board that would be focused on that non-call final play to a level of lunacy as well.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Packer fans pretending like they wouldn't be pissed over this are just being dishonest.

I'm not pissed, we won!

 

[Calebs Revenge]

Bottom line pushing happens A ton but if the refs saw and felt LVN was lifting that is a flag everyday that ends in Y.

The contact with the LS is normal and it seems very consistently called as nothing across the league unless you line up over him and/or obliterate them as they complete the snap.

A bears player was flat holding a guy down on the same play as well...

Packer fans pretending like they wouldn't be pissed over this are just being dishonest.

FTR I agree with a lot of the players we've heard discuss, some of which have even been on Chicago radio and past players saying no flag should have been thrown BUT I know full well if roles were reversed there are some even on this very board that would be focused on that non-call final play to a level of lunacy as well.

Thank you for having a rational take on this. Again not gonna lie. My coach is an idiot and this one number 11 in a row really really hurt but again I can look forward to the future because this only helps us get a really good head coach and Johnson and I have three top 35 pics to fix the offensive line hopefully we will be a very dangerous team next year.

 

[tynimiller]

I'm not pissed, we won!

And to be fair I should have said "a lot of Packer fans" it wouldn't be all of us.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And to be fair I should have said "a lot of Packer fans" it wouldn't be all of us.

For me it all comes down to the refs being consistent. As I said in another post, if you go back and look at ALL the kicks that day, both teams seemed to be rushing the same way as the Packers did on that final FG attempt.

I think had the refs thrown a flag on that particular one, they would have to explain why they didn't on all the previous kicks.

As most football fans know, you can dissect almost every play and find a penalty. If that is what a fan wants to hang their hat on after every loss, they are going to be miserable.

 

[Magooch]

Any kind of incidental contact that occurs in the "natural course of play", i.e. scrums and, you know, every sort of scrimmage-blocking situation is something that never gets called as a "leverage" situation. As I said above, if we remove any sort of grey area then any time a defender attempts to push the pile to stop and/or bring down the runner it's a penalty. Nobody wants that and we all know it doesn't make any sense to view the game that way. "Pushing" in and of itself is not a penalty. "Lifting" in and of itself is not a penalty, either. It'd be one thing if Brooks wasn't engaged with a blocker and LVN hurled him into the OL or grabbed him by the waist and picked him up into the air, but that's obviously not what happened.

Go back and watch the rear angle, you can look at it frame-by-frame. Brooks is lined up on the A gap, LVN on the B gap, they both crash inside. The lines are already fully collapsed into each other and Brooks is completely engaged with the OL...AND the ball's snapped and Santos has already started his run-up before LVN manages to find himself behind Brooks and gets his hands on his back. Is anyone really going to argue that LVN's contact here is non-incidental and something that wouldn't regularly occur in the course of play? Of course not. Is LVN simply not supposed to attempt to block at all at this point? It makes no sense. There's no sensible call to be made here.

And as has been said ad nauseam at this point: Eberflus isn't saying anything about "illegal pushing" or "lifting". He's complaining about the DL lining up on or "being on" the LS too quickly, which obviously isn't the case.

 

[OldSchool101]

Well…. I think it’s settled then…

Going Once

Going Twice….

SOLD to the large fella wearing #94!!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Is anyone really going to argue that LVN's contact here is non-incidental and something that wouldn't regularly occur in the course of play?

Only a Bear fan.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well…. I think it’s settled then…

Going Once

Going Twice….

SOLD to the large fella wearing #94!!

Hey, I'm not going to be the one taking that game ball away from him!!! I value my nose where it is.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

A part of me wants to go find a Bear forum and......nahhh, I hate long hot showers and burning my clothes to get the stench off.