forums

Lightfoot personal foul video

Post #84 clears it up

TwentySix

Post in thread 'Lightfoot personal foul video'

Stingarov said:
Again. He shoved him. He didn't shoulder tackle the guy into Dante's 4th Circle of ****. So sorry Lightfoot is a physical ******* freak and the guy was ragdolled.

Besides, just from an optics standpoint CMU rotates all 3 QBs. Not like he was trying to send say, Dante Moore, into the shadow realm to gain a competitive advantage here.
Click to expand...
Going through the full game now and seeing the end zone camera. I’ll let you guys all decide, because to me there’s no way in **** this is a penalty

  • 100
  • Like
  • Looking

horrible call.

Even my wife called it FAFO for the qb.
 
Calinative said:
That is getting called 100/100 time especially against a qb and like 20yards behind the play.
Click to expand...

Yes Lightfoot should’ve just stood there and let the QB blindside him. What an idiot.

curb your enthusiasm hbo GIF
 
bacane said:
Is there anything in a rule book that spells out distance from a play where contact can or can’t be made? If it’s a clean, legitimate block does it matter if it’s 20, 30 yards behind a play? Or at some point is it deemed unnecessary roughness?

Only ask because the block itself, though physical, seemed clean & legit. Shouldn’t matter if it was QB or LT in pursuit. And QB was chasing the play.
Click to expand...
QBs are defenseless players after all turnovers and have the strictest blocking protections. To block a qb it has to clearly be from the front, not low, and they likely have to be near the play. And if they get lit up/end up on the ground unless they are near the action it will always be a fouls. Yall can complain about it all you want but a qb running in pursuit 20+ yards away is going to always be protected and for good reason - so they aren’t targeted. How would yall like to lose your starting qb on a play after they threw a pick where he was nowhere near the action?

Secondly at best you would say this block is from the side. Could prob argue it’s from back-side more than front-side too…But because it was 20+ yards from the play, many refs could call that a block in the back if they choose to.
 
Calinative said:
QBs are defenseless players after all turnovers and have the strictest blocking protections. To block a qb it has to clearly be from the front, not low, and they likely have to be near the play. And if they get lit up/end up on the ground unless they are near the action it will always be a fouls. Yall can complain about it all you want but a qb running in pursuit 20+ yards away is going to always be protected and for good reason - so they aren’t targeted. How would yall like to lose your starting qb on a play after they threw a pick where he was nowhere near the action?

Secondly at best you would say this block is from the side. Could prob argue it’s from back-side more than front-side too…But because it was 20+ yards from the play, many refs could call that a block in the back if they choose to.
Click to expand...

I’m sure if the QB blindsided Lightfoot into a concussion you’d have the same opinion of this play where the live (not defenseless) QB is engaged with the play and receives a clean block.
 
Calinative said:
QBs are defenseless players after all turnovers and have the strictest blocking protections. To block a qb it has to clearly be from the front, not low, and they likely have to be near the play. And if they get lit up/end up on the ground unless they are near the action it will always be a fouls. Yall can complain about it all you want but a qb running in pursuit 20+ yards away is going to always be protected and for good reason - so they aren’t targeted. How would yall like to lose your starting qb on a play after they threw a pick where he was nowhere near the action?

Secondly at best you would say this block is from the side. Could prob argue it’s from back-side more than front-side too…But because it was 20+ yards from the play, many refs could call that a block in the back if they choose to.
Click to expand...

I'm genuinely curious. Can you show me these rules?
 
Ya’ll really gonna sit here and discuss this penalty for the next month huh? It’s over and done. We know the refs suck, the horse is dead.

IMG_0753.png
 
grover said:
LOL. @Calinative loves his stats. But this one feels like he pulled it out of his backside. ... Hey, I could be wrong. Maybe buried somewhere in the Magna Carta there's common law that declares that QBs who are actively pursuing a ball carrier after a strip sack are nonetheless defenseless players.
Click to expand...

He’s technically correct the QB is automatically considered defenseless….until he engages with the play.
 
Ghandi said:
You can continue to cry. That’s fine.

Your interpretation of the rules is obviously not shared by the professionals officiating football IN 2026.
Click to expand...

You use professionals loosely. The head of that crew is a good old boy southern preacher who I guarantee you grew up hating Miami.

Same professionals called OPI on Mali when it was 2 way hand fighting and the “push” was just to stop the defender from continuing to body Mali with his eyes out the back of the endzone.

If the ref wanted to call that a block in the back he’d be wrong but it would at least be defensible.

Blocking a defensive player in pursuit of the ball is literally football. Whether they’re a quarterback or linebacker and whether they’re in position to make the tackle or 30 yards away (when they are in pursuit if the ball carrier).

But go on carrying water for that crew if it suits you. Just prepare to get ****** the next time they officiate a Miami game.

*aside - the head ref is a new ACC ref, came from MAC and CUSA. Good old boy from Tennessee.
 
mirvin88 said:
He’s technically correct the QB is automatically considered defenseless….until he engages with the play.
Click to expand...
So I guess in the 15mins between you post that said there is no rule, and this post you actually looked it up lol.

QBs get protected by refs on bs roughing calls all the time. Why would yall think the QBs protection wouldn’t be enforced even stricter on a play 20yards away from the ball?

Like come on. Lightfoot just has to k is better there. Dude wanted to hit the qb again. We can all ***** that the block was fine and the guy was technically in pursuit. But was it smart to do or should he have just not done it? In a real game that matters would you want Lightfoot making that block or not?
 
Calinative said:
So I guess in the 15mins between you post that said there is no rule, and this post you actually looked it up lol.

QBs get protected by refs on bs roughing calls all the time. Why would yall think the QBs protection wouldn’t be enforced even stricter on a play 20yards away from the ball?

Like come on. Lightfoot just has to k is better there. Dude wanted to hit the qb again. We can all ***** that the block was fine and the guy was technically in pursuit. But was it smart to do or should he have just not done it? In a real game that matters would you want Lightfoot making that block or not?
Click to expand...

No actually if you’d scroll back I already stated what you did and the exemption. I was clarifying.
 
mirvin88 said:
Yes a QB is immune to all contact after a turnover. There are no exemptions whatsoever. They can go make a tackle without impediment.

Schitts Creek Yes GIF by CBC
Click to expand...
Right so you obviously know that’s not at all what I said and now likely have realized I was completely right. Lol
 
AmenCanes said:
Yes it was a bad call. Horrible call.

But, Lightfoot has to know he’ll get the flag because in the moment, all the ref sees is the QB on the ground.

Similar to a shoving match after the play. It’s common knowledge that the second guy always gets the flag, even though he didn’t instigate.

Is it right? No. But the ref is typically only going to see the second guy who’s on the ground.

Our players have to be a little more aware.
Click to expand...
IMG_5200.gif
 
Back
Top