Roughing the kicker - no call game changer (1 Viewer)

[darkhornet]

i thought that was the Ed Hochuli San Diego/Denver rule from a few seasons ago... if there's question between incomplete/fumble... as long as there's clear change of possession... it's reviewable

This is correct. However, I'm also not sure one player casually picking up the ball after the whistle constitutes "a clear recovery". I always thought it had to be more like the player next to the ball making an obvious dive and fall onto the ball with opponents coming in when the whistle is blown.

 

[WhomDat11]

On basically a similar play, they called it for the Jets against the Colts. A Colts player was blocked into the kicker for them and they called it anyway. Ah well, game's over, moving on to next season...

But does anyone know how bad Morstead was hurt afterwards?

 

[NO_born_texan]

He was blocked into him so it was a good call.

Not! The blocker blocked out and not back into Morestead. Thus he could not have been blocked into the kicker.
Now, the Colts/Jets game, there was some backwards movement in the block, but the player still had complete control over where he went.

 

[zorro37]

He was blocked into him so it was a good call.

No way. I looked out for that specifically on the replay. He was pushed slightly to the side and off balance, regained it, and ran straight through him

 

[daybreaker]

Coach Payton even wanted to challenge this... but no Saints player picked up the ball after it came free. When there's even the slightest question whether its a fumble or incompletion... someone on D has to pick up the ball... even if it's just to hand it to an official... so the coach can challenge and the refs could rule upon replay that there was a fumble and clear recovery by the D for the turnover

Doesnt matter- they blew the whistle which means it didnt matter if we picked it up or not. The reaosning being that if a whistle is blown, that technically signals the end of the play meaning the Seahawks players (even though they were obviously nowhere near the ball) have the excuse that there was no "clear recovery" because the play was dead long before anyone would have been able to pick up the ball.

 

[mandevillekevin]

Watching the game right now. On the first drive on 3rd and 2 at Seahawks 5 bush dropping a easy pass was HUGE. 14-0 bs 10-0 was a difference. Making the game towards the end 34-34 not 34-30

 

[SaintJ]

Two reasonably bad calls <<<< getting shredded for five TDs by wide-open WRs, unpressured QBs and a running back shaking off tacklers like a wet bird dog on a lake dock.

We showed up flat on D and paid the price, and two calls either way weren't the difference. I know when you lose by five, theoretically any one play can be the difference....but it just doesn't work that way.

You have to play well enough take it out of the hands of the refs, and we failed.

 

[fuego15]

He was blocked into him so it was a good call.

No he wasn't.

That may of been the reasoning, but it wasn't true.

On the replay I saw he was clearly pushed into kicker.

 

[SaintsFanInLA]

Listen, that play was obviously a roughing the kicker penalty and it would be called 1000 times out of 50 for every other known team in the universe. He hit Morestead's knee dead-on and when I saw it, I just assumed it would result in torn ligaments.

The blocker was almost directly in front of Morestead and shoved the defender out and to the left, the defender under his own power plowed through our kicker with the official STANDING right there looking RIGHT AT IT!!

With the emphasis the NFL has placed on protecting defenseless players, it's inexcusable that this call wasn't made. It's just another example of us getting the short end of the officiating stick.

 

[darkhornet]

On the replay I saw he was clearly pushed into kicker.

Funny. In the replay I saw, I saw both of his arms go up in an effort to block the punt and a lunge at the kicker.

 

[fuego15]

Funny. In the replay I saw, I saw both of his arms go up in an effort to block the punt and lunge at the kicker.

Maybe so. But he was pushed.

 

[bravesoul99]

If called, it probably would have been a 5 yard penalty not 15 thus not effecting the game at all.

not really. That is the definition of roughing the kicker, as the punter was hit while extended for the punt.

 

[Sarcastic]

He was blocked into him so it was a good call.

He was blocked. He ran into him. He was NOT blocked into him.

He was blocked laterally as he ran toward the punter. This shifted his trajectory, if that's what you want to call it, toward the punter. On his new course he had the ability to fall or move behind the punter, but he didn't. He still tried to play on the ball, but because of the (effective) block he couldn't get a hand on it, then he ran into the punter.

That's not the intent of the "blocked into him" rules. Although that crew seemed unwilling to throw a flag for anything on either team, so the no-call didn't shock me.

 

[efil4stnias]

I have no idea how it wasn't called. At the very least that's usually called running into the kicker.

That's the way it's went for us this year though. I'm not saying it was planned or some conspiracy, but we just didn't get a lot of penalties in our favor that seemed pretty cut and dry.

The very worst part...the very next game, Indy v Jets, the exact same thing happened and they were awarded the penalty. And I mean EXACT. ( Blocked player made contact with kicker )

What was even more surprising is that it is WELL known that if you take out the "landing leg" of a kicker, its a penalty. Every time.

Im not gonna sit here and say that would have changed the entire game (since we couldnt stop them on offense at all ) but it sure would have flipped field position at the very least.

 

[JRead2]

I don't think it would have made a difference in the game, but it was definitely roughing. The blind guy sitting next to me even saw it.

The dude nailed nailed his non-kicking leg and was most definitely NOT blocked into it.