Ohhhh the missed call on Wagz

[hawknation2018]

Not to get too much in the weeds, but you could argue if Wagner "used" his teammates. Like redefining of a catch if you will.

But its not worth it. They picked up the flag. They talked about it and went with this decision.

Living here in MN i am surprised that the focus of discussion this morning is their offense, not the call.

Is the word “used” in the rules? Genuine question because I have only read the segment of the rule that is quoted above. It appears that “to gain additional height” is a necessary condition for the rule to be applicable.

It’s debatable whether Wagner’s action with his hands was done “to gain additional height.” He appears to use his hands to guide himself forward not to gain any additional height.

My prediction is that the league will say this should have been a penalty because it’s a close call, and they don’t want to A) encourage players to try this move in the future or B) discourage the referees from calling this penalty in the future. Or maybe they just won’t publicly comment one way or the other.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Usually Vikings fans focus on the absurd notion THEY have been selected for torture.

Hmmm, sounds very familiar.

 

[Uncle Si]

Not to get too much in the weeds, but you could argue if Wagner "used" his teammates. Like redefining of a catch if you will.

But its not worth it. They picked up the flag. They talked about it and went with this decision.

Living here in MN i am surprised that the focus of discussion this morning is their offense, not the call.

Is the word “used” in the rules? Genuine question because I have only read the segment of the rule that is quoted above. It appears that “to gain additional height” is a necessary condition for the rule to be applicable.

It’s debatable whether Wagner’s action with his hands was done “to gain additional height.” He appears to use his hands to guide himself forward not to gain any additional height.

My prediction is that the league will say this should have been a penalty because it’s a close call, and they don’t want to A) encourage players to try this move in the future or B) discourage the referees from calling this penalty in the future. Or maybe they just won’t publicly comment one way or the other.

There are two segments of the rule broken down in one sentence: ysing leverage to gain height, and using your hands to get through a gap.

2nd part is the one at issue. His hands were on his teammates. Did that help him? Despite Popeyes insistence its not debatable, id say you could argue that there is doubt.

I imagine the nfl will clarify a poorly worded rule soon

 

[hawknation2018]

Not to get too much in the weeds, but you could argue if Wagner "used" his teammates. Like redefining of a catch if you will.

But its not worth it. They picked up the flag. They talked about it and went with this decision.

Living here in MN i am surprised that the focus of discussion this morning is their offense, not the call.

Is the word “used” in the rules? Genuine question because I have only read the segment of the rule that is quoted above. It appears that “to gain additional height” is a necessary condition for the rule to be applicable.

It’s debatable whether Wagner’s action with his hands was done “to gain additional height.” He appears to use his hands to guide himself forward not to gain any additional height.

My prediction is that the league will say this should have been a penalty because it’s a close call, and they don’t want to A) encourage players to try this move in the future or B) discourage the referees from calling this penalty in the future. Or maybe they just won’t publicly comment one way or the other.

There are two segments of the rule broken down in one sentence: ysing leverage to gain height, and using your hands to get through a gap.

2nd part is the one at issue. His hands were on his teammates. Did that help him? Despite Popeyes insistence its not debatable, id say you could argue that there is doubt.

I imagine the nfl will clarify a poorly worded rule soon

I don’t think so. “To gain additional height” should be a necessary condition for either of the two options to apply.

(p) Placing a hand or hands on a teammate or opponent to gain additional height
to block or attempt to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick,
or in an attempt to jump through a gap to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick.

That’s the plain English reading of the rule. Otherwise the rule would be absurdly broad.

 

[Uncle Si]

Thats how i read it the first time last night... but others have been so sure about the broad version

 

[hawknation2018]

The obvious intent for segmenting the rule into two parts is so that gaining additional height is prohibited both when the player goes high to block a kick AND when a player goes high to jump into the backfield before blocking a kick.

But let’s say a player uses a traditional pass rushing move (swim, rip, etc.) to get through a gap. That wouldn’t violate the rule because he would not be using his hands to lift himself up “to gain additional height.”

 

[Doomcarver]

After looking at the rules posted, I think Bobby did it right. He didn’t jump while leveraging his teammmates and the contact occurred after he was over the line and through the gap. If Bobby had started the jump while in contact it would have been a penalty due to leveraging.

 

[hawknation2018]

After looking at the rules posted, I think Bobby did it right. He didn’t jump while leveraging his teammmates and the contact occurred after he was over the line and through the gap. If Bobby had started the jump while in contact it would have been a penalty due to leveraging.

Every time I watch it I change my mind on whether he gained additional height with his hands. He may go up slightly, as he guides himself forward, but it’s pretty damn slight.

 

[Uncle Si]

The obvious intent for segmenting the rule into two parts is so that gaining additional height is prohibited both when the player goes high to block a kick AND when a player goes high to jump into the backfield before blocking a kick.

But let’s say a player uses a traditional pass rushing move (swim, rip, etc.) to get through a gap. That wouldn’t violate the rule because he would not be using his hands to lift himself up “to gain additional height.”

Yeah...again thats how i read it last night. You could then argue (not with Popeye though) whether height was gained.

Still.... its ambiguous language and could be clearly defined by breaking it up

 

[hawknation2018]

The obvious intent for segmenting the rule into two parts is so that gaining additional height is prohibited both when the player goes high to block a kick AND when a player goes high to jump into the backfield before blocking a kick.

But let’s say a player uses a traditional pass rushing move (swim, rip, etc.) to get through a gap. That wouldn’t violate the rule because he would not be using his hands to lift himself up “to gain additional height.”

Yeah...again thats how i read it last night. You could then argue (not with Popeye though) whether height was gained.

Still.... its ambiguous language and could be clearly defined by breaking it up

My bad, I should have read the whole thread before commenting.

You were 100% right the first time. “To gain additional height” is a necessary condition for either part of the rule to apply (jumping to block the kick or jumping into the gap to block the kick).

Without the “to gain additional height” language, you can imagine the number of absurd scenarios this rule would apply to, such as when a defender barely grazes another player with his hand while jumping into the gap.

 

[Jville]

I'd really love to see the play in slowmo.

Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH64zj2bg2c

[youtube]eH64zj2bg2c[/youtube]

Thanks ......... Slow mo reveals the creative way to make the low man wins principle work instead for the high man. Defensive tackles Jarran Reed (90) and Shamar Stephen (98) reel in their low blockers by going high to get their backs and push them to the turf.

Nice work :biggthumpup: A thing of beauty.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

I can argue his hands didnt give him leverage.

In the jumping motion, both hands will start at the sides and move upward to being level with the ground and dropping to one's side in the clearing process. This will put the finger tips below the buttocks, but they are not used to propel him forward or upward. I expect the NFL Committee to eventually pass a rule negating any Defensive player from moving a crossed the line of scrimmage.

 

[zetes]

I think it's a penalty. There is no way in real time the Ref could say he assessed if he was on a downward arc when he used his hands so there was no leverage -- that's just crazy talk! I think what is legal is to jump over the line (without a running start) where the player just grazes another player. In that case, if there was inadvertent touching by the jumper then they wouldn't be penalized but he intentionally put his hands on his teammates to help him jump and block the kick which I think violates the spirit of the rule and as such should have been a penalty.

If the Hawks were on the opposite side and it happened to them in a 6-0 game then I guarantee you this board would be filled once again with posts about the NFL not wanting Seattle to win, ref conspiracies and of course - EAST COAST bias (yes, Minnesota would be considered East coast just to use the "bias" claim). Having said that -- all I want at this point is for him NOT to try that again in a crucial game because I guarantee you it will be called a penalty next time.
Z.

 

[hawknation2018]

I think it's a penalty. There is no way in real time the Ref could say he assessed if he was on a downward arc when he used his hands so there was no leverage -- that's just crazy talk! I think what is legal is to jump over the line (without a running start) where the player just grazes another player. In that case, if there was inadvertent touching by the jumper then they wouldn't be penalized but he intentionally put his hands on his teammates to help him jump and block the kick which I think violates the spirit of the rule and as such should have been a penalty.

If the Hawks were on the opposite side and it happened to them in a 6-0 game then I guarantee you this board would be filled once again with posts about the NFL not wanting Seattle to win, ref conspiracies and of course - EAST COAST bias (yes, Minnesota would be considered East coast just to use the "bias" claim). Having said that -- all I want at this point is for him NOT to try that again in a crucial game because I guarantee you it will be called a penalty next time.
Z.

True

 

[brimsalabim]

I think it’s ok as long as the contact was consensual.

 

[hawknation2018]

I think it’s ok as long as the contact was consensual.

 

[classicaaron]

I don't think it was a penalty at all as he never gained additional height. did he touch the players? obviously. but if that was the only requirement the rule would simply read "if a player jumps and touches a player its a penalty". well the rule doesn't say that and its not even close to being worded that simple. since he gained no height theres no penalty. good no call.

for the fools saying why did they throw the flag if it wasn't a penalty. did you even listen to what the refs said? they threw the flag for not being on the line, they never threw it for leverage. since they confirmed he was on the line they went with the no call. leverage was never even part of the equation. right call.

bottom line whether you think its right or wrong you cant dispute the better team won. seahawks had a better record before the game, will have a better one at the end of the season and won this game. they were in control for all of it. and if he makes the field goal the game is 6-3 hawks. not sure how that results in a Vikings win.

 

[Hockey Guy]

We got away with one. Doesn't mean the Vikings would have won had the call properly stood.

We also got screwed on that Ifedi personal foul that potentially took points off the board. I think it all evened out & the right team won handily.

 

[HawkGA]

I don't know if this has been brought up in the thread or not, but listening to the Pete Carroll show and he said that you are allowed to touch your teammates. For what it's worth.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

So hilarious that the media wants to grasp at straws or create some type of controversy every time the Hawks win. The better team won, period. And there were NUMEROUS horrible calls that gave the Vikes first downs when the Hawks had stopped them. Excuses can't make up for the fact that the Hawks earned that win.
Refs were horrible for BOTH team, and I mean really horrible.