Vikings Message Board.Com

TREADWELL!!!

Treadwell was coming back toward the play, that is what they call a crack back block, plus he hit him high in the shoulder/helmet area and you can't do that either. So it was a correct call. If he

I don't like them calling that a blindside block. He hit him in the chest. Just because his head isn't turned shouldn't mean it's blindside. That part is on the defender.

Whether you like or not doesn't matter, it's in the rules.

I realize my opinion won't change the rule.

Treadwell. Hmmm, i heard this name before. Sounds like an exercise machine.

S197 wrote: Only if the hit is to the head or neck right? He didn't hit him from behind and hit him in the shoulder.

I think the key word would be 'defenseless'. The refs see that as hitting a defenseless player since he was blindsided. I understand you can say the defender should be looking, but he was looking at the runner and can't be looking behind him at the same time. It's like saying a qb should see any lineman coming at him even though he is looking downfield for a receiver. As Perrera said, they will call that every time.

It wasn't a crackback block, so what was it?

https://www.sportingcharts.com/dictiona ... block.aspx

They saw that one coming

S197 wrote:It wasn't a crackback block, so what was it?

https://www.sportingcharts.com/dictiona ... block.aspx

I think I answered this, they ruled it was hitting a defenseless player in the head/shoulder area with his forearm.

Go for it. Have to get 5 inches against this defense.

Purple Reign wrote: But he didn't have to put his full weight on him, he still broke his collar bone. Don't see how that justifies it. (I'm not too happy since Rodgers is my fantasy qb).

Dont understand. Justify what? Are you saying Barr deliberately broke Rodgers collarbone? Looked like a clean hit to me. Maybe if Rodgers doesn't hold on to the ball until the last second , he would still be playing.

They need to kick this FG. Not making it would be a momentum swing.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

Purple Reign wrote: I think I answered this, they ruled it was hitting a defenseless player in the head/shoulder area with his forearm.

I know what they ruled, what I'm saying is those need to be reviewable because often times the hit looks worse than it is. I think that was the case here, he clearly hit him in the shoulder but I admit at game speed it looked bad.

PurpleMustReign wrote:They need to kick this FG. Not making it would be a momentum swing.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

I agree. Would make it a 2 score deficit

S197 wrote: I know what they ruled, what I'm saying is those need to be reviewable because often times the hit looks worse than it is. I think that was the case here, he clearly hit him in the shoulder but I admit at game speed it looked bad.

New rule last year can't hit a player when going towards your backfield high.

I had a bad feeling about that FG attempt. Phew!

808vikingsfan wrote: Dont understand. Justify what? Are you saying Barr deliberately broke Rodgers collarbone? Looked like a clean hit to me. Maybe if Rodgers doesn't hold on to the ball until the last second , he would still be playing.

Sounds like you were trying to justify the hit on Rodgers wasn't borderline just because he didn't use his full weight. Ask Rodgers if he thinks the hit was ok. Just because it didn't get a flag doesn't mean the league thinks it was okt. Let's wait and see if Barr gets fined for the hit or not. I'm not saying he did it deliberately, but I think he didn't have to drive him to the ground like he did either since he knew Rodgers had already thrown the ball.