NFL bans type of block Foster

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Sarcastro

Call it what you will, if the Broncos continue to block in the way they have in previous seasons they will get penalized and fined for it.

You know I'd have some empathy for you if you knew **** about blocking.

[BigPlayShay]

Originally Posted by Sarcastro

Call it what you will, if the Broncos continue to block in the way they have in previous seasons they will get penalized and fined for it.

You are full of it. Nothing in this rule says anything about cut blocks that are performed on on the line from tackle to tackle while the offensive player and defender are head to head.

I know you WANT this to hurt the Broncos running game, but it won't.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Sarcastro

You would perhaps help you understand if you read my posts. I am pointing out that at no time was Williams taking the play off. Something you have been saying for quite a while. In my original post I also point out that when the knee dive occurs is when Williams realizes the play is flowing away from him and he is getting blocked out of it. He turns to run towards the play. As he turns Foster dives at his knees. It is all pretty simple.

Perhaps I could do a crude photoshop or express the above message entirely in smilies and you would understand better?

Sorry but he did , you can spin it all you want . the hustle wasnt there , now I know you being Chief fan and all , you realy dont understand hustle on a defense , but suffice to say , Williams gave up on the pass rush , then got in a bad position , made a half assed attempted to give backside persuit ...... Now most know that there is a 3 yard Limit to the LOS and a Legal cut Block .... I better explain this to you .......
you are not allowed to throw a cut block 3 yards from the LOS , everyone knows this , Williams didnt even try to seperate from the LOS . He stopped and turned around , somthing you dont do as a D linemen ..... you keep your head o na swivel and you play to the whistle ......

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Tom A Hawk

correct....didn't hustle......his penalty was a cheap shot

you make it sound so bad ......

[bendog]

Originally Posted by BigPlayShay

You are full of it. Nothing in this rule says anything about cut blocks that are performed on on the line from tackle to tackle while the offensive player and defender are head to head.

I know you WANT this to hurt the Broncos running game, but it won't.

Maybe the article lacked some specificity on the exact rule change. I read it as there was a further change to cut blocks on the back side of plays. But, as you note, if it's just about peel backs, then Olinemen can still hit guys below the knee so long as they are in front. Right?

[bronco militia]

Originally Posted by Sarcastro

Jackass. This thread is about the recent banning of the cut blocks that are the bread and butter of your offense.

again, what would we do without you chief fans?

thanks for reminding us what it is you're talking about,....


I was just responding to RaiderH8ters smack.

[BigPlayShay]

Originally Posted by bendog

then Olinemen can still hit guys below the knee so long as they are in front. Right?

Correct. This rule is about blind side blocks that are low. Someone had mentioned that Eddy Mac's block in Super Bowl XXXII would be penalized under this rule, and that is incorrect as well as it was above the waist and in front of the shoulder. here is a dircet quote from the article:

"Among those approved were a rule that will make illegal a peel-back block below the waist and from the back. Those blocks most often happen on screen passes and after interceptions. "

[Tom A Hawk]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

you make it sound so bad ......

rofl

[bronco militia]

Originally Posted by Sarcastro

Call it what you will, if the Broncos continue to block in the way they have in previous seasons they will get penalized and fined for it.

holly crap, read the article again....do you even know what a cut block is?...


the cut block has not been outlawed..

[bendog]

Originally Posted by BigPlayShay

Correct. This rule is about blind side blocks that are low. Someone had mentioned that Eddy Mac's block in Super Bowl XXXII would be penalized under this rule, and that is incorrect as well as it was above the waist and in front of the shoulder. here is a dircet quote from the article:

"Among those approved were a rule that will make illegal a peel-back block below the waist and from the back. Those blocks most often happen on screen passes and after interceptions. "

Agreed. I just couldn't tell from the article if that was the ONLY rule change made. Articles like this are infuriating because half the time the writers don't really understand the previous rule or what blocking really is. Then soemone like sarcasto tries to run with it and just falls.

[bronco militia]

Originally Posted by bendog

Agreed. I just couldn't tell from the article if that was the ONLY rule change made. Articles like this are infuriating because half the time the writers don't really understand the previous rule or what blocking really is. Then soemone like sarcasto tries to run with it and just falls.

no doubt.......imagine how confused Chief fan is?

[Sarcastro]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Sorry but he did , you can spin it all you want . the hustle wasnt there , now I know you being Chief fan and all , you realy dont understand hustle on a defense , but suffice to say , Williams gave up on the pass rush , then got in a bad position , made a half assed attempted to give backside persuit ...... Now most know that there is a 3 yard Limit to the LOS and a Legal cut Block .... I better explain this to you .......
you are not allowed to throw a cut block 3 yards from the LOS , everyone knows this , Williams didnt even try to seperate from the LOS . He stopped and turned around , somthing you dont do as a D linemen ..... you keep your head o na swivel and you play to the whistle ......

I will explain again what actually occurred. Plummer faked a hand off and then went off on a bootleg to the opposite side. Williams looks at the RB and sees he does not have the ball. He then turns around and heads back towards where Plummer went on his bootleg/the play is occurring. At this point Foster is standing a couple yards upfield behind Williams. As Williams turns Foster dives at his knees.

At no time is Williams taking the play off. At no time is he just standing there. The reason that this play by Foster is so horrible is because Williams is defenseless. Foster stands behind him and waits for the right time to dive rather then trying to get infront of him or finding another player to block. With little effort Foster could have stepped infront of him and actually cleanly blocked him. There is a period of time where Foster is in fact not doing anything but standing behind Williams while Williams still believes the RB has the ball and is, get this, actually being blocked in the front of another O-linemen. You would think that Foster is simply waiting for Williams to get turned around so he can block him, but instead he decides to dive at his knees from the back.

To explain further your accusation of Williams "stopping and turning around , something you dont do as D linemen". First off he never "stops" at all times he is moving. His head turns this way and that, searching for the ball. He locates the ball and with his left foot turns and begins to head in the direction of the play. A split second after he plants that foot, Foster, who is now behind Williams at a diagonal angle, lowers his head and dives left shoulder first at William's planted left knee.

[bendog]

Refresh my alcohol imparied memory please. I realize they changed the zone blocking double team to only allow a dlineman to be engaged by two olinemen if both are within a 90degree angle of his head, I think that's it anyway. You can high low a guy, but it's the 90 degree thing, as I recall.

But what was the rule change to limit back side cut back blocks that went into effect last year?

[Sarcastro]

Originally Posted by bendog

Refresh my alcohol imparied memory please. I realize they changed the zone blocking double team to only allow a dlineman to be engaged by two olinemen if both are within a 90degree angle of his head, I think that's it anyway. You can high low a guy, but it's the 90 degree thing, as I recall.

But what was the rule change to limit back side cut back blocks that went into effect last year?

I am afraid I am not sure. My original intention upon entering this thread was to refute Spider's and some other's claims about William being responsible for his injury because he was slacking off. As usual, I have allowed myself to drift away from my original reason for posting.

Also. This quote from the article sums up why Foster's type of block will be illegal next year. It also sums up why it was, as most agree, a cheap and unnecessary block last year, "Now, the offensive player can block low on a peel back only if he gets his shoulders in front of the defensive player."

[bronco militia]

Originally Posted by Sarcastro

I am afraid I am not sure. My original intention upon entering this thread was to refute Spider's and some other's claims about William being responsible for his injury because he was slacking off. As usual, I have allowed myself to drift away from my original reason for posting.

I thought the hit was a cheap shot and nothing to do with the type of block involved. spider might have felt the same way 6 months ago, but today might have been another chance to talk smack.

relax, and don't take this place too seriously.

[Sarcastro]

Originally Posted by bronco militia

I thought the hit was a cheap shot and nothing to do with the type of block involved. spider might have felt the same way 6 months ago, but today might have been another chance to talk smack.

relax, and don't take this place too seriously.

This was Spider's post that spurred me to respond:

Originally Posted by §Pide®

That you can live with . I still say Williams is as much to blame as foster was , Williams showed a lack of hustle , he didnt play to the whistle . if he would have Foster never gets the Block .......

My intention was to refute this claim by laying out what actually happened through the use of a clip of the play I have on my computer. It was one of those things where after my first couple posts I had already explained pretty thoroughly my stance and should have just left it at that, but couldn't stop myself from responding to other people's posts.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Sarcastro

I am afraid I am not sure. My original intention upon entering this thread was to refute Spider's and some other's claims about William being responsible for his injury because he was slacking off. As usual, I have allowed myself to drift away from my original reason for posting.

Also. This quote from the article sums up why Foster's type of block will be illegal next year. It also sums up why it was, as most agree, a cheap and unnecessary block last year, "Now, the offensive player can block low on a peel back only if he gets his shoulders in front of the defensive player."

I'd agree it was a cheap block, but I don't see that the rule change described in the article applies to it. It wasn't cheap cause it was low so much as the guy was just standing there holding himself. Foster should've just hit him high with his hands in the guy's chest and knocked him on his ass.

But you knwo Szott ruined Mobley's career rolling up the side of his knee outside the tackles box, of course you do.

[Sarcastro]

Originally Posted by bendog

I'd agree it was a cheap block, but I don't see that the rule change described in the article applies to it. It wasn't cheap cause it was low so much as the guy was just standing there holding himself. Foster should've just hit him high with his hands in the guy's chest and knocked him on his ass.

But you knwo Szott ruined Mobley's career rolling up the side of his knee outside the tackles box, of course you do.

The reason it will be illegal is because of my quote from the article a few posts back. When Foster went for the block he was to the side/black of Williams. He didn't have his shoulders infront of Williams so now it would be illegal.

Read the first part of the article. Foster's block on Williams was one of the 10 examples they showed of what they were voting to ban before they voted.

[bendog]

Well, I don't recall the play that way, and I'm convinced from your posts you have no clue about how football is played or blocking is done. But, you are obviously fixated.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by bronco militia

again, what would we do without you chief fans?

thanks for reminding us what it is you're talking about,....


I was just responding to RaiderH8ters smack.

You'd be bored. Trust me. You could try and dish out smack to the non-existant San Diego fans, or perhaps the Raiders fans who have problems forming a rational thought from their prison cell.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Sarcastro

I will explain again what actually occurred. Plummer faked a hand off and then went off on a bootleg to the opposite side. Williams looks at the RB and sees he does not have the ball. He then turns around and heads back towards where Plummer went on his bootleg/the play is occurring. At this point Foster is standing a couple yards upfield behind Williams. As Williams turns Foster dives at his knees.

I remember the Play ... and it was a legal cut block .......

At no time is Williams taking the play off.

Taking a playoff ? you goofy ? I said he didnt hustle .........

At no time is he just standing there.

Didnt say he was just standing there , I said he didnt motor hard , big difference , I feel like i am arguing football with the backstreet boys here ....

The reason that this play by Foster is so horrible is because Williams is defenseless. Foster stands behind him and waits for the right time to dive rather then trying to get infront of him or finding another player to block. With little effort Foster could have stepped infront of him and actually cleanly blocked him. There is a period of time where Foster is in fact not doing anything but standing behind Williams while Williams still believes the RB has the ball and is, get this, actually being blocked in the front of another O-linemen. You would think that Foster is simply waiting for Williams to get turned around so he can block him, but instead he decides to dive at his knees from the back.

He was defensless cause of his lack of hustle , he didnt have his head on a swivel , you dont go Rainman near the LOS , what part of that you dont get ?

To explain further your accusation of Williams "stopping and turning around , something you dont do as D linemen". First off he never "stops" at all times he is moving. His head turns this way and that, searching for the ball. He locates the ball and with his left foot turns and begins to head in the direction of the play. A split second after he plants that foot, Foster, who is now behind Williams at a diagonal angle, lowers his head and dives left shoulder first at William's planted left knee.

No he stops , Pivots , and tries to give backside persuit .........

[Sarcastro]

Originally Posted by bendog

Well, I don't recall the play that way, and I'm convinced from your posts you have no clue about how football is played or blocking is done. But, you are obviously fixated.

I assure you I have a clip of the play right here. Williams is at no time facing Foster. Foster only faces Williams back/side. Read the article. It explains why the block is now illegal. I am not going to explain how the play occured again. If you don't remember the play happening the way I have explained it then your memory is wrong. All I am doing is watching the clip and typing out what happens.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by bronco militia

I thought the hit was a cheap shot and nothing to do with the type of block involved. spider might have felt the same way 6 months ago, but today might have been another chance to talk smack.

relax, and don't take this place too seriously.

.... I am not saying whether it was cheap or not , I am just saying Williams lacked hustle ......

[bendog]

whatever, but you certainly seem less concerned with the guys who've been hurt playing the chorfs.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Sarcastro

I assure you I have a clip of the play right here. Williams is at no time facing Foster. Foster only faces Williams back/side. Read the article. It explains why the block is now illegal. I am not going to explain how the play occured again. If you don't remember the play happening the way I have explained it then your memory is wrong. All I am doing is watching the clip and typing out what happens.

No you aint , you are not telling what happens , Foster was Pushing Williams to the outside , Williams stops , Piviots , and gives a half assed attempted to persuit , Foster then cuts his ass ......