Eric Davis and his claim pop-pass play vs GB illegal

Birdfinger

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
167
Reaction score
0
Location
Austin, Texas
Eric Davis on NFL AM complained that the nice Option-pass play to Lockette scoring the TD should have been flagged for illegal blocking downfield by Unger. I just asked Mike Pereira about on twitter and here was his response:

W. Snyder ‏@Birdfinger 18m

@MikePereira Real quick: GB at Seattle - illegal blocking down field on pop pass play?
Expand

Reply
Favorite

Mike Pereira ‏@MikePereira 17m

@Birdfinger >>No. He was barely beyond a yard and too technical to call. Nobody is going to see that when it is that close.
 

hawknation2014

New member
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
2,812
Reaction score
0
Some 49er fans were growing crazy about this on the NFL Forum and got OWNED:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=96100&p=1405965#p1405965

bigtrain21":ojqwqeww said:
Popeyejones":ojqwqeww said:
bigtrain21":ojqwqeww said:
It doesn't matter where he is when the ball is thrown. It only matters where he initiates contact with the guy he is blocking which is one yard down field.


Huh? That's plain and simply not true.

As I already said I'm generally indifferent to this play (calls get missed all the time), but in the clip they even quote the ineligible player downfield rule in the clip and put the text of it on the screen. C'mon, man.

What I said was exactly true. Read the rule and get back to me.

From the rule book.
"Item 1: Legally Downfield. An ineligible player is not illegally downfield if, after initiating contact with an
opponent within one yard of the line of scrimmage during his initial charge:
(a) he moves more than one yard beyond the line while legally blocking or being blocked by an
opponent; or
"

WrEmYfN
 

HawkFan72

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
16,570
Reaction score
1
Location
Bay Area, CA
Mike Pereira has caught a lot of flack on here for being a Seahawk hater, mostly due to the disaster of XL...but to be fair, he seems to really call it like he sees it and has been calling a lot of things in favor of the Hawks over the last couple years.
 

Mick063

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
1,674
Reaction score
1,405
Historically, Eric Davis has been pretty fair in his editorial comments on Seattle. This one has me puzzled. It seems like he is lending an ear to all those NFL conspiracy theorists down in the Bay lately. Ultimately, his homerism has shown through.
 

brimsalabim

Active member
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
3
Never the less our OL will need to be on their toes if we use the play again. I'm sure that's the goal of the ninnies making a big stink here. They are hoping to influence future calls.
 

CurryStopstheRuns

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
0
I watched this play after hearing Davis make his claim on NFL AM and he was dead wrong. What was worse is that another cohost stated that Unger was at least three yards downfield. Obviously he does not know how to count. I am pleased that the picture was included in an above post because it clearly shows Unger engaging one yard downfield. Completely legal play and blocking.
 

hoxrox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
1,972
Retweet what Pereira said to them

@_ericdavis_

@NFL_AM
 

Hawks46

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,498
Reaction score
0
So, question: is it where the Olineman first engages a defender ?

If Unger engages a guy, and blocks him back to 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage, is that now illegal, or is it legal because he engaged at the los or within 1 yard ?

I would think you would be allowed more than 1 yard. Play action involves run blocking a guy, and that can end up being 1 yard farther if the defender gives up too much ground.
 

themunn

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
463
It's simply a rule that people don't understand.

And one that would unfairly punish linemen for blocking well (e.g. on a passing play a defensive player could just step back a yard while being blocked and all of a sudden force the QB to dump off behind the LoS or run because any forward pass would be illegal).
 

Tical21

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
82
When I originally saw the play, I thought it was a designed run. The run action just looked too authentic, especially when Marshawn cut-back. The tell-tale sign then is whether or not the linemen went downfield. On the replay, I looked at the line and saw that Unger looked to be downfield. We don't get the benefit of seeing the LOS on a replay, but I thought it was really really close. You could then tell that it was a designed play because of the way Wilson gestured to the sidelines after it was successful, but I do think it could have drawn a flag. It was definitely in the grey area.
 

Seahawk Sailor

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
22,963
Reaction score
1
Location
California via Negros Occidental, Philippines
WrEmYfN

This pretty clearly shows Unger within one yard of the line of scrimmage when contact is made, thus making it an obvious non-penalty.

I think some of the folks who are up in arms over this alleged bad call are a) compensating for having been completely fooled on the play themselves, thinking it was a running play, and b) subconsciously or consciously trying to point out bad calls against Seattle because of the notion (based on horrible calls in past games) that Seattle is unfairly penalized more than the rest of the league. It's more of a "see, they call bad penalties in favor of the Seahawks too so shut up you crybabies!" type of thing.

But tape don't lie. Unger was well within a yard of the line of scrimmage when he began his block, thus making that a perfectly legal play.
 

v1rotv2

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
3,538
Reaction score
5
Location
Hurricane, Utah
This really is simple and I can not understand why it seems to be a hard concept to understand. If Unger makes contact during the first yard of the line of scrimmage and he remains engaged beyond that yard there is no illegal down the field foul. If Unger on the other hand advances down field beyond the first yard without engaging in a block then that is being illegally down field.
 

Cartire

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
4,580
Reaction score
0
Hawks46":asbtt2sl said:
So, question: is it where the Olineman first engages a defender ?

If Unger engages a guy, and blocks him back to 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage, is that now illegal, or is it legal because he engaged at the los or within 1 yard ?

I would think you would be allowed more than 1 yard. Play action involves run blocking a guy, and that can end up being 1 yard farther if the defender gives up too much ground.

Its almost always allowed as long as an O-line is engaged before the 1 yard line. If an O-lineman moves to the second level before engaging, then its ineligible receiver.
 

Jville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
13,259
Reaction score
1,631
Well ......... guess I made the right decision in dropping NFL AM. In the end, I came to think of that show as the California Am.

The home team of that show is the San Francisco 49ers. At one time, there were multple shows in which everyone on the set was a 49er homer including the producer. Having been called out, NFL AM now attempts to project a more diversified representation on set. But make no mistake about it, the 49ers are still the home team for NFL AM. And the Seattle Seahawks are the cheating barrier to their entitled ascension to the preeminent team of the land.

As such, that show will continue to promote allegations directed specifically at the Seattle Seahawks at every opportunity. It is not fair ..... but it is not going to end. I'm virtually certain it is on Marvin's approved list as well as every 49er troll that is driven by that culture to darken this forum.

Historically, there are plenty of teams that have been smeared and yet found ways to compete. In fact, much of Pete Carroll's legacy in Seattle will be that of ignoring the noise and finding the means to compete and win forever.

The whining from Eric Davis and others on the NFL AM agenda is best ignored. It's just noise.

Go Hawks!
 

Cartire

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
4,580
Reaction score
0
Jville":29q6f84b said:
Well ......... guess I made the right decision in dropping NFL AM. In the end, I came to think of that show as the California Am.

The home team of that show is the San Francisco 49ers. At one time, there were multple shows in which everyone on the set was a 49er homer including the producer. Having been called out, NFL AM now attempts to project a more diversified representation on set. But make no mistake about it, the 49ers are still the home team for NFL AM. And the Seattle Seahawks are the cheating barrier to their entitled ascension to the preeminent team of the land.

As such, that show will continue to promote allegations directed specifically at the Seattle Seahawks at every opportunity. It is not fair ..... but it is not going to end. I'm virtually certain it is on Marvin's approved list as well as every 49er troll that is driven by that culture to darken this forum.

Historically, there are plenty of teams that have been smeared and yet found ways to compete. In fact, much of Pete Carroll's legacy in Seattle will be that of ignoring the noise and finding the means to compete and win forever.

The whining from Eric Davis and others on the NFL AM agenda is best ignored. It's just noise.

Go Hawks!

To be completely fair, I think this is just not true. A lot of them were high on the Niners, yes. But they had plenty of reason to be the last 3 years. And for the most part, Eric Davis, for all his Niner loving, was one of our biggest supporters last year.

Hes wrong about this claim, and hes looking like a fool. But overall, hes been pretty decent and I think its a pretty unfair generalization of him and the show.

However, the show does suck regardless. Poor format. Horrible reoccurring features. And just bad commentary. And the females host really show there ignorance to the sport with most of their comments. Its pretty obvious they are there for one reason only....
 

McG

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
961
Reaction score
0
Location
Wichita, Kansas
NFL AM is a horrible show, flat-out. It really is a Cali-NFL show. Eric Davis is a complete moron. I've heard him call out guys like Jerry Rice more than once for not being a good teammate and/or not being a "fun guy". Yeah, that's a great reason to have a grudge because he wasn't fun. Yeah, he was only the best player to ever play and it was because he was focused and everything wasn't a party or a joke to him. He should be kissing Rice's ass anytime he talks about him or sees him.
 

Jville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
13,259
Reaction score
1,631
Cartire":2zbtt8me said:
Jville":2zbtt8me said:
Well ......... guess I made the right decision in dropping NFL AM. In the end, I came to think of that show as the California Am.

The home team of that show is the San Francisco 49ers. At one time, there were multple shows in which everyone on the set was a 49er homer including the producer. Having been called out, NFL AM now attempts to project a more diversified representation on set. But make no mistake about it, the 49ers are still the home team for NFL AM. And the Seattle Seahawks are the cheating barrier to their entitled ascension to the preeminent team of the land.

As such, that show will continue to promote allegations directed specifically at the Seattle Seahawks at every opportunity. It is not fair ..... but it is not going to end. I'm virtually certain it is on Marvin's approved list as well as every 49er troll that is driven by that culture to darken this forum.

Historically, there are plenty of teams that have been smeared and yet found ways to compete. In fact, much of Pete Carroll's legacy in Seattle will be that of ignoring the noise and finding the means to compete and win forever.

The whining from Eric Davis and others on the NFL AM agenda is best ignored. It's just noise.

Go Hawks!

To be completely fair, I think this is just not true. A lot of them were high on the Niners, yes. But they had plenty of reason to be the last 3 years. And for the most part, Eric Davis, for all his Niner loving, was one of our biggest supporters last year.

Hes wrong about this claim, and hes looking like a fool. But overall, hes been pretty decent and I think its a pretty unfair generalization of him and the show.

However, the show does suck regardless. Poor format. Horrible reoccurring features. And just bad commentary. And the females host really show there ignorance to the sport with most of their comments. Its pretty obvious they are there for one reason only....

I'm certain my statements about the program are accurate and true. The evidence is in the show archive. What is not fair is for anyone with vested interests to use a powerful national platform to single out or paint a competitor to those vested interests unfairly.
 

Cartire

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
4,580
Reaction score
0
Jville":1vbm1tyc said:
I'm certain my statements about the program are accurate and true. The evidence is in the show archive. What is not fair is for anyone with vested interests to use a powerful national platform to single out or paint a competitor to those vested interests unfairly.

That hasnt stopped the NFL from doing that for years with Peyton Manning.
 

Jville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
13,259
Reaction score
1,631
Cartire":32o88ae1 said:
Jville":32o88ae1 said:
I'm certain my statements about the program are accurate and true. The evidence is in the show archive. What is not fair is for anyone with vested interests to use a powerful national platform to single out or paint a competitor to those vested interests unfairly.

That hasnt stopped the NFL from doing that for years with Peyton Manning.

I'm not sure that jump follows. In any case my remarks were/are limited to vested interests in the 49ers within NFL AM show.
 
Top