for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Why was the unnecessary roughness flag on Tye picked up?

lawguy9801 : 12/5/2016 8:33 am
One of the many bad calls in yesterday's horrifically officiated game was the decision to pick up the unnecessary roughness flag on the hit against Will Tye by the Pittsburgh DB.

All we hear about these days is the desire to avoid concussions and cut down on unnecessary head trauma. Here, we had a ball thrown over Tye's head, he's looking down the field in Shepard's direction, and he gets his clock cleaned when he clearly doesn't have the ball. I thought there was an effort beginning last year or the year before to start penalizing that sort of hit more frequently as unnecessary roughness. We've now seen that called plenty of times around the league.

That, in fact, was the initial call, and then, without any real explanation, they picked up the flag on a play that would have give the Giants a first down.

If you are going to have a rule, enforce it, and if not, don't enforce it. Don't have a rule, enforce it sometimes, and then not other times on plays that provide a textbook application of that rule.
Because the official is a moron  
Tuckrule : 12/5/2016 8:35 am : link
The ball was passed tye. He wasn't even looking on the direction of the football and got hit high. If this was college football that would have been targeting and an ejection. In the NFL it's a legal play according to that putrid crew of zebras
Seemed they picked up because he wasnt the intended receiver  
Shecky : 12/5/2016 8:36 am : link
Which if that is the reasoning, I think it is a much worse issue. Blowing up a random player on the field?? While the ball is in the air?

The only other explanation is they thought he led with the head and/or hit Tye in the head. If that is why they picked it up, I can understand that.
Just looked it up, because now I am curious  
Shecky : 12/5/2016 8:38 am : link
Apparently it was addressed in the post game:

"Did you get an explanation why they picked up the flag when Will Tye got hit?

They said they threw it for pass interference and the ball was uncatchable."
This is the same crew..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 12/5/2016 8:39 am : link
that watched Norman bodyslam Beckham and chose not to throw a flag.

The same crew that threw a flag on Richberg for flexing - when Mitchell did the same thing after the Tye hit, no flag.

At some point (and Beckham has already called it out), you have to wonder if there's an agenda here against the Giants by that crew.
Mike Pereira  
pjcas18 : 12/5/2016 8:40 am : link
didn't even know why they picked it up, but agreed with it.

he's a mouthpiece for the officials. I hate any time they mention his name.
Shepard?  
NJLCO : 12/5/2016 8:49 am : link
Did you watch the reply on this play? My question is why Shepard didn't make a play on the ball? I believe the ball was intended for him and not Tye.
RE: Just looked it up, because now I am curious  
Bobby Humphrey's Earpad : 12/5/2016 8:58 am : link
In comment 13249309 Shecky said:
Quote:
Apparently it was addressed in the post game:

"Did you get an explanation why they picked up the flag when Will Tye got hit?

They said they threw it for pass interference and the ball was uncatchable."


Wait a minute - that's what they said? That's complete B.S. That play was a textbook defenseless receiver call - you can't just lay the guy out. I would be all over Blandino this morning - that's another example of BS from the refs to change the call after the fact with ad hoc reasoning.
That was the definition  
HoustonGiant : 12/5/2016 9:07 am : link
of targeting. Should have been flagged. It was also helmet to helmet.
Uncatchable by who?  
Shecky : 12/5/2016 9:14 am : link
Tye? Sheppard? Or both? That's what I'd want the refs to explain?

Secondly, if that ball even remotely could be caught by Sheppard or looks like it might have been intended for him, then it has to be illegal contact on the Tye hit. You can't hit a receiver on a ball intended for another player while it's in the air.

Regardless of explanation, it could have been called multiple ways. I'd be ok if they didn't throw the flag. To pick it up??
RE: Uncatchable by who?  
Bobby Humphrey's Earpad : 12/5/2016 9:18 am : link
In comment 13249399 Shecky said:
Quote:
Tye? Sheppard? Or both? That's what I'd want the refs to explain?

Secondly, if that ball even remotely could be caught by Sheppard or looks like it might have been intended for him, then it has to be illegal contact on the Tye hit. You can't hit a receiver on a ball intended for another player while it's in the air.

Regardless of explanation, it could have been called multiple ways. I'd be ok if they didn't throw the flag. To pick it up??


And pick it up AFTER Mitchell was allowed to converse with the Refs for 5 minutes!
because it wasn't called unnecessary roughness, it was call pass  
Victor in CT : 12/5/2016 9:41 am : link
interference and the ball was ruled uncatchable
RE: That was the definition  
Eman11 : 12/5/2016 9:44 am : link
In comment 13249381 HoustonGiant said:
Quote:
of targeting. Should have been flagged. It was also helmet to helmet.


First of all there is NO targeting penalty in the NFL. Secondly, I don't know what you were looking at but it was clearly a shoulder to the upper chest. Neither guy had his head involved in that hit.

I'm not saying the flag should've been picked up because it was an unnecessary hit, and possibly on a defenseless receiver as well IMO but to say it was a penalty that doesn't exist or a hit to his head is just flat out wrong.
If a Giant made that hit he would be ejected  
gtt350 : 12/5/2016 9:44 am : link
the NFL sucks now
he also launched  
UConn4523 : 12/5/2016 9:45 am : link
clear as day in the replay that he launched his body forward and up and luckily didn't hit Tye in the head. Could have sworn launching was illegal but who knows these days.
It figures that..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 12/5/2016 9:48 am : link
the Giants would be one of the only times in recent history where I've seen the uncatchable rule apply. While it was liberally used in the past as a copout, I think it has been a few years since I've actually seen the uncatchable pass referenced, especially when picking up a flag on a play where a guy is laid out and the player who made the hit, flexed and then pleaded his case to the refs for awhile.

A very maddening and bizarre sequence.
salt to the wound  
andrew_nyg : 12/5/2016 9:56 am : link
after the flag was picked up Mitchell was clearly taunting the Giants about the reversal and the official was standing right there. No flag for that either.

How about the DL driving Eli into the ground on the 4th and 9 sack? CLEARLY unnecessary roughness, and worse than what Vernon did in a game earlier this season and he got the flag for it.

I could go on....several calls/non calls on OBJ targets.

Ridiculous!
for the record  
CBoss7 : 12/5/2016 10:10 am : link
Only reason it would've been called is if you think he launched which is debatable. Otherwise it wasn't contact to the head or neck area which is the definition of the rule. Have to either launch or make contact to the head/neck. Obviously have seen hits less than that called, but this wasn't as egregious as it seemed.
They said they picked it up...  
Johnny5 : 12/5/2016 10:11 am : link
... because it was unclear which receiver the ball was going to. That's what the Steelers argued, The safety wasn't watching the ball, he saw the throw and thought it was Tye who was targeted and he put the hit on him. That was the explanation.
RE: Mike Pereira  
BillKo : 12/5/2016 10:22 am : link
In comment 13249314 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
didn't even know why they picked it up, but agreed with it.

he's a mouthpiece for the officials. I hate any time they mention his name.


PJ - is that what he said? I remember him saying "absolutely agree, and it's the right call", paraphrasing of course.

Officiating yesterday truly was atrocious  
ShockNRoll : 12/5/2016 10:33 am : link
Odell was habitually running and trying to catch passes with Steelers on his back, Eli getting driven to the ground, the Tye play, Odell's offensive PI, Flowers' holding in the end zone...yet it looks like the Steelers were more under scrutiny because they were flagged more times. The difference is that the penalties called on the Giants were at crucial spots and were directly related with points going the other way (Odell's PI which backed up the Giants and led to the other questionable call that was a safety)...The Giants got their asses kicked yesterday, but this could have been a very different game had the game been called fairly.
RE: Mike Pereira  
Matt M. : 12/5/2016 11:14 am : link
In comment 13249314 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
didn't even know why they picked it up, but agreed with it.

he's a mouthpiece for the officials. I hate any time they mention his name.
He's become a joke. The first season Fox had him on, he was open and honest, even if it belied what was called on the field. Now, it seems every week he says one thing when watching the replay and changes his tune completely when the officials do the opposite. Yesterday was no different. He liked the call then all of a sudden it was the right thing to pick up the flag.

I thought it was thrown for hitting a defenseless receiver  
Matt M. : 12/5/2016 11:16 am : link
which would have been the right call. How was it deemed PI when the hit was after the ball was past the receiver and he was looking behind him, not at the QB?

He wasn't looking, the hit was high, and it was after the player was out of the play...aren't these the criteria for hitting the defenseless receiver?
RE: That was the definition  
Matt M. : 12/5/2016 11:17 am : link
In comment 13249381 HoustonGiant said:
Quote:
of targeting. Should have been flagged. It was also helmet to helmet.
It wasn't helmet to helmet. It was close, but Mitchell's helmet hit Tye right on the top of the chest, narrowly missing the bottom of his facemask.
RE: RE: Mike Pereira  
pjcas18 : 12/5/2016 11:18 am : link
In comment 13249609 BillKo said:
Quote:
In comment 13249314 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


didn't even know why they picked it up, but agreed with it.

he's a mouthpiece for the officials. I hate any time they mention his name.



PJ - is that what he said? I remember him saying "absolutely agree, and it's the right call", paraphrasing of course.


Pereira thought they picked up the flag because it wasn't unnecessary roughness or a hit on a defenseless receiver, he didn't know it was originally PI and picked up because the ball was deemed uncatchable.

maybe semantics, and he would have agreed anyway, but I almost never hear him disagree with an official anymore and I think that's exactly how the league and the networks want it - waste of time and space.
RE: This is the same crew..  
Matt M. : 12/5/2016 11:18 am : link
In comment 13249311 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
that watched Norman bodyslam Beckham and chose not to throw a flag.

The same crew that threw a flag on Richberg for flexing - when Mitchell did the same thing after the Tye hit, no flag.

At some point (and Beckham has already called it out), you have to wonder if there's an agenda here against the Giants by that crew.
OBJ will certainly be fined for his comments yesterday. But, you really have to wonder about this crew.
RE: It figures that..  
Matt M. : 12/5/2016 11:21 am : link
In comment 13249505 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
the Giants would be one of the only times in recent history where I've seen the uncatchable rule apply. While it was liberally used in the past as a copout, I think it has been a few years since I've actually seen the uncatchable pass referenced, especially when picking up a flag on a play where a guy is laid out and the player who made the hit, flexed and then pleaded his case to the refs for awhile.

A very maddening and bizarre sequence.
Regardless, that only explains why it wasn't PI. How was there not a flag for hitting a defenseless receiver, which would have been the right call?

Even forgetting all the non-PI calls, how was this and the roughing the passer not called on the 4th down sack when Eli was driven into the ground after the whistle blew multiple times? Those are plays that the giants have been flagged for several times over the last few years. when we are on the receiving end, no call.

How many times have replays shown this year Eli getting hit in the helmet after releasing the ball? I can think of about a dozen, or at least once a game. How many flags? None? Yes, we get flagged for roughing the passer when a DL hits the QB literally within 1-2 steps of the release.
RE: RE: RE: Mike Pereira  
Matt M. : 12/5/2016 11:22 am : link
In comment 13249824 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13249609 BillKo said:


Quote:


In comment 13249314 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


didn't even know why they picked it up, but agreed with it.

he's a mouthpiece for the officials. I hate any time they mention his name.



PJ - is that what he said? I remember him saying "absolutely agree, and it's the right call", paraphrasing of course.




Pereira thought they picked up the flag because it wasn't unnecessary roughness or a hit on a defenseless receiver, he didn't know it was originally PI and picked up because the ball was deemed uncatchable.

maybe semantics, and he would have agreed anyway, but I almost never hear him disagree with an official anymore and I think that's exactly how the league and the networks want it - waste of time and space.
Even if that is all true, which I don't buy, then why not have a set of balls and stick with your original convictions and call them out for not flagging a hit on a defenseless receiver?
I'm in agreement  
pjcas18 : 12/5/2016 11:25 am : link
Matt M. I've seen lesser hits stick, and the fact the Steelers lobbied for it makes it worse.
I agree that it should have been a defenseless receiver call  
Cruzin : 12/5/2016 11:32 am : link

but man, that was a nice hit. Felt the shiver in my living room.
Cause it was the wrong call to begin with  
jeff57 : 12/5/2016 11:33 am : link
.
RE: Just looked it up, because now I am curious  
lawguy9801 : 12/5/2016 11:52 am : link
In comment 13249309 Shecky said:
Quote:
Apparently it was addressed in the post game:

"Did you get an explanation why they picked up the flag when Will Tye got hit?

They said they threw it for pass interference and the ball was uncatchable."


This is ridiculous. At the time, the ref said there would be no foul for unnecessary roughness. He didn't mention pass interference - that is a total copout, in the hope that no one would notice the discrepancy.

That should have been a clear hit on a defenseless receiver penalty.
RE: Cause it was the wrong call to begin with  
Matt M. : 12/5/2016 11:53 am : link
In comment 13249883 jeff57 said:
Quote:
.
That is kind of the point. They claim to have not thrown the flag for hitting a defenseless receiver, but rather PI, which makes no sense. If it was thrown for PI then it should be picked up because it's the wrong call, but it only further exemplifies the problem with officiating in general and this crew specifically. If it was originally thrown for hitting a defenseless receiver, then they let the Steelers talk them out of it.
Because it was a totally crap throw by Eli  
WideRight : 12/5/2016 11:55 am : link
Nobody could tell who the intended target was. It was that bad. So if Tye was thought to be a target, the roughness wasn't unnecessary.

Just another small way that Eli is worse on the field than he is on paper.
It doesn't matter who the pass was intended for.  
shockeyisthebest8056 : 12/5/2016 12:36 pm : link
The ball had already passed Tye and he was looking in another direction. That was clearly a hit on a defenseless receiver.
RE: Because it was a totally crap throw by Eli  
Matt M. : 12/5/2016 12:45 pm : link
In comment 13249949 WideRight said:
Quote:
Nobody could tell who the intended target was. It was that bad. So if Tye was thought to be a target, the roughness wasn't unnecessary.

Just another small way that Eli is worse on the field than he is on paper.
WideRight - This is completely wrong. It Tye was the target, PI is wrong because it's uncatchable. But, whether or not he was the target, he was still a defenseless receiver when the ball got past him. That is where the flag would have been appropriate. It is to protect receivers once they are no longer the receiver.
Meanwhile, Mitchell  
B in ALB : 12/5/2016 1:04 pm : link
can tackle Beckham and drive his forearm into his throat while on the ground. Again, no call.

Last night was crooked.
RE: for the record  
weaverpsu : 12/5/2016 1:11 pm : link
In comment 13249575 CBoss7 said:
Quote:
Only reason it would've been called is if you think he launched which is debatable. Otherwise it wasn't contact to the head or neck area which is the definition of the rule. Have to either launch or make contact to the head/neck. Obviously have seen hits less than that called, but this wasn't as egregious as it seemed.


Nope. It's called a hit on a defenseless receiver. You don't need to launch. That was a dangerous hit. Tye wasn't even looking to catch the ball.
My wife who doesn't have an interest in football  
SLIM_ : 12/5/2016 1:13 pm : link
was occasionally looking up at the TV during the game to see who was winning. When she saw the Steeler go into the officials huddle, she asked if arguing about a call was legal. I was trying to explain that he wasn't out of control as he went over there pretty calm and they basically would tell him to STF and get back to the huddle...

Then he proceeded to stay there and the call was overturned. I looked pretty foolish and mentioned home cooking which then of course Perriera on TV said that it was the right call. I look foolish and as my wife thinks following football as much as I do is foolish, this didn't help the cause.

RE: Because it was a totally crap throw by Eli  
weaverpsu : 12/5/2016 1:14 pm : link
In comment 13249949 WideRight said:
Quote:
Nobody could tell who the intended target was. It was that bad. So if Tye was thought to be a target, the roughness wasn't unnecessary.

Just another small way that Eli is worse on the field than he is on paper.


I actually think it was a good throw and it looked like Shepard stopped running full speed
Am I misrembering  
SLIM_ : 12/5/2016 1:15 pm : link
but didn't the flag come out, the official made the prelimary motion for personal foul and then a conference ensued.
RE: RE: Because it was a totally crap throw by Eli  
WideRight : 12/5/2016 1:27 pm : link
In comment 13250104 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 13249949 WideRight said:


Quote:


Nobody could tell who the intended target was. It was that bad. So if Tye was thought to be a target, the roughness wasn't unnecessary.

Just another small way that Eli is worse on the field than he is on paper.

WideRight - This is completely wrong. It Tye was the target, PI is wrong because it's uncatchable. But, whether or not he was the target, he was still a defenseless receiver when the ball got past him. That is where the flag would have been appropriate. It is to protect receivers once they are no longer the receiver.


Tye was not the target, but the throw was so bad that some, including the DB, thought he might be. So no PI or defenseless receiver because he wasn't the target, and no roughing since it was shoulder to chest. And Tye got up quickly, unhurt. You still want a flag?
Pereira said it was because there was no helmet to helmet.  
Blue21 : 12/5/2016 4:17 pm : link
But he sure as hell was in a defenseless position as far as I was concerned. Couldn't believe they picked the flag up. But calls weren't going Giants way yesterday
the refs told McAdoo that?  
area junc : 12/5/2016 4:28 pm : link
On the field, they announced "there is no foul for intentional roughness, the player lead with his shoulder and hit the chest".

They didn't say anything about pass interference.

What a bunch of phonies. Unreal.
area..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 12/5/2016 4:35 pm : link
is correct. The official announcement said, "there is no penalty for uneccesary roughness". That's what the officials said during the game.
RE: RE: RE: Because it was a totally crap throw by Eli  
Bobby Humphrey's Earpad : 12/5/2016 4:36 pm : link
In comment 13250241 WideRight said:
Quote:
In comment 13250104 Matt M. said:


Quote:


In comment 13249949 WideRight said:


Quote:


Nobody could tell who the intended target was. It was that bad. So if Tye was thought to be a target, the roughness wasn't unnecessary.

Just another small way that Eli is worse on the field than he is on paper.

WideRight - This is completely wrong. It Tye was the target, PI is wrong because it's uncatchable. But, whether or not he was the target, he was still a defenseless receiver when the ball got past him. That is where the flag would have been appropriate. It is to protect receivers once they are no longer the receiver.



Tye was not the target, but the throw was so bad that some, including the DB, thought he might be. So no PI or defenseless receiver because he wasn't the target, and no roughing since it was shoulder to chest. And Tye got up quickly, unhurt. You still want a flag?


So you can lay out any receiver if the ball isn't thrown to him and the QB is in the pocket? News to me.
Actually the pass looked like it was to Shep.  
JOrthman : 12/5/2016 4:56 pm : link
but he stopped running. If it was to him then the pass was fine.
the ball went right over Tye's head  
jlukes : 12/5/2016 4:58 pm : link
and it was a shoulder to shoulder hit.

There might have been some bad calls, but the officials got this one right
RE: That was the definition  
section125 : 12/5/2016 5:06 pm : link
In comment 13249381 HoustonGiant said:
Quote:
of targeting. Should have been flagged. It was also helmet to helmet.


No it wasn't. The hit was a shoulder cleanly to the chest. But he was still a defenseless receiver on an unnecessary hit, which is what the call should have been.

I think the league is going to get an earful from the Giants on the officiating this week. Blatant PIs, blatant holding by Villanueva against Vernon and that hit on Tye.
Back to the Corner