Wagner's Blocked FG Attempt

[RiverDog]

I'm a little surprised at how many people think that what Bobby Wagner did to block a FG attempt last Monday should have been called a foul. Here's the exact wording of the applicable rule:

Placing a hand or hands on a teammate or opponent to gain additional height to block or attempt to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick, or in an attempt to jump through a gap to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick.

I've never been accused of anyone of being a homer, but from what I saw, Wagner did touched the backs of two teammates, but he didn't gain any height. Can't they run that play back and use something to gauge whether or not he gained any height after touching his two teammates?

Look for the league to change the rule...again...this offseason.

[idhawkman]

I'm a little surprised at how many people think that what Bobby Wagner did to block a FG attempt last Monday should have been called a foul. Here's the exact wording of the applicable rule:

Placing a hand or hands on a teammate or opponent to gain additional height to block or attempt to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick, or in an attempt to jump through a gap to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick.

I've never been accused of anyone of being a homer, but from what I saw, Wagner did touched the backs of two teammates, but he didn't gain any height. Can't they run that play back and use something to gauge whether or not he gained any height after touching his two teammates?

Look for the league to change the rule...again...this offseason.

I'm not sure that is the whole rule though River. The dingbat Blandino said at the time that he's also not allowed to touch or drag across the offensive player. Not sure if Bobby did that but I would look for similar writing in the full description of the rule for jumping/blocking a kick.

[c_hawkbob]

or in an attempt to jump through a gap to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick.

There needs to be no height gained, or even attempted to be gained in the second half of that sentence. He did place his hands on the backs of his fellow players in an attempt to jump through a gap to block an opponent’s kick, even though there was no leverage or height gained from the act. It should have been a foul. I'm just glad it wasn't

[idhawkman]

There needs to be no height gained, or even attempted to be gained in the second half of that sentence. He did place his hands on the backs of his fellow players in an attempt to jump through a gap to block an opponent’s kick, even though there was no leverage or height gained from the act. It should have been a foul. I'm just glad it wasn't

I thought that too Cbob but then the rule is written real bad since I then thought that it was an "or" to the second part of the sentence instead of the gaining height. I think both you and River are right.

1. you - glad it wasn't call on us.

2. River - it will be re-written for sure.

[idhawkman]

Placing a hand or hands on a teammate or opponent to gain additional height to block or attempt to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick, or in an attempt to jump through a gap to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick.

Think about what that part of the sentence is actually saying. A defender is not allowed to touch (with a hand or hands) an opponent when going through a gap to block a field goal. Is it me or is that just weird? I mean wouldn't all defensive players put their hands out to knock down an arm or widen the gap they are shooting?

[RiverDog]

"or in an attempt to jump through a gap to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick.


There needs to be no height gained, or even attempted to be gained in the second half of that sentence. He did place his hands on the backs of his fellow players in an attempt to jump through a gap to block an opponent’s kick, even though there was no leverage or height gained from the act. It should have been a foul. I'm just glad it wasn't

That's not how I interpeted the 2nd half of that sentence. He did not use his hands to gain advantage. Otherwise, why would there be any need for the additional verbage? Why not say he can't jump and touch anyone while he's airborne and leave it at that? Heck, that way, the play could be reviewable.

[jshawaii22]

RD, come on man ... he used his two lineman like they were pommel horses to gain speed and balance through the gap. Remember that he did this from a standing start, as 'running' is outlawed. Great athletic play on his part and i'm sure Kam had something to do with it, but, that's a competitive advantage and not allowed.

[burrrton]

From my other post on this:

According to the rulebook, it is illegal for a player to place "a hand or hands on a teammate or opponent to gain additional height"

It's a judgment call, and BW clearly didn't gain additional height- it was a correct (or at least highly defensible) no-call (as would calling a foul have been). If it was a matter of literally any touching being illegal, it would be reviewable.

Why not say he can't jump and touch anyone while he's airborne and leave it at that? Heck, that way, the play could be reviewable.

Exactly. Touching someone is allowed- gaining height from doing so isn't.

[curmudgeon]

Classic. Should be reviewable. This review featuring “The Height Meter” brought to you by the folks at Genesis.....

[EmeraldBullet]

Yeah pretty sure the ref decided he didn't touch his linemen to gain height or leverage, maybe for balance, but that alone doesn't seem to violate the rule the way it is written. Or in any case, how the officials interpreted the rules at least. It's hard to say watching the replays, did he push off of either teammate at all? It looks like he used his legs to jump over and would've made it had his teammates not been there to me. It seemed his hands where there to keep track of where his teammates were, not to push off of them. That's my opinion. It also appears to be the opinion of the officials during the game. I agree the rule will probably be rewritten this offseason.

[RiverDog]

RD, come on man ... he used his two lineman like they were pommel horses to gain speed and balance through the gap. Remember that he did this from a standing start, as 'running' is outlawed. Great athletic play on his part and i'm sure Kam had something to do with it, but, that's a competitive advantage and not allowed.

[RiverDog]

RD, come on man ... he used his two lineman like they were pommel horses to gain speed and balance through the gap. Remember that he did this from a standing start, as 'running' is outlawed. Great athletic play on his part and i'm sure Kam had something to do with it, but, that's a competitive advantage and not allowed.

He used his hands to gain speed? I can't see how, he barely touched the other players. Balance, yes, but there's nothing in the rule that speaks to balance, or speed, for that matter.

The original rule was put in as a safety measure as players were standing on top of one another to gain height. There was clearly no risk of injury on that play, at least no more so than any other garden variety play.

They need to do one of two things: Either not allow any touching at all or put a clarification in the rules that incidental touching is allowed.

[idhawkman]

He used his hands to gain speed? I can't see how, he barely touched the other players. Balance, yes, but there's nothing in the rule that speaks to balance, or speed, for that matter.

I think you could argue that "leverage" is equatable to "speed".

[burrrton]

I think you could argue that "leverage" is equatable to "speed".

You could argue that, but then the end result would be an increase in speed. Was there an increase in speed?

Either way, though, increased speed isn't part of the rule.

[edit]

And after pondering this, why the hell do they have any rules in place for this other than "increase scoring at any cost"?

Wouldn't a game be more exciting if it wasn't a virtual given that advancing past a certain place on the field meant 3 points could be assumed?

[RiverDog]

I think you could argue that "leverage" is equatable to "speed".

So tell me where either "leverage" or "speed" is called out in the rule?

[jshawaii22]

Same place you equate the amount of touching that's allowed with 'gaining height' and that's what the ref said happened and I'll admit that's what the ref said, so it must be right, unless it isn't. I'm surprised the NFL Office hasn't explained how it was right or admitted it was wrong to pickup the flag.

[obiken]

So tell me where either "leverage" or "speed" is called out in the rule?

Who cares River, as John Brodie used to say, we have the skins on the wall and we move on to the 9ers.

[RiverDog]

Same place you equate the amount of touching that's allowed with 'gaining height' and that's what the ref said happened and I'll admit that's what the ref said, so it must be right, unless it isn't. I'm surprised the NFL Office hasn't explained how it was right or admitted it was wrong to pickup the flag.

Yea, me, too. It's not like they made an arbitrary decision. The touching was noted and the flag was thrown, a discussion insued, and the decision was made to pick it up. I assume that the crew chief is in communication with someone that has access to replay and can give them advice on the rule, so it's not like it was some rouge official making the call.

[Oly]

I don't understand why the rule covers jumping through a gap. If the issue is safety because of gained height, then you shouldn't need the gap clause. Clearly the NFL doesn't want to ban players moving through the gaps to block kicks and normal football moves to do that will often require both feet to leave the ground. So they are trying to legislate the difference between a small hop to clear an OL's foot vs. a "jump." That seems even more stupidly subjective than the PI rules.

In any case, the grammar of the sentence seems clear enough to me and should ban what Wagner did. It starts with a gerund phrase, then prepositional phrase, then "or" then another prepositional phrase, so understanding the second prepositional phrase is easy: just attach it to the gerund phrase. This makes the following the right way to read the rule: "Placing a hand or hands on a teammate or opponent in an attempt to jump through a gap to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick." As long as the hand placement is related to the jumping--regardless of the reason such as elevation gain, speed gain, stabilization, letting your teammate know you are there, etc.--then it should be against the letter of the law. That's why they should change the letter of the law, because it's f*cking stupid. There is no way what Wagner did should be banned, but I think it is. I also I think that when the refs picked up the flag it was because they decided to use common sense instead of a legalistic read of the rules, because no other explanation makes sense unless you think the refs all of a sudden started being Hawks fans.

[RiverDog]

I don't understand why the rule covers jumping through a gap. If the issue is safety because of gained height, then you shouldn't need the gap clause. Clearly the NFL doesn't want to ban players moving through the gaps to block kicks and normal football moves to do that will often require both feet to leave the ground. So they are trying to legislate the difference between a small hop to clear an OL's foot vs. a "jump." That seems even more stupidly subjective than the PI rules.

In any case, the grammar of the sentence seems clear enough to me and should ban what Wagner did. It starts with a gerund phrase, then prepositional phrase, then "or" then another prepositional phrase, so understanding the second prepositional phrase is easy: just attach it to the gerund phrase. This makes the following the right way to read the rule: "Placing a hand or hands on a teammate or opponent in an attempt to jump through a gap to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick." As long as the hand placement is related to the jumping--regardless of the reason such as elevation gain, speed gain, stabilization, letting your teammate know you are there, etc.--then it should be against the letter of the law. That's why they should change the letter of the law, because it's f*cking stupid. There is no way what Wagner did should be banned, but I think it is. I also I think that when the refs picked up the flag it was because they decided to use common sense instead of a legalistic read of the rules, because no other explanation makes sense unless you think the refs all of a sudden started being Hawks fans.

I agree with the underlined sentence. It reminds me of another MNF controversy when KJ flicked a fumble out of the end zone vs. Detroit and Calvin Johnson. The batting a ball rule was implemented to keep players that were not in position of recovering a fumble from swatting it away from an opponent. KJ was all by himself and there as no doubt that the ball would have gone out of the end zone w/o his intervention. By the exact interpetatation of the rule, the Lions should have been awarded the ball at the point of the fumble, ie the one yard line. But the refs recognized the situation, applied some common sense, and awared the ball to us.

I can understand both sides of the issue. Rules don't always have to be viewed as exact, word-for-word, set in stone Commandments. The refs on the field should have the flexibility to interpet rules when an unanticipated situation arises during a game. But on the other hand, what good are rules if they are not enforced exactly as written? Where do we draw the line?

[NorthHawk]

The refs on the field should have the flexibility to interpet rules when an unanticipated situation arises during a game. But on the other hand, what good are rules if they are not enforced exactly as written? Where do we draw the line?

I think they want cut and dry rules where no interpretation is allowed. They have a bad enough time calling plays right as it is so to add flexibility in how to apply rules would make for much more inconsistent rulings.
Add to it the Oakland franchise going to Vegas and a narrative of corruption could start if calls were interpreted one way or another to affect the score or outcome of games.
I don't think the league wants any part of that.

[burrrton]

This makes the following the right way to read the rule: "Placing a hand or hands on a teammate or opponent in an attempt to jump through a gap to block an opponent’s kick or apparent kick."

That's not unreasonable, but again, if that was how the rule was intended to be read, it wouldn't be a non-reviewable judgement call.

[RiverDog]

I think they want cut and dry rules where no interpretation is allowed. They have a bad enough time calling plays right as it is so to add flexibility in how to apply rules would make for much more inconsistent rulings.

Not if they are in communication in real time to their offices. In a situation like what occurred Monday, they could consult the head of officiating if they agreed with their interpretation, which might have happened.

Add to it the Oakland franchise going to Vegas and a narrative of corruption could start if calls were interpreted one way or another to affect the score or outcome of games.

I don't think the league wants any part of that.

With all the online betting nowadays, I really don't see a problem with a problem concerning playing games in Las Vegas. Gambling is a much different monster than it was 20 or even 10 years ago, which IMO is one of the reasons why sports have loosened up on their reluctance to place teams in such close proximity to gambling centers like Vegas.

[NorthHawk]

It would slow the game down even more if they went to get a ruling from the Head Office. The length of games is often cited as why some people tune out.

The gambling issue is about perception. All it will take is a game where a crew were to interpret the rule that materially affected the outcome or points.
It can happen now, but I think the League wants to avoid any suggestion of corruption and Las Vegas is a sensitive issue with them as shown by their
prior years reluctance to permit a team to locate there.

[RiverDog]

It would slow the game down even more if they went to get a ruling from the Head Office. The length of games is often cited as why some people tune out.

I'm with ya on game stoppages. Especially with as much scoring that's taking place, the games are getting strung out and slowed down. But there are ways to mitigate that, such as cutting down on some of the scheduled commercial breaks, such as when there's a turnover. Not sure if you've noticed, but some networks have started going to split screen coverages, where a commercial is taking place on one side where a conference is going on in the other half. They could speed up the time between an extra point and the ensuing kickoff without compromising commercial revenue.

The gambling issue is about perception. All it will take is a game where a crew were to interpret the rule that materially affected the outcome or points. It can happen now, but I think the League wants to avoid any suggestion of corruption and Las Vegas is a sensitive issue with them as shown by their
prior years reluctance to permit a team to locate there.

IMO one of the reasons the league got over their Las Vegas thing was due to the expansion of the gambling industry, including state sponsored lotteries, indian reservations, and of course, online betting. As a result, the younger generation does not have near the perception of Las Vegas as some of us old farts do.

[NorthHawk]

I'm with ya on game stoppages. Especially with as much scoring that's taking place, the games are getting strung out and slowed down. But there are ways to mitigate that, such as cutting down on some of the scheduled commercial breaks, such as when there's a turnover. Not sure if you've noticed, but some networks have started going to split screen coverages, where a commercial is taking place on one side where a conference is going on in the other half. They could speed up the time between an extra point and the ensuing kickoff without compromising commercial revenue.

I thought they were just in addition to the regular commercial breaks. Are some of the split screens replacing the other commercials?

IMO one of the reasons the league got over their Las Vegas thing was due to the expansion of the gambling industry, including state sponsored lotteries, indian reservations, and of course, online betting. As a result, the younger generation does not have near the perception of Las Vegas as some of us old farts do.

Perceptions have changed, that's for sure, but it's all about money for the owners and anything that could jeopardize it wouldn't be permitted. They're pretty solid in that stance judging by their actions in other areas.

[RiverDog]

I thought they (split screen commercials) were just in addition to the regular commercial breaks. Are some of the split screens replacing the other commercials?

I'm not sure about that. But it doesn't really matter if they are in addition to or in place of. They certainly could utilize them more often to expedite the game while not compromising their commercials.

[idhawkman]

I thought they (split screen commercials) were just in addition to the regular commercial breaks. Are some of the split screens replacing the other commercials?

I'm not sure about that. But it doesn't really matter if they are in addition to or in place of. They certainly could utilize them more often to expedite the game while not compromising their commercials.

It used to be that sports was the most watched LIVE events on TV. I think people are now DVRing them now too. So to get around the FFW through commercials issue, they may be using the split screen now. I for one like to start watching 30-45 min after the game starts so I can purposely skip the commercials. Now they are forcing me to watch them anyway? I think I'll FFW through the split screens too.

[Rambo2014]

The way the Seahawks get these mystery calls in that stadium over the years is no shock that Wagner got away with climbing the backs of the linemen.

It would not surprise me if the refs allowed the Seahawks to haul in an aluminum ladder to get over the pile.

[politicalfootball]

Hey Rambo I got your aluminum ladder right here it leads to noone cares.

Go Hawks !

[curmudgeon]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/12/14/al-riveron-admits-bobby-wagner-blocked-field-goal-should-have-been-flagged/

[jshawaii22]

Rambo spewed: The way the Seahawks get these mystery calls in that stadium over the years is no shock that Wagner got away with climbing the backs of the linemen.


Makes up for the multiple Super Bowl phantom calls with the predetermined Pittsburgh winner (callin the QB for 'clipping') and the phantom touchdown against the J-E-T-S, that turned out to be the QB's helmet, not the football. Want me to continue? I have a lot of them and I think it applies to most home field advantages for 'real' home teams, something the Rams don't have and never will playing in LA.

[jshawaii22]

RD -- waiting for your comment, now that the NFL has chimed in.

[burrrton]

RD -- waiting for your comment, now that the NFL has chimed in.

Who cares what "the NFL" says? They have no more authority on the subject than anyone else, and them thinking he actually did "gain additional height" is no more persuasive than the referees on the field thinking he didn't.

RD -- waiting for your comment, now that I've chimed in.

[RiverDog]

RD -- waiting for your comment, now that the NFL has chimed in.

Who cares what "the NFL" says? They have no more authority on the subject than anyone else, and them thinking he actually did "gain additional height" is no more persuasive than the referees on the field thinking he didn't.

RD -- waiting for your comment, now that I've chimed in.

Wow, so many of you waiting for me to wake up from my nap!

My comment is that an opinion is like a nose: Everyone has one.

The fact that the NFL felt that Wagner was using his hands for leverage doesn't change my opinion one iota. I simply didn't see it the way the league office did, and since it was on ESPN and I was streaming it live, I do not have the ability to replay it and see if my opinion might change. I do not feel that the NFL or anyone else has a superior knowledge as to the definition of the term "leverage." It's a common term, and reminds me of a joke that I can't repeat here.

[Vegaseahawk]

Add to it the Oakland franchise going to Vegas and a narrative of corruption could start if calls were interpreted one way or another to affect the score or outcome of games.

I don't think the league wants any part of that.

With all the online betting nowadays, I really don't see a problem with a problem concerning playing games in Las Vegas. Gambling is a much different monster than it was 20 or even 10 years ago, which IMO is one of the reasons why sports have loosened up on their reluctance to place teams in such close proximity to gambling centers like Vegas

Your reasoning is outdated, Northhawk
I agree with RD 100%. If a narrative of corruption, (whatever that means), was in danger of starting, the fact that a pro football team is based in Las Vegas has nothing to do with that. In fact, I would venture to say that due to the regulation involved by the state gaming control board, the chance of corruption in my city is less than it would be in, say, Seattle, or any other town where a game takes place. The mob left town over 40 years ago. Wagering on sports contests can occur from anywhere there is an internet connection. This is why pro sports franchises are coming to areas where gaming is legal. The infrastructure is already in place. Entertainment & tourism is a big part of the economy. And pro sports is entertainment. Once the puritan hypocrisy is taken away, (Paul Tagliabue), it makes perfect economical sense.

[NorthHawk]

I believe that attitude still exists within the owners circle and that's why it took so long for LV to get a franchise.
I'm not against it, but until recently the influential group were all septuagenarians or older. Jones was probably OK
with it if it made money, but the others didn't want any part of it.
That attitude, I believe is still there to some extent, and if there are some issues, I think the first thing that people will point to
is Las Vegas, however unfair or untrue it may be.

[Vegaseahawk]

If what you imply were true, then why did the NFL allow the Raiders to move to Vegas? The vote passed by 31 of the 32 team owners....

[jshawaii22]

Because Jerry Jones wanted the team in Las Vegas, not San Antonio and what Jerry wants, he got. In this case, it was his support of that child owner in Oakland that turned support to move and it was his support that got the most favorable financial terms for Oakland, whose owner is also the 'poorest' (yes, there are cash 'poor' owners in the NFL)

Jerry's also a very, very smart business man and in a few years, once the stadium is open, he will look like a genius. That new MGM Arena on the strip is already one of the top grossing private arenas in the world and is helping MGM get out of bankruptcy.

As for gambling, it is everywhere and Las Vegas may be a pioneer, but it is now a minor player in the global scope of it. I can gamble from Hawaii, where nothing is legal. No Bingo, no nothing. Internet is king.

[RiverDog]

Because Jerry Jones wanted the team in Las Vegas, not San Antonio and what Jerry wants, he got. In this case, it was his support of that child owner in Oakland that turned support to move and it was his support that got the most favorable financial terms for Oakland, whose owner is also the 'poorest' (yes, there are cash 'poor' owners in the NFL)

Jerry's also a very, very smart business man and in a few years, once the stadium is open, he will look like a genius. That new MGM Arena on the strip is already one of the top grossing private arenas in the world and is helping MGM get out of bankruptcy.

As for gambling, it is everywhere and Las Vegas may be a pioneer, but it is now a minor player in the global scope of it. I can gamble from Hawaii, where nothing is legal. No Bingo, no nothing. Internet is king.

IMO you're over estimating the influence Jones has on the other owners. He's the most visible and most vocal owner, but he doesn't always get his way.

Las Vegas is one of if not the only large market left in the continental USA that would not be split if they were to put a team in there as would have happened had the put a team in Portland or San Antonio. The only other viable markets would have been San Diego and St. Louis. It's perfect, as it's a destination city with a wide variety of entertainment options, and is especially attractive to people in the Northeast during the cold November and December months. It also keeps them from having to realign divisions as geographically they are smack dab in the middle of the other 3 team's markets, and their proximity to LA leaves open the possibility of a Yankees/Red Sox type rivalry.

Personally, I can't wait until 2020, or better yet, 2026 when the Hawks play there. I can kill two birds with one stone.