The Welker Hit on Talib
- Thread starter Van Everyman
- Start date
It's fairly obvious that your most valuable defensive player cannot stay on the field in the most important game of the year, two years in a row...he pulled up lame last year and this year goes out on a hit by Welker, a hit that caused no damage to the knee.Stitch01 said:
JokersWildJIMED said:
Do you think it's the AFC Championship game itself that's a factor, or is that just a shitty luck coincidence? If he had got hurt against Indy and they lost, then he would have gotten hurt in the most important game of the year. If they'd won and he got hurt in the Super Bowl, then he'd have gotten hurt in the most important game of the year. It's sort of a self-realized point, right? He gets hurt, they lose, ergo he always gets hurt in the most important game of the year.
I'm just not sure how to rectify that we lose without the guy so we should get rid of him. Is there a viable replacement out there that can be attained at a similar price, because we've pretty well established what happens when he's not playing.
What I'm saying is that I don't think there's ever been supplementary discipline for vanilla offensive pass interference. There needs to be some sort of intent to injure or recklessness. Given that backdrop, I think that's a pretty fair reading of what Belichick said.Joshv02 said:
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet28s
NFL head of refs Dean Blandino on the Welker/Talib play: “Under the current rules, this is a legal play."
NFL head of refs Dean Blandino on the Welker/Talib play: “Under the current rules, this is a legal play."
It's interesting to me that both Pereira and Blandino said the contact was 'about when the ball touched the receiver' rather than 'after' or 'at the same time'. Does the rule itself say 'about' or is it 'same time' or 'after' as I'd imagine? I get why they'd choose to say 'close enough' and not make the issue a bigger one, just curious.
Pereira saying it was close enough has some weight with me, though I do not agree with him on this play. Blandino has earned a presumption that he's managing the media not the merits of the call, imo.
Pereira saying it was close enough has some weight with me, though I do not agree with him on this play. Blandino has earned a presumption that he's managing the media not the merits of the call, imo.
PedroKsBambino said:
Technically, the rule is that its OPI if the ball is still in the air. So the various stills out there that show Welker crushing Talib while the ball hadn't hit DT's hands yet are pretty conclusive in that respect. More informally, some refs may believe that if its close enough it shouldn't be called.
Realistically, the reason they say "about", is because at the speed the NFL is played at that's as good as it gets on certain plays. Even though the still shot reveals the ball getting there after the hit, you need the still shot to be sure.
What makes this play especially challenging is that the ref is supposed to somehow watch the ball arrive, and see when contact gets initiated, which with Talib trailing as far as he was, makes two places at once.
Basically what he is saying is that the timing of the ball and the hit is within their acceptable margins of "simultaneous", which at NFL speed is a range and not a fixed point.
What makes this play especially challenging is that the ref is supposed to somehow watch the ball arrive, and see when contact gets initiated, which with Talib trailing as far as he was, makes two places at once.
Basically what he is saying is that the timing of the ball and the hit is within their acceptable margins of "simultaneous", which at NFL speed is a range and not a fixed point.
I don't know. I don't think the head of officiating should call something a "legal play" because it was close enough. If he wants to say it was a very close call or something to that degree then fine. Back your official. But to say it was legal means an OPI would be the wrong call. So if a ref has the angle and calls a close play as OPI, he's wrong? Are they telling refs not to call those? I wouldn't be surprised if they were and can understand why some DBs are upset.Sausage in Section 17 said:
Perhaps catchability factors in here, since the ball was in the air? Logically, "pass interference" doesn't seem like the right penalty - Welker didn't interfere with Talib's ability to make a play on the pass.BigJimEd said:
I don't think we're talking about this play if Talib didn't get hurt.
It's never been tougher for officials. The advent of replay as part of the rules raised the bar for accuracy. We've all gotten used to the idea that we can take a second look, and that a bad call can get overturned, but it hasn't ever and shouldn't apply to penalties. There are probably 5 plays a game where depending on the timing of the balls arrival, PI could get called in one direction or another. It has and always will be a judgment call. Considering the refs get to watch it once at full speed,it's just not fair to apply replay level scrutiny to every area of the game.
What would be interesting to know is if there is a grade relating to the call for the refs. I can accept the head officials comments if he's saying its too close to call at that speed, but I'd also like to think that since the stills confirm early contact, the room for improvement would be noted in some way.
What would be interesting to know is if there is a grade relating to the call for the refs. I can accept the head officials comments if he's saying its too close to call at that speed, but I'd also like to think that since the stills confirm early contact, the room for improvement would be noted in some way.
Doesn't this speak to Belichick's idea of letting everything be challengeable? Whether contact was incidental or interference in judgement and perhaps can't be overturned, but something like whether contact happened before or after the ball arrived is objective.Sausage in Section 17 said:
This. This is what I mean. I think the head of officials should have a more precise definition and shouldn't be calling something that on replay clearly shows contact before the ball as "legal". Too close to call? maybe. But to say it is a "legal play" under the current rules seems wrong and unnecessary, at least to me. If a flag was thrown for OPI, would he say that was the wrong call? Because that is in essence what he is saying.Sausage in Section 17 said:
And no we wouldn't be talking about it if Taliib didn't get injured. And I don't think the hit was dirty or even that it was an obviously bad call. I just expect more from the league's head of officials.
Everything? There's got to be a line. The end of games would become ridiculous with coaches using up challenges to see if one of 6 guys was holding on the game winning field goal,
Bedard's article didn't mention catchability as being a criterion for determining whether illegal contact had occurred. I agree that if Talib doesn't get hurt, the only thing that happens is that Belichick or one of the assistants barks at the officials for a few seconds and everyone moves on.Super Nomario said:
I know I've said this before, but challenging non-calls like the Welker/Talib play can open a whole big can of worms. Between the myriad of collisions occurring on every play, there's probably at least one infraction going on for every down. At some point, you do have to let the humans call the game as they see it, and live with the resulting imperfections.
However, I do think the scope of plays subject to challenge can be expanded. But that's probably a different thread.
Super Nomario said:
Ah, but he did get hurt, yeah? So that raises the issue of whether or not the injury was a function of an infraction. A lot of the rules, as you obviously know, are in place to some degree because football would be too dangerous without them. Hell, it's too dangerous with them.
I think it was BagofBalls who speculated way up-thread about what would happen is the Patriots ran this, but with Gronk playing the role of Welker. Here's another view of the play:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZQU8nrtyL4
The genius of this play design is not only is there a pick, but the receiver hides the guy who is going to make the pick. Of course, a normal pick is guys interfering with each other in space; we might want to consider a different term when the guy setting the pick frickin' trucks the defender--this is a bit more than leaning into the pick in basketball.
In a very real sense, while the intent is to free a receiver to catch a ball so I wouldn't say there is intent to hurt the defender, that goal is accomplished by making it so that the pass defender doesn't see a hit coming because the player setting the pick is concealed, which is inherently dangerous.
Agreed, I dont buy that it was a technically legal play. In real time the hit was super close to when the ball was caught, but it was pretty conclusively early in slow motion and with the stills.PedroKsBambino said:
Refs obviously can't see those stills and slow motion shots when they are calling it real time so its very possible its called with a fudge factor in practice (not a perfect analogy, but sort of like you get an extra half second to snap the ball when the clock gets to 0 before getting a delay of game call), but that's different from being a "legal play under the current rules". It might be correct to say 'the refs didnt blow the call", but I dont see how it was technically legal.
BB was pretty clearly wrong in his statement. Not a huge deal.
The rulebook lists under "permissable acts by both teams while the ball is in the air":lexrageorge said:
"Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players, except as specified in 8-3-2 and 8-5-4 pertaining to blocking downfield by the offense."
8-3-2 relates to ineligible receivers. 8-5-4 prohibits "blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to a pass being thrown," with a note that "It is also pass interference by the offense to block a defender beyond the line while the pass is in the air, if the block occurs within the vicinity of the player to whom the pass is thrown."
So it looks like "catchability" isn't really a factor for OPI, but "in the vicinity" is. I'm not sure exactly how that applies to the Talib case. In the spirit of the rule, I think it's pretty difficult to argue that Welker's block interfered with Talib's ability to play the pass.
Sure, but OPI isn't a safety rule. If Welker hits Talib a split-second later, it obviously isn't pass interference, but it very likely would have produced the same result. Talib didn't get hurt because Welker hit him before Thomas touched the ball; he got hurt because Welker hit him when he wasn't looking, which is legal in many contexts throughout football.Reverend said:
I don't think there's much unique in the design of the pick, to be honest. Thomas hides Welker because they're running as close to each other's paths as possible so Talib can't split them. Welker's size relative to Thomas is probably a factor here, too.Reverend said:
Reiss (I think) made the point that the rub action happened farther downfield than typical, so the players were traveling at a little faster speed than normal for a play like this.
Oh, now this is gonna get fun.
Seahawks CB Walter Thurmond's comments on Wes Welker's hit on Aqib Talib
Seahawks CB Walter Thurmond's comments on Wes Welker's hit on Aqib Talib
Right. Basically, if the pass is not yet thrown, offensive players cannot block more than 1 yard past the los; if the pass is thrown but not yet caught, offensive players (more than one yard past the los) in the vicinity of the ball cannot block, but those not in the vicinity of the ball are not committing OPI if they do block.Super Nomario said:
Assuming Welker hit Talib while the ball is in the air (as I think is clear), the example (AR 8.36) is basically the Welker player - "Second-and-10 on A30. Eligible tight end A1 goes across the line at the snap and blocks defensive player B1 on the A35 before eligible flanker A2 catches the ball on the A34. Flanker A2 goes to the A45. Ruling: Offensive pass interference. Cannot block beyond the line prior to the ball being touched. A’s ball second-and-20 on A20."
RoyHobbs said:
That's just Seattle trying to work the refs ahead of time because they know that pick/rub plays and short passes are the main way to defeat their brand of press cover-1 and cover-3 defense.
I'm still unclear how this is different than the play that tore up Rodney Harrison's knee years ago.
I also don't know how it is different from hitting a defenseless WR.
My guess is that the Competition Committee will look at this in the offseason.
I also don't know how it is different from hitting a defenseless WR.
My guess is that the Competition Committee will look at this in the offseason.
Saints Rest said:
You guys know that the Patriots use the same pick/rub plays as much as Denver, right?
Why on earth would you want them limited?
The play in question just another rub play that went badly because Talib and Welker played chicken and collided. the play is designed to make Talib swerve high and lose a step on Thomas, who he is pursuing. Talib didn't bite, Welker didn't flinch, and they collided.
I would have had no complaint if it was flagged as OPI. It wasn't flagged (most likely because in real time/full speed the refs watching Thomas and Welker couldn't tell if the ball got there before the collision). They collided and Talib got banged up. Welker could have just as easily been the guy getting banged up.
But you guys want to cut your noses off to spite your face by making it harder to run pick/rub plays? Those plays are helping your offense (and others) beat the modern man coverage played by the best NFL defenses.
Denver runs a pick play on almost every play. I think at this point they just figure it's like holding... It only gets called so many times.86spike said:
And second this is nowhere close to a typical rub or pick. Welker goes out of his way to throw himself into Talib. He's not simply running in a straight line. He throws himself into Talib from the blind side.
But then again that's just my opinion ...as unbiased as yours.
I'd be in favor of taking pick plays out of the game. The defense is already handicapped enough the 5 yard holding call and PI.
Strictly speaking pretty much every play where receivers cross is a pick play on some level.jsinger121 said:
I'd rather just let defenders be allowed to make contact for ten yards, but I'm in favor of most rules that helps the defense without hurting player safety given the myriad of recent rule changes that have helped the offense.86spike said:
The Welker collision is basically offensive PI or a legal block, so not sure what penalty will be designed around that.
Apologies if this has been covered in here....
Hands down the worst part of all this is if talib sizes up welker then goes low on him when welkers not catching the ball its an easy 15 and probably a fine from goodell.
So are saying now its ok for wrs to blow up dbs but not the other way around? Setting a very dangerous precedent there. Whats to stop the pats from lining up jaime collins on 3rd down in the slot and having him run a "legal" pick play by decleating a db to create an opening?
Hands down the worst part of all this is if talib sizes up welker then goes low on him when welkers not catching the ball its an easy 15 and probably a fine from goodell.
So are saying now its ok for wrs to blow up dbs but not the other way around? Setting a very dangerous precedent there. Whats to stop the pats from lining up jaime collins on 3rd down in the slot and having him run a "legal" pick play by decleating a db to create an opening?
He didn't go low. So, sure, if Talib, on top of doing what Welker did, also made the hit in an illegal way, he might get a fine. But simply reversing the two players would not not be a fine and maybe not even a penalty since the ball was out and Welker wasn't the intended receiver.
86spike said:
I agree the Pats use plenty of pick plays and am not of the view the league should get rid of them. But to call that a collision rather than a targeted hit by Welker is silly; there is clear intent there, and a more credible league officiating system would have acknowledged that.
It's the game---lots of picks get run, sometimes guys get targeted and blown up. But you gotta acknowledge that one was intentional and more aggressive than any in memory, too.
PedroKsBambino said:
I do not acknowledge that. i agree with Teddy Brushi (as quoted earlier in this thread):
Bruschi: I know how it looked, David, but I disagree with the assessment. This type of collision happens every week in the NFL. If you look closely, this type of pick-route mentality happens weekly within the New England Patriot offense. It's a strategic way to beat man to man coverage. When these techniques are utilized closer to the line of scrimmage, they happen at a lower rate of speed. But when they happen down the field, 10-15 yards from the line of scrimmage, the rate of speed increases. Welker had a clear goal on that play -- to make Aqib Talib go over the top so he could free up Demaryius Thomas. Aqib Talib made a decision to attempt to fight to stay under that pick. So what you have there are 2 players, going at a high rate of speed because they were 10-plus yards from the line of scrimmage, simultaneously deciding to take the same route. That's where the collision occurred. Welker's intent was to pick Aqib Talib, but it wasn't to injure.
Welker and Talib played chicken. Neither one flinched. They collided. It sucks that Talib got hurt.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
I am sympathetic to this view, but the NFL clearly isn't. Chicks Dig The Long Ball.
86spike said:
You either read my post or the Bruschi post incorrectly---Bruschi (like I) saw an intent from Welker to hit Talib on the play. Neither of us saw an intent to injure. Bruschi is a little confusing in the middle there, but he says plain as day ultimately that the intent was to pick Talib. As Bruschi notes, it is common for players to collide but as he also notes, it happening where it did made it much more violent than most.
Other players have been quoted as saying the same thing I did; you don't have to agree with it, obviously.
PedroKsBambino said:
I guess I read your post incorrectly then. I thought you were saying Welker was making a move solely to cause a collision.
IMO, the optimal result of that play, when run correctly, is no collision because one of the two flinch and change course. Welker's goal is not to collide and neither is Talib's.
I think Welker was trying to make Talib change routes and, when he didnt, decided that if they were going to collide it was better to deliver a blow than receive one.
EDIT: If he had went low on Talib or headhunted him, then I would have considered the play similiar to the Marcus Cannon leg whip of Charles Johnson in the Carolina game: a somewhat dirty and dangerous heat of the moment play where the refs missed a call that injured a key opposing player and had a major impact on the game. Then Welker would have deserved a small fine (larger if at the head) and reprimand from the league office. A blow to the midsection in that spot? Meh, cant get too up in arms over it, would have obviously been nice to have the OPI call given the call on Hooman.
EDIT: If he had went low on Talib or headhunted him, then I would have considered the play similiar to the Marcus Cannon leg whip of Charles Johnson in the Carolina game: a somewhat dirty and dangerous heat of the moment play where the refs missed a call that injured a key opposing player and had a major impact on the game. Then Welker would have deserved a small fine (larger if at the head) and reprimand from the league office. A blow to the midsection in that spot? Meh, cant get too up in arms over it, would have obviously been nice to have the OPI call given the call on Hooman.
86spike said:
I did, and Bruschi did as well. The idea of the play is to set up contact with the DB, and often the defensive player moves out of the way instead of that contact occurring. But don't kid yourself about what the WR is trying to do, either....just watch Welker drop his shoulder on the play, he is not doing that to get out of the way he is doing it to prepare to hit the DB.
From Jim Leonhard: Looked like Welker was on a suicide mission on that route. Unreal pick he set, not sure how not a flag.
Mind you, I also agree with Bruschi this type of play happens a lot, and the Pats use it as well. My two comments are 1) Welker got there a little early, which is a penalty by the rules and 2) to my eyes, the hit was materially more than we see on other pick plays and worthy of a flag for that reason. But like I said elsewhere in the thread, it's the NFL and things happen.