Florio calls Sherman a "cheap shot artist"

[BobcatHawk]

This comment on Florio's article sums it up for me:

illinininer says: Dec 2, 2013 10:30 PM

Yeah, Richard Sherman took a cheap shot but that doesn’t mean he’s a cheap shot artist.

<– 49ers Fan
…………………………………………………………………..

Tell em. This is NFC West football. Keep your head on a swivel because we will take 15 yards to send a message.

 

[Popeyejones]

If it was before the pass the call would be wrong, and it should instead be PI. If it was after the pass as it appears to be and as it was called, UR is the correct call.

I initially thought there was no way it should have been called a penalty. You briefly convinced me it was a good call with your reasoning about Stills not being a future blocker due to the play being in the endzone and not advanceable. Someone else brought up the possibility of a deflection, and I'm back to the opinion that it was a bad call by the refs, and a legal hit by Sherman. You had a good argument nonetheless, and I respect your clarity.

The quote above is surprising though. UR is a judgment call, but why do you think it be PI if the QB is outside the pocket and has not yet thrown the ball? Receivers become blockers in that instance until & if the ball is thrown in their direction.

We disagree on that point because I'm a dumb dumb and I messed up.

Was thinking after the ball had left the QBs hand out of the pocket while writing about before.

You're totally correct. If Brees hasn't thrown the pass yet and he's out of the pocket, it's not a foul.

Thanks for catching it.

 

[mikeak]

If it was before the pass the call would be wrong, and it should instead be PI. If it was after the pass as it appears to be and as it was called, UR is the correct call.

I initially thought there was no way it should have been called a penalty. You briefly convinced me it was a good call with your reasoning about Stills not being a future blocker due to the play being in the endzone and not advanceable. Someone else brought up the possibility of a deflection, and I'm back to the opinion that it was a bad call by the refs, and a legal hit by Sherman. You had a good argument nonetheless, and I respect your clarity.

The quote above is surprising though. UR is a judgment call, but why do you think it be PI if the QB is outside the pocket and has not yet thrown the ball? Receivers become blockers in that instance until & if the ball is thrown in their direction.

We disagree on that point because I'm a dumb dumb and I messed up.

Was thinking after the ball had left the QBs hand out of the pocket while writing about before.

You're totally correct. If Brees hasn't thrown the pass yet and he's out of the pocket, it's not a foul.

Thanks for catching it.

That was the WHOLE POINT of my post that you disagreed with............

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

It was dirty, but it was also legal and a terrible call to penalize it. It's the DB equivalent of the cut block.

It's legal yet dirty? Pick a side already (pretty and soft like the past or aggressive and physical like now).

 

[Popeyejones]

That was the WHOLE POINT of my post that you disagreed with............

????

I had pulled out the part of your post that I disagreed with (and then fumbled on the rest of it ).

This is what we disagreed about, I thought:

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.

The call was unnecessary roughness. PI doesn't have anything to do with anything and the QBs location in relation to the pocket doesn't have anything to do with anything. What matters are a) if the player being struck is part of the play, or b) if the player being struck can reasonably expect to be struck, or c) both.

Both times here I'm speaking about the call that was made, not the hypothetical PI call that didn't apply and wasn't made.

Edit: Oh, okay, so you're saying that IF it was before the pass was thrown it's no call? Yeah, we agree on that. Judging by Stills, Thomas, and Graham's actions though, it's pretty obvious the ball had been thrown, though.

Sorry for the confusion if I misunderstood you in the above passage. I was saying that for the UR call the pocket doesn't matter. You were saying that's wrong as it would matter for a PI call. I'm repeating that for the UR call it doesn't matter, and it looks like I inadvertantly chopped off your agreement on that point in the following paragraph. Don't see how I was wrong in the point I was making as you claim in the above passage, but I'm also guilty of chopping down too far and misreading you.

My mistake. Sorry.

 

[mikeak]

NP - that is what I meant. Will go back and see if I find some footage. That was my reaction watching it

 

[BleedGreenNblue]

Why in the world would Sherman be fined or suspended? Stills isn't getting paid to stand around and do nothing. As long as the play is live, he's an active blocker and a live body to be hit. If he had actually been giving some effort on the play and moving his feet, it would have been a clean shot. But because he was standing there like a useless blob, it just made him look more like a victimized target.

I agree with this guy

 

[scutterhawk]

It was the absolute right call.

Why is it the right call?, because IN YOUR OPINION, it was?, or even the 'Always Screwing Up The Calls' Referees?
My opinion is every bit as valid (as per the Rules Book that was quoted earlier), It was NOT the "Absolute Right Call"

 

[scutterhawk]

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.

I'm going to take a wild guess here... could it be because being a "Welder" or a "Mason" isn't really a full contact sport?
Because You don't have to wear jock straps and shoulder pads?
Because you don't run at full speed, and hit another person while your trying to strike an arc, or read a level? :16:

 

[jamsomatic]

Has anybody brought up when Sapp crushed the Packer. That was legal and cheap at the same time, somehow. Not identical, but very similar situation.

 

[Tical21]

I still don't get for the life of my why Sherman would be blocking.

He thought to himself, the play is almost over, it is going nowhere, wait, there is a guy over there, so far away he is almost out of the back of the endzone, that is just standing there and isn't looking, lets go get tough and blindside him.

It shouldn't be a part of the NFL. Absolutely no reason for it. Could have very easily seriously injured a player for zero reason whatsoever.

I have yet to see anybody make a compelling case for why it would be any advantage at all for Sherman to blindside that guy. Does it help us make the outcome of the play any better?

I'm sorry, I just don't see any reason whatsoever to condone the hit. Because he is standing on a football field, 40 yards away and completely out of a play that is almost over and obviously to every player, coach and fan, isn't going anywere, he should be on the lookout for guys trying to blindside him?

How can you possibly watch that hit and think it is justified in any way? Please, somebody enlighten me. If your only answer is that he is on a football field and therefore anything goes, you're missing the entire point.

You just can't hunt for a guy that isn't paying attention, well away from the action, and try to take him out. Nor should you be able to.

 

[253hawk]

I'm not condoning it but it's not like you see it as nearly as often as cut blocks, which are somehow perfectly legal and never flagged. If you need a reason as to why Sherman did it, it was to knock the WR out of bounds to interrupt a possible broken-play TD (legal when QB is out of the pocket.) Stills would have been OOB and had to have taken extra time to re-establish himself, plus it keeps him from getting back upfield quickly to make a block. And Brees was at about the 17, not 40 yards downfield.

Stills was a huge trash talker in college, he was laughing with Sherman and a few other players on the way back to the huddle. Probably wouldn't even have been an article about it if it was anyone other than Sherman that did it.

 

[jdblack]

I have yet to see anybody make a compelling case for why it would be any advantage at all for Sherman to blindside that guy. Does it help us make the outcome of the play any better?

It's obvious, and you've already been answered. Sherman (and others) do it to make receivers tilt for the rest of the game. Run routes less precisely, get caught up fighting DBs on the line, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljk3Ak7UlwU

 

[Tical21]

I have yet to see anybody make a compelling case for why it would be any advantage at all for Sherman to blindside that guy. Does it help us make the outcome of the play any better?

It's obvious, and you've already been answered. Sherman (and others) do it to make receivers tilt for the rest of the game. Run routes less precisely, get caught up fighting DBs on the line, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljk3Ak7UlwU

Correct, so there was no possible way that the hit positively effected the outcome of the play.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

[youtube]sALWxg9jflM[/youtube]

Don't think Sherman needed to do it as it was unnecessary. If a DB did that to our receivers, I would not be happy with it and would hope for the same penalty. Can't see where the ball was at, but judging from ET and Graham letting up, the play was pretty much over. Either way, I don't like that it hurt the team, and I don't know what Sherman was exactly thinking, so it is what it is. He might be fined, but if he gets suspended like some have suggested as a possibility, that would be the dumbest ish ever, considering that other players have done things way more blatant and weren't suspended.

EDIT: Initially thought Sherm might be trying to makea play due to seeing Stills openish and Sherman possibly not seeing where the ball was, but in the beginning of the vid, you can clearly see he's looking at the direction of where the offense was then turning back to hit Stills. I just don't get why he did it.

If Ahmad Brooks can get away with blatantly sandwhiching Russell Wilson to the ground, even though he knew Marshawn Lynch had the ball because some Read Option rule that leaves QBs defenseless, then I see nothing wrong with Richard Sherman doing what he did.

1. He looked at the QB first to see if he was out of the pocket
2. He made sure to get around Still's backside and underneath to put the block on the inside of Still's left shoulder. And then threw the arm bar across his chest for added measure. Maybe the armbar was a little excessive but...

What Sherman did was completely legal, maybe a little excessive but its not like he totally blindsided Stills as Sherman made a point to get around and underneath and to attack the shoulder first.

When I saw this play live it looked as if Sherman unloaded on Still' s backside... this replay shows the progression Sherman made that you really couldn't see it at game speed.

If anything Sherman gave the rookie Stills, a great lesson on not giving up on a play, leaving yourself in a defenseless position .... because there are rules allowing a defender to do exactly what Sherman did.

You don't see Seattle WRs getting blown up every time Wilson leaves the pocket, right? No, because they understand the rules, protect themselves, they keep playing until the play is dead either by trying to get open in the come back scramble drill or they throw a block.

What Sherman did was more reflex than a premeditated cheapshot, imo.

 

[SirTed]

Do all of you that find the play dirty dislike the block that Golden Tate hit Shaun Lee with last season?

I'm confused.

It was within the rules. There is no argument there. My guess? The ref through the flag instinctively, then realized it was within the rules. But due to the Hawks rep, they decided they didn't want to pick it up, and "allow" such a play to go unpenalized. So, they couldn't call illegal contact, so they basically went with the "catch all" of unnecessary roughness. The refs didn't like how hard Sherman hit him, because again - by the RULES he's allowed to hit him. So, it must be about severity then.

In that case, you have to not like the play that Tate made because I'm pretty sure he could have made a block on that play without putting Lee on his back.

But we all love that play right? That's what I thought. What's the difference then?

 

[jdblack]

I have yet to see anybody make a compelling case for why it would be any advantage at all for Sherman to blindside that guy. Does it help us make the outcome of the play any better?

It's obvious, and you've already been answered. Sherman (and others) do it to make receivers tilt for the rest of the game. Run routes less precisely, get caught up fighting DBs on the line, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljk3Ak7UlwU

Correct, so there was no possible way that the hit positively effected the outcome of the play.

If you mean from that rules-oriented angle, then as has been said in many posts - possibility of deflection if the ball is in the air, or if QB was out of the pocket then the possibility that Stills would be a blocker.

 

[LawlessHawk]

:34853_doh: some of you guys, I swear.... ya need to switch sports and start watching tiddly winks at a Nuns convention or something instead of professional football...

 

[CANHawk]

I still don't get for the life of my why Sherman would be blocking.

BECAUSE HE CAN!!!

 

[JGfromtheNW]

[youtube]sALWxg9jflM[/youtube]

Don't think Sherman needed to do it as it was unnecessary. If a DB did that to our receivers, I would not be happy with it and would hope for the same penalty. Can't see where the ball was at, but judging from ET and Graham letting up, the play was pretty much over. Either way, I don't like that it hurt the team, and I don't know what Sherman was exactly thinking, so it is what it is. He might be fined, but if he gets suspended like some have suggested as a possibility, that would be the dumbest ish ever, considering that other players have done things way more blatant and weren't suspended.

EDIT: Initially thought Sherm might be trying to makea play due to seeing Stills openish and Sherman possibly not seeing where the ball was, but in the beginning of the vid, you can clearly see he's looking at the direction of where the offense was then turning back to hit Stills. I just don't get why he did it.

If Ahmad Brooks can get away with blatantly sandwhiching Russell Wilson to the ground, even though he knew Marshawn Lynch had the ball because some Read Option rule that leaves QBs defenseless, then I see nothing wrong with Richard Sherman doing what he did.

1. He looked at the QB first to see if he was out of the pocket
2. He made sure to get around Still's backside and underneath to put the block on the inside of Still's left shoulder. And then threw the arm bar across his chest for added measure. Maybe the armbar was a little excessive but...

What Sherman did was completely legal, maybe a little excessive but its not like he totally blindsided Stills as Sherman made a point to get around and underneath and to attack the shoulder first.

When I saw this play live it looked as if Sherman unloaded on Still' s backside... this replay shows the progression Sherman made that you really couldn't see it at game speed.

If anything Sherman gave the rookie Stills, a great lesson on not giving up on a play, leaving yourself in a defenseless position .... because there are rules allowing a defender to do exactly what Sherman did.

You don't see Seattle WRs getting blown up every time Wilson leaves the pocket, right? No, because they understand the rules, protect themselves, they keep playing until the play is dead either by trying to get open in the come back scramble drill or they throw a block.

What Sherman did was more reflex than a premeditated cheapshot, imo.

This. /thread