I believe it is legal to block the kick at the bar. The kick was to the limit of possibility. If it made it, it would likely be like Baltimore's kick. Hitting the bar. Pretty sure 10 feet is nothing for a tall receiver or DB or is it just as likely he blocks it through instead of rejecting it.
Last play question
- Thread starter SteelerSask2
- Start date
The kick was nowhere near the crossbar; the commentator was mistaken. Not sure what he was watching.
I think what Sask is asking....... if you station say a tall player by the FG posts during a FG attempt can he jump up and block it as it enters the Field Goal post area?
Would that be legal?
Would that be legal?
Later rule changes led to the adoption of Rule 12, Section 3, Article 1 (informally known as the "Stroud Rule"): "Goal tending by any player leaping up to deflect a kick as it passes above the crossbar of a goal post is prohibited. The referee could award 3 points for a palpably unfair act".
Basically equates to goaltending in basketball .... if the kick is short and the player does not go up above the bar to impede its progress the short kick can be returned.
Basically equates to goaltending in basketball .... if the kick is short and the player does not go up above the bar to impede its progress the short kick can be returned.
Question answered by great Canuck!!!
Much like a service cannot be blocked in volleyball .... viewed as unsportsman like and goes against putting the ball in play fairly to begin the back and forth attack and defensive modes of the game
Basketball makes it simpler by using a ball on its upward trajectary can be blocked but not after it starts to descend downward or the imaginary cylinder above the basket cannot be interfered with
Basketball makes it simpler by using a ball on its upward trajectary can be blocked but not after it starts to descend downward or the imaginary cylinder above the basket cannot be interfered with
when they showed the view from behind the crossbar it looked like it doinked off of it and bounced back into the endzone..... optical illusion.... side view showed it had no chance
So I guess the guy was watching his monitor, and not the live game. Rookie mistake.
Brings back memories of playing fastball and a line drive was going over the infielder and he threw his glove up to knock it down...... everyone's jaw dropped in disbelief and the umps awarded extra bases
that was my first view and my heart dropped ...... I couldn't believe the players casual response until I saw the side view.....
Nah, somebody thought of this back in the day… it was done exactly one time and then the league banned it
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 33,546
- Reaction score
- 36,315
- Points
- 113
- Location
- between $2 short & ten buck two
He (commentator) was watching the Chicago nut sack bounce off his forehead. Some say the angle of the camera made it look like it did and the sheeple bought into it. SERIOUSLY, was any one here fooled when watching the original foorage? It looked short even from the camera angle + add in the fact that the booth guys get more than one angle to view. It was their knob slobbering that even made this a second guess.
Which QB completed his 50th game winning drive and is now in a very small group (4 i think) who have 50 or more game winning drive.................... ****, I don't know as I was listening to the booth guys and realize there was only ONE quarterback playing.
Salute the nation
I've yet to see a game when the Steelers were a favorite or a heavy underdog where I thought this guy really likes the Steelers. Ever.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 11,062
- Reaction score
- 13,207
- Points
- 113
Course, they didn't show the Side View during the game. Cause... ESPN.
That's what I said. 6 yards is not 6 yards short. Rise over run. It's a long way. It was still a hell of a kick though. Kinda like a golf drive. When you try to smash it usually it goes 30 yards right.
