|
10-06-2014, 06:48 AM | #46 |
left blank intentionally
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Belize Nuts
Casino cash: $4664897
|
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
That's just Denver.
__________________
MY ADOPT-A-CHIEF : Jody Fortson Jr. |
Posts: 32,166
|
10-06-2014, 07:20 AM | #47 |
The Seated Villain
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle
Casino cash: $2150247
|
Ok, since this place doesn't always operate based on facts, I'll go ahead and mention that this is the first chop block penalty that Denver has had since 2010. In that time period, KC has been penalized 3 times for chop blocks.
|
Posts: 10,577
|
10-06-2014, 07:53 AM | #48 | |
No Keys, No Problem
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denver
Casino cash: $4933136
|
Quote:
Every team cutblocks. Including the Chiefs |
|
Posts: 30,986
|
10-06-2014, 08:08 AM | #49 | |
Constable of Untruths
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wichita
Casino cash: $1361084
|
Quote:
Now go away and shut the **** up. |
|
Posts: 15,062
|
10-06-2014, 08:42 AM | #50 |
Supporter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $2364127
|
Thomas should be fined, the block should be made illegal and the Refs should be watching for this more often as it occurs more than we think.
My take on it is this, however, Denver has a history of pushing rules just enough over the limit to not be called but in reality are still illegal. Kinda like there is holding on every play. This is dirty football and this is what set DT off on the Monday Night Meltdown. It's a signature of the Broncos to play dirty while acting like they are above it all. The Chiefs got called yesterday because a guy being blocked by an o-lineman accidentally brushed his arm into the facemask of a QB. If that's illegal than these knee-shots should most definitely be illegal. |
Posts: 128,347
|
10-06-2014, 09:44 AM | #51 |
Immanentize The Eschaton
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $1795880
|
Oh, you mean like back in the 90's when Marty put a bounty on QB's like Elway?
|
Posts: 56,016
|
10-06-2014, 09:47 AM | #52 |
You gotta kill a few people
Join Date: Sep 2007
Casino cash: $1652369
|
How long is Calais supposed to be out from this?
|
Posts: 44,569
|
10-06-2014, 09:48 AM | #53 |
11-5, baby
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Livin the dream
Casino cash: $2191557
|
|
Posts: 22,416
|
10-06-2014, 09:50 AM | #54 | |
Immanentize The Eschaton
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $1795880
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 56,016
|
10-06-2014, 09:56 AM | #55 |
Supporter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $2364127
|
|
Posts: 128,347
|
10-06-2014, 09:58 AM | #56 |
Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Casino cash: $8459979
|
Yes this coming from a forum fanbase that only last week had a poster proclaim one of his favorite chiefs v. patriots moments recently was taking out Tom Brady's knee.
|
Posts: 464
|
10-06-2014, 10:01 AM | #57 |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Davis, CA
Casino cash: $4141711
|
That play does not look dirty to me. First of all, the tight end hit the defender first, then the tackle hit him. That's a "reverse chop" block. Secondly, the defender does not get to decide who hits him. That's the defender's fault for not protecting himself. So purely on the video, I don't consider that play from the tight end to be even borderline dirty. That looks to me like a good block.
On top of that, for me to consider a play to be "dirty", I'd also like there to be some fairly good evidence of intent. The Broncos linemen are claiming they didn't intend to both engage the defender. There is nothing about that play that makes me think the Broncos are lying about that. The dual engagement is a necessary element for a "chop block". The technique of the defender on that play, by the way, was risky, in my opinion. If the tackle didn't hit him--and it doesn't look to me that the tackle hit him with anything more than the amount of force that fathers giving away their daughters at wedding use--there wouldn't have even been a discussion of the term "chop block", which has to do with nearly simultaneous engagement high and low. The injury to the defender was, in my opinion, the result of the low block from the tight end and the obliviousness of the defender to the possibility that such a block may be delivered. The tackle didn't cause that injury, but the fact that the tackle gently touched the defender is what made it a "chop block". But I'm looking at this from the way that we used to play on the line of scrimmage when I was in high school back in the 80's. Maybe the rules are different nowadays, either in the letter or in the interpretation. In general, though, I've never had any problems with the fact that the Denver Broncos block players on offense. That's what the hell you're supposed to do. And you don't need to get permission from defenders to block them, either. |
Posts: 4,247
|
10-06-2014, 10:05 AM | #58 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $2364127
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 128,347
|
10-06-2014, 10:07 AM | #59 |
Immanentize The Eschaton
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $1795880
|
|
Posts: 56,016
|
10-06-2014, 10:07 AM | #60 |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Davis, CA
Casino cash: $4141711
|
My previous post depends on the definition of a "chop block", especially the element of simultaneous or near-simultaneous engagement. Some fans are upset with Thomas because they consider what he did a "cut block". I do not have a problem with cut blocks in general, and especially not on the line of scrimmage, unless the player being cut is engaged already with another player above the waist, which would turn the legal cut block into an illegal chop block.
|
Posts: 4,247
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|