Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: j_tull

The idea (and remember I disagree with this, but I did read up on it after the call went against the Steelers twice) is that any engagement with a non-ball carrier is some form of block (like maybe you're trying to knock him down so somebody else can make the tackle). And because the would be tacklers in all three cases went low and had to go through a blocker to make the tackle that makes those hits on the blocker illegal personal foul low blocks. Again I don't agree with it, but how they called it in the SB is consistent with how they called in the regular season (interestingly those are the only 3 times all season I've seen it called, twice against the Steelers and once for).


3,819 posted on 02/05/2006 9:35:03 PM PST by discostu (a time when families gather together, don't talk, and watch football... good times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3802 | View Replies ]


To: discostu

Sure maybe they were consistent on that call but the refs were totally inconsistent on the horse collar call. That was a textbook horse collar by Porter on Alexander and it was a big miss by the refs.


3,825 posted on 02/05/2006 9:40:04 PM PST by A message
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3819 | View Replies ]

To: discostu

Thanks, hadn't heard that. Congrats, see you next year as the Pat's roll over you on the way to XLI. 8^)


3,834 posted on 02/05/2006 9:48:10 PM PST by j_tull (Game over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3819 | View Replies ]

To: discostu; j_tull
excellent explanation

Truth hurts

3,991 posted on 02/06/2006 6:26:29 AM PST by beyond the sea (Cal Thomas: If only Robert Bork had cried ...................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3819 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson