# NFL Week 14 **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [December 8, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445 "2010-12-08T18:31:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/121 "2010-12-13T07:15:25Z")
Just saw the replay of the hit on Vick on the sidelines that Andy and the Eagles honks are complaining about. Two facts are immediately clear to me. 1. It was a absolutely legal hit, Vick was a runner and he was still in bounds when the hit was delivered. 2. There would have been a flag thrown if it was Brady, Brees or Manning. There may even have been a flag thrown for the other 28 QBs in the league too. So, I’m not sure where the crime lies. I’m inclined to think that the second fact is the more irritating one. QBs use and abuse those rules to steal an extra yard or two near the sidelines by sidestepping downfield and/or extending the ball forward right before stepping out. Defenders need to be able to make a QB pay if he tries that. I would have been pissed if the refs had tossed the flag there for Vick though, he was in bounds, there is a double standard in place but they shouldn’t rectify it by throwing more uncalled for flags. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/122 "2010-12-13T07:19:16Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > That’s not true. Don’t you remember the Steelers-Dolphins example? The play was blown dead as soon as Ben broke the plane of the end zone, but then the ball squirted out and bounced around until a Dolphin picked it up. Booth reveiw showed that Ben had actually lost control before breaking the plane so it was reversed as a fumble. The only reason they couldn’t give the ball to the Dolphins is because they couldn’t verify the recovery by video replay, since the replay went to the TD celebrations because the play was blown dead. Grabbing the ball off-camera can’t be honored by video review. My statement is 100% true and that example confirms it. The whistle blew AFTER Ben crossed the plane of the goal. Review showed that the ball was out BEFORE he crossed the plane and therefore before the whistle. The refs essentially blew a play dead while there was still a live ball. That the recovery for the 'Phins happened after the whistle and was disregarded conforms to the rule as I stated it. ETA: The ball wasn’t not awarded to Miami because it couldn’t be seen on replay, it was because the play was blown dead. Even if it had been clear they recovered it it wouldn’t have mattered based on the officials explanation. The announcers speculation during the review notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/123 "2010-12-13T07:25:35Z")
But the official reason they couldn’t give the ball to the Dolphins directly contradicts what you said. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/sports/football/25dolphins.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/sports/football/25dolphins.html) > [@](#): > > In the meantime, the Dolphins claimed they had recovered. Coach Tony Sparano requested a replay. And although at least one angle showed that Roethlisberger clearly did not have control when he crossed the goal line, the official Gene Steratore said it was not clear that the defense had possession of the ball before the scrum developed, a critical part of the ruling. > > “In order to overturn this and give another team the football, I have to have clear video evidence of the team recovering the fumble,” Steratore said, according to a pool report. “We did have a fumble, but we did not have video evidence and a confirmation on who recovered the football. But we could not award the defense in this situation the football because we don’t have video evidence of the defense recovering the ball.” Not a word about how the play was blown dead before the defense could recover it. Had they been caught on tape recovering the ball, they would have gotten it even though the whistle had blown. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/124 "2010-12-13T07:29:26Z")
Can’t find the offical NFL rule change announcement, but in discussion about the Steelers-Dolphins fumble someone posted this: > [@](#): > > A couple years ago, after Denver beat SD after a clearly wrong call (lateral was called an incomplete pass, and SD recovered), they changed the rule so that even if the whistle were blown, if a team clearly recovered a fumble, the whistle would not count. In this case there was no clear evidence as to who recovered, so they couldn’t just give the ball to the other team This is exactly my understanding. Surely you’ve heard of the “must have clear possession to be awarded the fumble” replay rule they recently put into effect. What could that possibly mean except for awarded possession after the whistle is blown? (If it’s before the whistle is blown, there is no replay to determine who recovered. Whoever comes up with it gets it.) None of this sounds familiar to you? ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/125 "2010-12-13T07:37:57Z")
That wasn’t how I remembered the explanation on the field going. I hadn’t seen those postgame comments. I found another discussion of the call by the ref who made it here too. [http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/10/25/referee-gene-steratore-explains-ruling-in-dolphins-steelers-game/](http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/10/25/referee-gene-steratore-explains-ruling-in-dolphins-steelers-game/) He reiterates the argument that you quoted in more detail. Interesting. I also note that he completely dodges the question about the whistle being blown. I believe my understanding of the rule is correct and that the officials botched that explanation and/or were trying to avoid admitting a mistake was made in blowing the whistle. I’m curious what the NFLs replay was when the Dolphin’s sent the tape to the league. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/126 "2010-12-13T07:39:06Z")
Found a [cite from yahoo](http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-greatly-flawed-rule-on-recovering-fumbles-af?urn=nfl-207503). Hopefully it’s compelling enough. > [@](#): > > Since 2006, a whistle hasn’t always been a whistle in the NFL. In that off-season the rules committee made the determination that teams can recover a fumble even after an official has blown the play dead. This was done to bail refs out of ruling a fumbling player down by contact, only to be contradicted by replays. After the rule change, the call could be reversed, enabling the recovering team to get the ball despite the premature whistle. > […] > In overtime, 'Skins fullback Mike Sellers(notes) caught a pass from Jason Campbell(notes) and lost the ball as he was being tackled. The official ruled the play dead. Go watch the [real-time replay over at NFL.com](http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d814c0903/Sellers-fumble). Listen for the whistle and watch the official emphatically point to the ground, signaling that Sellers was down and the play was over. > > But the replay booth challenged the play, it was reversed and the Saints were awarded the ball. Whatever you think of the specifics of the fumble and the overrule, the correct decision was made on New Orleans being allowed to recover. But, like the infamous tuck rule, it’s a passage in the rule book that goes against the principles of the game. > > You see how the ball was picked up as a complete afterthought by Chris McAlister(notes)? (He didn’t even bother to run down the field with it.) And notice how Sellers barely gives an effort to pick up the ball he dropped. Linebacker Troy Evans(notes) makes a diving attempt for it, suggesting he was the only one of the three who seemed aware that the play may not be over. This rule change was introduced to deal with the whole “down by contact” thing. Remember how annoying that used to be on fumbles? I swear they’ve made a huge deal about this rule change for years. I’m frankly stunned you’re not aware of it. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/127 "2010-12-13T07:42:24Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > Can’t find the offical NFL rule change announcement, but in discussion about the Steelers-Dolphins fumble someone posted this:This is exactly my understanding. > > Surely you’ve heard of the “must have clear possession to be awarded the fumble” replay rule they recently put into effect. What could that possibly mean except for awarded possession after the whistle is blown? (If it’s before the whistle is blown, there is no replay to determine who recovered. Whoever comes up with it gets it.) > > None of this sounds familiar to you? I remember a rash of plays where an early whistle made some fumbles irrelevant upon review years ago. I remember the league also instructing the officials to delay blowing the whistle on some loose balls when there doubt about a player being down. I’m not familiar with any rule that allows possession to be awarded to a team after a whistle though. That’s not to say that there isn’t wording to that effect somewhere in the minutiae of the NFLs rulebook though. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/128 "2010-12-13T07:49:05Z")
You don’t find my cite compelling? Note that the one concession to fairness in the current rule is that you don’t get yards advanced, but instead on a change of possession you get the ball back where you recovered it. If you fumble but the whistle blows ruling you down by contact, the other team picks it up and runs it back for a TD, on review they’ll be awarded the post-whistle fumble recovery but not the TD. Instead, they’ll get the ball at the spot of the recovery. Surely you’ve heard mention of this facet of the rule, yes? Logically, this part of the rule can _only_ apply to post-whistle fumble recoveries. All pre-whistle fumble recoveries go to whoever comes up with the ball. Replay _never_ overrules pre-whistle possession under any circumstances. Pre-whistle possession is not reviewable. (Apart from catching the ball, of course. I mean in the context of fumbles, or a WR and DB both catching the ball at the same time, or determining who first possessed the fumble in a pileup. Disputed possession is not subject to review.) EDIT: You may not have seen my cite; timestamps indicate you may have been typing when I posted it. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/129 "2010-12-13T07:58:34Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > Found a [cite from yahoo](http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-greatly-flawed-rule-on-recovering-fumbles-af?urn=nfl-207503). Hopefully it’s compelling enough.This rule change was introduced to deal with the whole “down by contact” thing. Remember how annoying that used to be on fumbles? > > I swear they’ve made a huge deal about this rule change for years. I’m frankly stunned you’re not aware of it. I don’t remember those specifics. It’s an interesting conundrum. I’m curious what the specific wording and instructions from the league are on that. The Sellers fumble in that cite sounds very much like the play **SenorBeef** described and it was apparently ruled consistently. I feel like there’s supposed to be some gray area there in which a post-whistle recovery that happens within the immediate action is allowed but ones that happen well after the action has wound down are not. Seems like the league is being intentionally vague on that topic. It seems like this subject has opened up an entirely different problem in games. Refs are now more hesitant to blow whistles on plays meaning that those “continuation” fumbles tend to get allowed more often than not. The end result is that a lot of “inconclusive” reviews tend to favor the defenses. The Knox fumble was one example. I don’t think it was clear at all if Knox was down or not, but the refs swallowed the whistles just in case. In the end the Pats got the benefit of the doubt since the refs let the play go even though most the guys on the field let up assuming he was down. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/130 "2010-12-13T07:59:39Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > You don’t find my cite compelling? No, I do, that was just a simulpost. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/131 "2010-12-13T08:23:02Z")
> [@](#): > > It seems like this subject has opened up an entirely different problem in games. Refs are now more hesitant to blow whistles on plays meaning that those “continuation” fumbles tend to get allowed more often than not. That’s what the rule change is intended to address. The old way – when a whistle ended action no matter what – the refs hesitated out of fear of screwing the defense by blowing a fumble dead. After the rule change they can blow the whistle more freely since now they can clean it up later by review. The problem is that most players let up when the refs blow the play dead, and even worse, if they don’t let up they risk a penalty. I guess in today’s game, loose ball trumps all, even the whistle. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/132 "2010-12-13T12:41:51Z")
Ok, so I’m watching the play again on NFL Rewind. If you have access to Rewind or otherwise have access to the video, it’s in the 4th quarter with 11:13 left on the clock. 3 seconds after the snap, Delhomme is hit from behind while trying to throw the ball. The ball comes loose and tumbles forward along the ground. The officials immediately and unambiguously blow the whistle. [This](http://members.cox.net/senorbeef/fumb1.jpg) is about 1 full second after the ball was knocked loose. You can’t see it very well in that image, but the arm of the ref you see on the right side of the screen is from a ref running in, blowing the whistle, and waving the play dead. As you cna see, several Browns are in position to take a shot at recovering the fumble here. But there is a loud, clear whistle, and officials running in waving their arms. So the Browns stop trying to recover it. The play is over. [This](http://members.cox.net/senorbeef/fumble.jpg) image was taken about 1 second later from a different angle. You can see the ref clearly waving the play dead, as he has been for about 1-1.5 full seconds at this point. You can also see the Browns players slowing down doing the half-ass jog thing players do when the play is over. Even the Bills players are only running at the ball at half speed at this point. Then a Bills player scoops it up and runs it towards the end zone - with the refs still blowing whistles and frantically waving their arms. Everyone else on the field has stopped. They review the play and award the bills the ball on the 23 yard line. Now, I would say one clear difference between this and the Steelers/Miami play is that the reaction to that play occured fluidly and immediately… the whistle blew, but the players were still trying to grab the ball. In the Browns game, the whistle completely influenced the outcome of the play. There were several Browns players within recovery distance of the ball who didn’t even try to recover it because of the totally clear end of the play signalled by the refs, both by blowing the whistle and waving their arms. There was roughly full 3 seconds between when the whistles first started blowing and when a player recovered the ball. The whistle blowing the play dead clearly changed the play, and there was a huge gap between whistle and recovery. Quite frankly, I don’t understand how this could stand. What were the Browns O-linemen in range of the ball supposed to do? Knock over some Bills players on the way to jumping on the ball, all the while there’s a ref right in their face signalling the play is dead? They’d have gotten a penalty. Yet somehow you can take that situation, a situation where the offense cannot reasonably try to secure the fumble, and declare it a Bills recovery? I’ve never seen anything like it before, it seems like complete bullshit to me from every angle, the Browns were only down by 4 points at this point and it could’ve changed the outcome of the game - and yet, I haven’t heard a single NFL talking head even mention this fucking play. This is some bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/133 "2010-12-13T15:40:08Z")
Man, the part of the Jets game that I watched was brutal. I switched over to Ari-Den for a while and it was actually more exciting (they ran my favourite fake field goal play! :)). Looking at the schedule, the Jets are actually legitimately in danger of missing the playoffs. They are @Pit and @Chi the next two weeks, and if they lose those they could be out, even if they beat Buffalo in the last game. Even Baltimore is in a bit more trouble than I expected, if they go 2-2 the rest of the way. The other thing I’m looking forward to seeing is something like 13-3 Saints @ 7-9 Seahawks in the wild card round :). ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/134 "2010-12-13T15:45:08Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Just saw the replay of the hit on Vick on the sidelines that Andy and the Eagles honks are complaining about. Two facts are immediately clear to me. > > 1. It was a absolutely legal hit, Vick was a runner and he was still in bounds when the hit was delivered. > > 2. There would have been a flag thrown if it was Brady, Brees or Manning. There may even have been a flag thrown for the other 28 QBs in the league too. > > So, I’m not sure where the crime lies. I’m inclined to think that the second fact is the more irritating one. QBs use and abuse those rules to steal an extra yard or two near the sidelines by sidestepping downfield and/or extending the ball forward right before stepping out. Defenders need to be able to make a QB pay if he tries that. I would have been pissed if the refs had tossed the flag there for Vick though, he was in bounds, there is a double standard in place but they shouldn’t rectify it by throwing more uncalled for flags. I dunno. From what I could see, first contact on Vick was made a split second before his foot landed on the stripe. He was already out in the sense that part of his body was over the line and there was zero chance of changing course and heading upfield. But yes, the initial contact was legal. But then the defense guy pushes Vick _hard_, and at the point he does they’re a full step out of bounds. I don’t see why just because you laid a hand on the guy a tenth of a second before he steps out of bounds you should get to launch him at a bunch of benches and shit a second later. Maybe I’m mis-remembering as I haven’t gone back to look at the clip, but I don’t recall it as being “legal hit but would have drawn a flag on Manning,” but as “very borderline hit that would have drawn a flag sometimes even on running backs.” ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/135 "2010-12-13T15:55:43Z")
> [@Cubsfan](#): > > Bears game. > > What. > > The. > > Fuck. As a Patriots fan, it was an awesome game. Since that loss in Cleveland in Week 9, Brady has been playing like a man possessed. The whole team is firing on all cylinders now, right down the stretch when you want it to. It was interesting for me watching the Patriots play the Bears. I’ve now been on both sides of the fence, first cheering on the Bears’ decisive win over the Patriots 25 years ago (:eek:) in Super Bowl XX. (I was living in the Chicago area at the time.) I’ve now lived in New England for most of my adult life, and it was a bid odd for me to find myself cheering on the Patriots in their own decisive win over the Bears, especially on their home turf in Soldier Field. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/136 "2010-12-13T15:56:09Z")
I didn’t watch the game, but if the player extended his arms _after_ Vick was out that would certainly make a difference for me. ETA: Brady is the MVP right now. Not a question. ---
**Author:** ![phungi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/phungi/32/395_2.png) [@phungi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phungi)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/137 "2010-12-13T16:18:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The Jets employee who tripped the Dolphins player was apparently [the Jets strength coach](http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/23081/jets-strength-coach-trips-dolphins-player), who is now apologizing to everybody in sight. Apologies are cheap, especially when the guy is obviously scared shitless of losing his job. Personally, I think that’s a firing offense. There’s no excuse for that. Not only is it immature and unprofessional, but he could have seriously injured that guy. If he does keep his job, he better watch his ass on the sideline. Somebody’s going wipe him out. I may be in the minority, but when the play happened, I didn’t see it as a big deal at the time… the replays appear to show a split-second decision: the player was clearly running down the sidelines _out of bounds_ and the coach extended his knee about 2 inches… a “flat out dick move” if he was intentionally trying to trip him, but it may have partially been a reflex, along the lines of “the guy is running in your direction, out of bounds and is possibly going to side-swipe you, so you create a little personal space for yourself”. Obviously, the better route of action would have been to step back a bit, but I am curious if there is anything in the rule book about contact with players when they run out of bounds. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/138 "2010-12-13T16:49:20Z")
The Patriots and Brady esepcially are damn impressive. To do what they did against a good team and in a snowstorm was just ridiculous. If Rodgers doesn’t play next week the Packers have zero chance. If Rodgers does play then my Packers have a 10% chance. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/139 "2010-12-13T16:51:14Z")
As has been posted already, two or three years ago the NFL changed the rules to allow for a retroactively determined fumble to be recovered by the defense, provided there was clear visual evidence that they in fact made the recovery. The stated rationale at the time (aside from just getting more calls right, of course) was that their study of game footage had demonstrated that a whistle doesn’t stop players from going after a nearby loose ball. I actually like the rule change, and I think that in 95% of cases they’re justification is absolutely correct, though once in a blue moon it does seem like the whistle \*may \*have played a part in determining who recovered. In answer to **Beef** ’s rhetorical question from his last post: yes, the Browns who were closest to the ball should have kept going at full speed and risked the penalty (which, to be fair, would be pretty unlikely; the refs give players a lot of slack for contact after the whistle if they could plausibly think the play was still live). It sucks, and the league should probably do a better job explaining to players (and fans) about replay and loose balls, but there it is. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445/140 "2010-12-13T16:56:24Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > I dunno. From what I could see, first contact on Vick was made a split second before his foot landed on the stripe. He was already out in the sense that part of his body was over the line and there was zero chance of changing course and heading upfield. But yes, the initial contact was legal. But then the defense guy pushes Vick _hard_, and at the point he does they’re a full step out of bounds. I don’t see why just because you laid a hand on the guy a tenth of a second before he steps out of bounds you should get to launch him at a bunch of benches and shit a second later. Maybe I’m mis-remembering as I haven’t gone back to look at the clip, but I don’t recall it as being “legal hit but would have drawn a flag on Manning,” but as “very borderline hit that would have drawn a flag sometimes even on running backs.” Nah, they showed it about 15 times on ESPN. The defender laid into Vick while he was still in play and before he touched the out of bounds area. Vick also was not surrendering himself, he was sprinting for the corner. There was no secondary push, the LB threw a 2 hand shiver (no helmet or pads involved) into Vick while the play was live and that contact alone sent Vick flying. Remember both players were moving really fast towards the sideline and Vick is really light. It looked much worse than it was. See here: [NFL Football Highlights, Clips & Analysis | NFL.com](http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81cdd675/Vick-not-treated-like-other-QB-s) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-14/563445.md?page=8)