Florio calls Sherman a "cheap shot artist"

[Popeyejones]

I don't really care how "rough" he was. He delivered a forearm shiver to a player in a legal manner. The rulebook doesn't say you can hit the guy, only if you do it gently.

In fact, here is the rule book. Available to everyone online, maybe Florio, and everyone else calling Sherman out, should actually learn the rules before writing such ignorant, scathing articles and posts.


Rule 8 - Forward Pass, Backward Pass, Fumble
Section 4 - Legal and Illegal Contact with Eligible Receivers
Article 7 - End of Restrictions
 
If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled, the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end. If the quarterback leaves the pocket area with the ball in his possession, the restrictions on illegal contact and an illegal cut block both end, but the restriction on defensive holding remains in effect.

There is a certain irony in calling people out for "not knowing the rules" and then not even being able to reproduce the rule that drew the flag.

The rule you're looking for is, of course, based on the call made, and that is contained in Rule 12, Article 8(E) under "UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS":

(e) unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (i) is out of
the play or (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after
the ball is dead; or throwing the runner to the ground after the ball is dead;

For clarification:

*The fact that the ball was already in the air (and heading to a different receiver in the endzone) is NOT a good reason for why Sherman should not have been called. In fact, it is THE good reason for why Sherman should have been called. Because the ball cannot be advanced past the endzone and because the ball was in flight to another part of the endzone Stills was "(i) out of the play [AND] (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent." It is a clear cut case of the rule.

*We usually see this called on punt and interception returns when a player blindsides an opponent far away from the ball and/or well behind the play. It's an appropriate call because it is a cheap shot (usually on a defenseless player that isn't expecting it, as called) on a part of the field for which the hit has no chance of effecting the advancement of the ball. In the endzone, there is no advancement of the ball. Once you're there, you're there. If the ball is in the air and you lay out a defenseless player away from the ball, you will rightly be called for unnecessary roughness. Despite claims to the contrary and the inappropriate citation of inapplicable rules while (somewhat humorously) claiming that it is others who suffer from a lack of understanding about the rules, the rule book is exceptionally clear on this.

To be clear, I like Richard Sherman. I think he's incredibly talented, intelligent, and also massively entertaining. I don't think he's a "dirty player" or a "bad person" or a "problem" or anything closely resembling any of those things, but it was undeniably a cheap shot, and undeniably a cheap shot that was correctly adjudicated according to the rule book.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

I dislike how soft the NFL is getting. I think that if they don't like the hit, than the NFL needs to address it in the rule book.

Not many like this pussification of the league. They're turning it into exactly the opposite of what our forefathers (lol) created for us. The problem is those forefathers can barely tie their shoes or remember their phone numbers now. Today we have a very large sample size, providing the luxury of going back 50 years to see the effects of the game, on players. Technology is now able to (practically) pinpoint cause and effect.

I mentioned in a different thread some time back, when the face of the league, Junior Seau, puts a window in his head and scientists determine that act was football related, you knew change was in the wind. And rightfully so.

I am going to like these new rules less, but I'm just going to have to adjust to them. The refs are basically acting as OSHA these days. Why should football players be exempt from the same protection offered to a welder or mason? Because the money is better? They're selling entertainment, not brain cells. And if these stiffer rules save just 1 Junior Seau, it will be hard to argue their validity, IMO.

Just to be clear, I'm all for player safety. But, per the discussion... I don't think Stills' safety was compromised on the hit being discussed.
A bit of a side note... I had an enjoyable conversation with Paul Johns at the Vikings game about these sorts of penalties and what we're seeing by the NFL. He told me he is the chairman for the "Heads up" program and also talked about the efforts to change the game while preserving the great game we all enjoy (which is relevant to me with a kid playing High School ball and another excelling in youth football with a likely promising future playing the game.)

 

[Spleenhawk2.0]

I know a few of these things have been pointed out, but a few comments about some things that have been said:

1) Once the QB leaves the pocket, receivers become blockers and defenders have every right to knock receivers down. Seahawks have made a living at this the past 3 years, and do this consistently on just about every opposing team scramble play. It happened last night consistently away from the action. This was not a one-time action, or a first time "offense"
2) The pass was not intended for Kenny Stills (the Saints player who got blown up), but that does not matter once the QB leaves the pocket. Sherman would not have touched the player had Brees not left the pocket. Sherman more than any other DB on the team (I do not know for sure, but I think even more than Browner), looks for someone to knock down away from the action once the QB leaves the pocket. It is well within the rules, and the reason we have not seen a penalty on this action at anytime so far this season.
3) The reason this penalty was called was simply because it "looked cheap" - I have watched the play over a few times, and it seems that Sherman block Stills on the shoulder - not enough of the back to be called a "blocking in the back" penalty. Maybe it is because Stills was near the backline of the endzone, or maybe because he slowed up thinking that since he was not to him he no longer had to pay attention. As we have seen plenty of times this season, especially when it comes to hits on the QB.....if something looks bad or cheap, the refs will always throw the flag. But either way, Stills slowed up and gave up while the ball was in the air. I believe Stills is a rookie, so maybe it is somewhat of a rookie mistake, but he has to know what is going on around him, and play until the end of the whistle.
4) I agree that this also could have been as much of a "keep control" call as anything. Knowing how far ahead the Seahawks were, not calling that penalty would likely result in multiple fight outbreaks started by the ever-more frustrated Saints, and escalating injury producing cheap-shots.

Even though I do not agree with the call, I understand it. We have to be prepared that penalties will be called based on how something looks, not on the letter-of-the-law. Classic example was Kam's hit on Vernon Davis last year - replay showed a text book hit by Kam, yet because Davis' head snapped back, automatic penalty. Last night, if Stills was paying attention, no penalty. But because he went flying out of bounds, penalty.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

I don't really care how "rough" he was. He delivered a forearm shiver to a player in a legal manner. The rulebook doesn't say you can hit the guy, only if you do it gently.

In fact, here is the rule book. Available to everyone online, maybe Florio, and everyone else calling Sherman out, should actually learn the rules before writing such ignorant, scathing articles and posts.


Rule 8 - Forward Pass, Backward Pass, Fumble
Section 4 - Legal and Illegal Contact with Eligible Receivers
Article 7 - End of Restrictions
 
If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled, the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end. If the quarterback leaves the pocket area with the ball in his possession, the restrictions on illegal contact and an illegal cut block both end, but the restriction on defensive holding remains in effect.

There is a certain irony in calling people out for "not knowing the rules" and then not even being able to reproduce the rule that drew the flag.

The rule you're looking for is, of course, based on the call made, and that is contained in Rule 12, Article 8(E) under "UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS":

(e) unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (i) is out of
the play or (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after
the ball is dead; or throwing the runner to the ground after the ball is dead;

For clarification:

*The fact that the ball was already in the air (and heading to a different receiver in the endzone) is NOT a good reason for why Sherman should not have been called. In fact, it is THE good reason for why Sherman should have been called. Because the ball cannot be advanced past the endzone and because the ball was in flight to another part of the endzone Stills was "(i) out of the play [AND] (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent." It is a clear cut case of the rule.

*We usually see this called on punt and interception returns when a player blindsides an opponent far away from the ball and/or well behind the play. It's an appropriate call because it is a cheap shot (usually on a defenseless player that isn't expecting it, as called) on a part of the field for which the hit has no chance of effecting the advancement of the ball. In the endzone, there is no advancement of the ball. Once you're there, you're there. If the ball is in the air and you lay out a defenseless player away from the ball, you will rightly be called for unnecessary roughness. Despite claims to the contrary and the inappropriate citation of inapplicable rules while (somewhat humorously) claiming that it is others who suffer from a lack of understanding about the rules, the rule book is exceptionally clear on this.

To be clear, I like Richard Sherman. I think he's incredibly talented, intelligent, and also massively entertaining. I don't think he's a "dirty player" or a "bad person" or a "problem" or anything closely resembling any of those things, but it was undeniably a cheap shot, and undeniably a cheap shot that was correctly adjudicated according to the rule book.

I deny it being called cheap.

 

[Popeyejones]

1) Once the QB leaves the pocket, receivers become blockers and defenders have every right to knock receivers down. Seahawks have made a living at this the past 3 years, and do this consistently on just about every opposing team scramble play. It happened last night consistently away from the action. This was not a one-time action, or a first time "offense"
2) The pass was not intended for Kenny Stills (the Saints player who got blown up), but that does not matter once the QB leaves the pocket. Sherman would not have touched the player had Brees not left the pocket. Sherman more than any other DB on the team (I do not know for sure, but I think even more than Browner), looks for someone to knock down away from the action once the QB leaves the pocket. It is well within the rules, and the reason we have not seen a penalty on this action at anytime so far this season.

This is all completely unrelated to the flag that was thrown. The quarterback being inside or outside of the pocket is completely immaterial. The play is different and atypical and was correctly adjudicated for two reasons 1) the ball was already in the air and not headed toward Kenny Stills' direction, and 2) the ball was headed toward the endzone, a place on the field from which the ball cannot be advanced.

If Sherman had done the same thing on the same play at midfield he would have been fine. That he did so in the endzone is a clear violation of the rule that was called.

 

[mjwhitay]

I don't really care how "rough" he was. He delivered a forearm shiver to a player in a legal manner. The rulebook doesn't say you can hit the guy, only if you do it gently.

In fact, here is the rule book. Available to everyone online, maybe Florio, and everyone else calling Sherman out, should actually learn the rules before writing such ignorant, scathing articles and posts.


Rule 8 - Forward Pass, Backward Pass, Fumble
Section 4 - Legal and Illegal Contact with Eligible Receivers
Article 7 - End of Restrictions
 
If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled, the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end. If the quarterback leaves the pocket area with the ball in his possession, the restrictions on illegal contact and an illegal cut block both end, but the restriction on defensive holding remains in effect.

There is a certain irony in calling people out for "not knowing the rules" and then not even being able to reproduce the rule that drew the flag.

The rule you're looking for is, of course, based on the call made, and that is contained in Rule 12, Article 8(E) under "UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS":

(e) unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (i) is out of
the play or (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after
the ball is dead; or throwing the runner to the ground after the ball is dead;

For clarification:

*The fact that the ball was already in the air (and heading to a different receiver in the endzone) is NOT a good reason for why Sherman should not have been called. In fact, it is THE good reason for why Sherman should have been called. Because the ball cannot be advanced past the endzone and because the ball was in flight to another part of the endzone Stills was "(i) out of the play [AND] (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent." It is a clear cut case of the rule.

*We usually see this called on punt and interception returns when a player blindsides an opponent far away from the ball and/or well behind the play. It's an appropriate call because it is a cheap shot (usually on a defenseless player that isn't expecting it, as called) on a part of the field for which the hit has no chance of effecting the advancement of the ball. In the endzone, there is no advancement of the ball. Once you're there, you're there. If the ball is in the air and you lay out a defenseless player away from the ball, you will rightly be called for unnecessary roughness. Despite claims to the contrary and the inappropriate citation of inapplicable rules while (somewhat humorously) claiming that it is others who suffer from a lack of understanding about the rules, the rule book is exceptionally clear on this.

To be clear, I like Richard Sherman. I think he's incredibly talented, intelligent, and also massively entertaining. I don't think he's a "dirty player" or a "bad person" or a "problem" or anything closely resembling any of those things, but it was undeniably a cheap shot, and undeniably a cheap shot that was correctly adjudicated according to the rule book.

Oh, give me a break. That call isn't made ever because the play was LEGAL. They resorted to unnecessary roughness after an official meeting where they probably realized it was legal and had to call something. The play was still happening for God's sake.

He is allowed to do what he did. Period. Just because the refs got it wrong doesn't make it a penalty.

 

[Starrman44]

I dislike how soft the NFL is getting. I think that if they don't like the hit, than the NFL needs to address it in the rule book.

Not many like this pussification of the league. They're turning it into exactly the opposite of what our forefathers (lol) created for us. The problem is those forefathers can barely tie their shoes or remember their phone numbers now. Today we have a very large sample size, providing the luxury of going back 50 years to see the effects of the game, on players. Technology is now able to (practically) pinpoint cause and effect.

I mentioned in a different thread some time back, when the face of the league, Junior Seau, puts a window in his head and scientists determine that act was football related, you knew change was in the wind. And rightfully so.

I am going to like these new rules less, but I'm just going to have to adjust to them. The refs are basically acting as OSHA these days. Why should football players be exempt from the same protection offered to a welder or mason? Because the money is better? They're selling entertainment, not brain cells. And if these stiffer rules save just 1 Junior Seau, it will be hard to argue their validity, IMO.

Just to be clear, I'm all for player safety. But, per the discussion... I don't think Stills' safety was compromised on the hit being discussed.
A bit of a side note... I had an enjoyable conversation with Paul Johns at the Vikings game about these sorts of penalties and what we're seeing by the NFL. He told me he is the chairman for the "Heads up" program and also talked about the efforts to change the game while preserving the great game we all enjoy (which is relevant to me with a kid playing High School ball and another excelling in youth football with a likely promising future playing the game.)

I think that you can use some precaution and use a scalpel rather than a chainsaw to the rules. Now the NFL is just flagging anything that looks violent. It's also very inconsistent. We do a little slap to Brees and it gets called and meanwhile Wilson got leveled on a borderline late hit and nothing gets called. I don't mind the non-call on Wilson (cause I think that is the way football is played), but the tiny tap on Brees shouldn't have been called either. Earl was trying to pull his hand back to.

The Kenny Stills hit was not in the category of a dangerous hit, imo. Personally I think the refs have had a memo to try and tame Seattle's aggressive LOB.

 

[Popeyejones]

I deny it being called cheap.

Great?

To be clear, wasn't trying to debate your subjective classification of what you do and do not consider cheap. I was clarifying the rule that was called and the rule as it was written, as there seems to be some lack of clarity in the thread (e.g. thinking that the ball was in the air is an argument in favor of Sherman because people are referencing a penalty that wasn't actually called, rather than recognizing that the ball being in the air is an argument against Sherman because of the rule that was called).

Admittedly, just as when someone blindsides another player well away from the ball on a punt or INT return I consider that a "cheap shot". I'm totally fine with you not considering that a cheap shot, and it's a value judgement and not really worth debating.

If we're going to debate the appropriateness of Sherman's penalty however, our subjective classifications of "cheap shots" are totally immaterial. It is about the play itself and how the rule book applies to the play. For that, we need to look at what the call actually was and what the rule actually is, rather than pretending that calls that weren't made were made so that it is easier to feign as if Sherman didn't commit an infraction when he clearly did.

 

[Popeyejones]

Oh, give me a break. That call isn't made ever because the play was LEGAL. They resorted to unnecessary roughness after an official meeting where they probably realized it was legal and had to call something. The play was still happening for God's sake.

He is allowed to do what he did. Period. Just because the refs got it wrong doesn't make it a penalty.

:roll:

Refs huddle and pick up or keep down flags all the time.

You have access to the call and you have access to the rule book elucidating the appropriate application of the rule in making the call. Without engaging in conspiratorial thinking about refs "feeling they had to call something", do you have an actual argument as for why the rule called does not apply to the situation under question? If not, well, yeah. :lol:

 

[scutterhawk]

This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Browner got called for a similar hit earlier for what he thought was an uncatchable pass. It looks like our defense tries to catch the opponents off guard to get into their head, whether it is for this game or the next, they will remember and be affected by it. Sherman nailed one receiver earlier this year and then got popped by that same receiver (maybe Fitz?) on a reception to which he gave him a deserved pat on the back. They give it and they take it.

I can't say I like what Sherman did, but I can see why he did it. Receivers will be a bit gun shy from the shots they take. Advantage Seahawks.

I agree 100%.
That's because Fitgerrald is a professional, and plays the game UP to his competition.
He (Fitz.) understands the rules, and he also understands how HE would probably have to play if he were a defender.
Sherman shouldn't have to school the Refs on how to call a game correctly, and he also shouldn't have to deal with a fine that is unwarranted.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Popeye not being able to properly parse a rule, but flooding his parsing with legalese-style verbiage and words by the volume that are meant to make it LOOK like he knows what he's talking about - man, classic Popeye.

Let me guess, Popeye, you spend most of your hours not on this site billing giant corporations as a lawyer?

 

[Shadowhawk]

Even if you take the position that the hit was unnecessary, calling Sherman a "cheap shot artist" is way over the top and typical Florio BS.

 

[VivaEfrenHerrera]

This whole "smartest guy in the room" act? It grows old, it does.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Ok,

So the ball is in the air and the receiver is not near the ball. Sherman knocks the receiver down, but the argument is the receiver could not have or should not have expected to be hit?

So what happens if the receiver the ball is going toward misses the catch and tips the ball into the air, and it lands near where Sherman made contact with the receiver. If the receiver is untouched he makes that catch, but since Sherman took him out of the play he cannot.

Why should the receiver reasonably be allowed to not anticipate any contact when his very presence in the end zone is a threat until the ball hits the ground?

 

[Popeyejones]

Popeye not being able to properly parse a rule, but flooding his parsing with legalese-style verbiage and words by the volume that are meant to make it LOOK like he knows what he's talking about - man, classic Popeye.

If you disagree with my (and others') interpretation of the rule (which you've left out; the rule and its application is quite clear), by all means, share with us. In the very least I'm discussing the rule that was actually cited on the field rather than some fantasy about Brees' location in relation to the pocket, which doesn't matter at all for the actual call that was made.

Likewise, for sure, my posts can be too long and I'd be wise to take the time to edit down before hitting submit, but the thread ain't about me, nor should it be. If you have something to inform us on about the topic, go for it.

This whole "smartest guy in the room" act? It grows old, it does.

I assume this in reference to me, so I'll address it once before dropping it. I'm not even remotely the smartest guy in the room. Plenty of other folks have said what I've said in this thread, but just haven't bothered to waste the time to cut-and-paste the actual rule that was called and explain why it applies to the play in question. Taking the time to do so only to be socially penalized for it makes me stupid, not smart.

Again though, the thread ain't about me, nor should it be. If you have anything clarifying to add to the discussion or actually disagree with a substantive point that has been made, go for it, man.

 

[Kixkahn]

Ok,

So the ball is in the air and the receiver is not near the ball. Sherman knocks the receiver down, but the argument is the receiver could not have or should not have expected to be hit?

So what happens if the receiver the ball is going toward misses the catch and tips the ball into the air, and it lands near where Sherman made contact with the receiver. If the receiver is untouched he makes that catch, but since Sherman took him out of the play he cannot.

Why should the receiver reasonably be allowed to not anticipate any contact when his very presence in the end zone is a threat until the ball hits the ground?

I like the point you make on this. Coleman was in the right spot at the right time to make a touchdown yesterday, an example to fit your description.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Ok,

So the ball is in the air and the receiver is not near the ball. Sherman knocks the receiver down, but the argument is the receiver could not have or should not have expected to be hit?

So what happens if the receiver the ball is going toward misses the catch and tips the ball into the air, and it lands near where Sherman made contact with the receiver. If the receiver is untouched he makes that catch, but since Sherman took him out of the play he cannot.

Why should the receiver reasonably be allowed to not anticipate any contact when his very presence in the end zone is a threat until the ball hits the ground?

Some of you guys are missing the crux of this argument. It's not that Sherman knocked him down, it's that he was excessive in doing so. Yes Sherman is allowed to continue to be aggressive within the rules through the whistle...........but in the ref's subjective mind he blasted Stills, which was deemed excessive............thus the unsportmanlike conduct penalty.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ Just to keep our ducks in a row, the call was unnecessary roughness, not unsportsmanlike conduct.

Kixkahn, while the hypothetical is of course possible (just as there could be a fumble on a punt return and the guy who got blown up 10 yards behind COULD have been in the play at some point) in practice the call is made with regards to both clauses of the rule (i.e. both "(i)" and "(ii)"). On the play in question, both Graham and ET are about five yards closer to the action (which is still pretty far away), and they've both slowed to a trot to before Sherm lays the boom.

Three of the four people in the frame are treating themselves as being "(i) out of the play [and; it only has to be one or the other, but in this case it's both] (ii)...not...reasonably anticipat[ing] such contact by an opponent." They're all stopping by the time Sherman is even starting, and it takes three or four steps of windup for him to even get there.

.gif doesn't embed, but it's here: http://thebiglead.com/2013/12/02/richar ... YmcDj.uxfs

 

[mikeak]

2) The pass was not intended for Kenny Stills (the Saints player who got blown up), but that does not matter once the QB leaves the pocket.

This is wrong - the fact that the pass was thrown elsewhere is exactly what matters as Stills now doesn't expect to be blown up from behind which is why the flag was thrown

The quarterback being inside or outside of the pocket is completely immaterial. .

This is not correct. Sherman's reason for hitting Stills / being allowed to hit Stills is exactly this that the quarterback had left the pocket which allows him to hit the receiver UNTIL the ball is thrown towards that receiver at which point it would turn into a PI call.

Has anyone gone back and looked at this. I still believe that Sherman hit Stills PRIOR to the pass. Is this wrong? If wrong then the penalty is 100% correct while Stills could get the ball by a bounce he shouldn't expect to get hit and you can't knock down receivers after every single play. The rules have never been allowed to be used that way

IF Sherman hits him prior to the pass then it is a bad call - no flag should have been thrown. He took out a live option for the QB within the rules

 

[CANHawk]

Sherman hit him from behind when the receiver inches away from the end line and when he had already relaxed and not in a football playing mode. You light up a receiver like, one that has already given up on the pass, on the visiting team sidelines and the benches will empty and Sherman likely ejected. Had that ball been catchable, they would have called PI and given NO the ball on the one as Sherman was not looking back for the ball. It was the absolute right call.

Lol. "Football playing mode"? Are you friggen serious? "FOOTBALL PLAYING MODE"!? He's in a football playing stadium, on a football playing field wearing a football playing uniform... perhaps it might behoove him to BE in a football playing mode under those circumstances! SMf'nH... "football playing mode". Shut the front door...

And Sherman hit him in the side. Right on the shoulder. That's not the back. The back is the back. Just stop that noise.

So riddle me this my lovely pacifists... what if Stills was playing possum? You know...The ol rope-a-dope? "Doop a doop doop doo... I'm not in a "football playing mode". Just leave me alone. Pay no attention to silly ol Kenny over here..." then streaks down the end line wide open and snag a touchdown. Dude runs a 4.3 40 so it's TOTALLY possible. Then what? Sherm looks stupid, that's what.

Nope. You're on a football field, so play football. And none of this "just hit him lightly to keep him out of the play" bullshit. Kenny Stills is a professional athleate and if you try that weak shit on somebody like that who's ready for it, YOU are just as likely to wind up inside out. If Kenny got hurt (thank god he didn't, but if he did) it's nobody's fault but Kenny's. Same arguement as with the god damn Golden Tate block on Sean Lee. Between the whistles and between the sidelines, YOU watch what the FUNK you are DOING! There are large men running around who want to HURT YOU! Don't make it easy on them!!!

God damn... whatever happened to personal accountability!?! SMf'nH. "football playing mode"..... Half the people in the bloody STANDS were in a football playing mode!