Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2 type fouls-
a basketball shooting foul- which does change the play, it makes the shot less likely to go in;
which is different from a foul intended to discourage behavior that doesn't really change the game (inadvertent facemask or the hit on Manning yesterday)
Ty could make an argument of the malum pro se malum prohibitum (I know these are spelled wrong but big deal) variety- maybe a late hit call shouldn't decide a game unless it is blatant.
|
No late hit on a quarterback, short of one that injures, changes the game. Neither does helmet-on-helmet contact. Are you telling me that if someone nailed Manning as hard as he could without hurting him 5 seconds after he let go of the ball, it shouldn't be called because game play was not affected?
No. Because that would be blatant, right? And the player should be punished. But a player who disregards a rule at the end of the game and takes a chance and smacks a quarterback in the face (but not too hard), hoping the refs don't make the automatic call shouldn't be punished because that is even farther away from affecting play than the above hypo?
I think the whole argument is ridiculous. And the Patriots may be upset with the call, but inside, each one of them is thinking, "What the fuck was he thinking? There are 90 seconds left and he
knows he can't put his hands on the face of the quarterback. He fucked up."
What if there was an inadvertent five yard face mask on the receiver that didn't affect the play? Should the ref swallow his whistle there too? How about if another player flattens a receiver all the way on the other side of the field after the ball is already in the air? Swallow the whistle because he was nowhere near the play? This is all stupid. A penalty is a penalty.
TM
