Poor Devin Thomas

[gibbsisgod]

Heyer's wallet will be a little light this week after the league takes action.

[Gmanc711]

Speaking of Devin, you probaboly couldnt see it on TV, but there was one play (this was in the first half), where he was WIDE open in the endzone and Campbell missed it to dump the pass off to Cooley or Sellers...so he potentially could have had two yesterday.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

Speaking of Devin, you probaboly couldnt see it on TV, but there was one play (this was in the first half), where he was WIDE open in the endzone and Campbell missed it to dump the pass off to Cooley or Sellers...so he potentially could have had two yesterday.

He was also wide open on a corner route when Campbell decided to sling it in between 3 defenders to ARE.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Angry

He was also wide open on a corner route when Campbell decided to sling it in between 3 defenders to ARE.

The defender pulled off of Thomas when the ball was in the air. Read Campbell's eyes.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by mredskins

The defender pulled off of Thomas when the ball was in the air. Read Campbell's eyes.

He was trailing him when he pulled off though. Thomas had a step or 2

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

Speaking of Devin, you probaboly couldnt see it on TV, but there was one play (this was in the first half), where he was WIDE open in the endzone and Campbell missed it to dump the pass off to Cooley or Sellers...so he potentially could have had two yesterday.

I was at the game yesterday....I'm not sure if we're talking about the same play or not but Thomas was wide open down the sideline for an easy TD. JC threw an incompletion on a slant on 3rd down and we ended up punting. I was impressed by Thomas yesterday.

[johnerotten]

speaking of wrs,was malcolm kelly even active yesterday?

[rypper11]

Originally Posted by johnerotten

speaking of wrs,was malcolm kelly even active yesterday?

No, he was inactive.
As for Thomas being ignored, I don't think JC has any confidence in him to catch the ball. Plus, we don't know if he ran the right route or if JC didn't notice him because he didn't expect him to be there. I will say he needs to get off ST coverage. He seems to be running near the play often but doesn't put his pads on anyone. Plus it would probably speed up his offensive learning curve.

"Not true because Reggie Bush did his little mocking thing before the TD and his was assed on the kick off. It is BS! " - MRedskins

Taunting is a flagrant foul resulting in a 15 yd penalty but it is always enforced after the play. Unnecessary roughness is a different penalty. And how was he "assed"?

[skinsnut]

Originally Posted by rypper11

"Not true because Reggie Bush did his little mocking thing before the TD"

Taunting is a flagrant foul resulting in a 15 yd penalty but it is always enforced after the play.

This answers my question...I should have read the whole tread.

[SBXVII]

#1: For some reason I thought it was #50 but ok #90 tackled Portis on the previous play and he tried to grind Portis's helmit into the ground after the play stopped. Portis got up mad and had a few words. I'm sure Portis probably said hey someone help me take him out the next play. The play in question was a play action, Portis ran up the middle and while a O-Lineman was on who I think was #90 Portis blasted him knocking him to the ground. I think he got up and was confronting Portis when Heyer hit him a second time.

#2: I truely believe the shot was clean. Campbell was scrambling to the right and had just released the ball when Heyer hit him. If your arguement is he was not near the ball you might have an arguement but the play was still going on. Part B to my believing it was a clean shot was the fact that Heyer did not hit him from behind he hit him from the D players right side. Yes he knocked him off his feet but it was not a cheap shot simply because the player was not looking at Heyer. Hell they even said on another game that if an interception is thrown everyone looks to take out the QB whether in the play or not.

I for one felt it should have been assessed on the kick off. My biased oppinion I know. I sorta felt that if the foul in any way resulted in us scoring then yes TD does not count but it had no bearing on the play and the play was still taking place meaning Campbell was scrambling and had just released the ball when the contact was made.

I just hope that from now on, on kick offs or punt returns when someone slams into a player from the side they call it unessessary roughness and back them up 15 yrs to half the distance.

[MTK]

Since everyone seems to be acknowledging that Heyer was looking for some revenge on that hit, I find it a little funny to see that people continue to think it was clean.

I can understand why it was flagged. It took place away from the ball and at that time guys were just kinda standing around when Heyer clocked him. A play like that is bound to draw some attention from the refs, especially if they were aware of the jawing back and forth between Portis and Dockett on previous plays, which I'm sure they were. It's just not a very smart play by Heyer, but that's just my opinion on it.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Since everyone seems to be acknowledging that Heyer was looking for some revenge on that hit, I find it a little funny to see that people continue to think it was clean.

I can understand why it was flagged. It took place away from the ball and at that time guys were just kinda standing around when Heyer clocked him. A play like that is bound to draw some attention from the refs, especially if they were aware of the jawing back and forth between Portis and Dockett on previous plays, which I'm sure they were. It's just not a very smart play by Heyer, but that's just my opinion on it.

The fact that a particular hit is delivered with revenge in mind does not necessarily make it a dirty one. Regardless of motivation, a hit is either delivered within the confines of the rules or it is not. And, based on the exchanges on this thread, there seems to be some difference of opinion as to why the flag was thrown--was it thrown because Heyer's shot was to the head, or because it was delivered so far away from the ball? If the latter, then, as you say, it might ( and I stress "might") be flag-worthy, but it still calls for a clarification of the rules. If a play is still going on, and a hit is delivered to the front of the body of an opposing player, where is the line between "close enough to the play to be legitimate" and "too far away from the play to be legitimate"? The fact is that Heyer, an offensive lineman, threw the hit while his quarterback still had the ball behind the line of scrimmage. If it was clearly to the head, then fine, I'll accept the call. But the opinion from the Fox booth yesterday, and others on this thread, is that it was because it was simply too far away from the football. That, in my opinion, makes the call highly questionable.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

The fact that a particular hit is delivered with revenge in mind does not necessarily make it a dirty one. Regardless of motivation, a hit is either delivered within the confines of the rules or it is not. And, based on the exchanges on this thread, there seems to be some difference of opinion as to why the flag was thrown--was it thrown because Heyer's shot was to the head, or because it was delivered so far away from the ball? If the latter, then, as you say, it might ( and I stress "might") be flag-worthy, but it still calls for a clarification of the rules. If a play is still going on, and a hit is delivered to the front of the body of an opposing player, where is the line between "close enough to the play to be legitimate" and "too far away from the play to be legitimate"? The fact is that Heyer, an offensive lineman, threw the hit while his quarterback still had the ball behind the line of scrimmage. If it was clearly to the head, then fine, I'll accept the call. But the opinion from the Fox booth yesterday, and others on this thread, is that it was because it was simply too far away from the football. That, in my opinion, makes the call highly questionable.

I think the main reason it was called was due to the fact Portis and Dockett were having some words on previous plays, and the refs were probably aware that something was brewing. So given the fact that the refs were probably keeping an eye on the situation, it wasn't a wise move by Heyer.

[Paintrain]

It was a cheap shot, a good 10 yards away from the play and from behind. I thought the ball was away and it should have been assessed after the kickoff but since it wasn't a dead ball foul or an unsportsmanlike conduct I guess it had to negate the play. Either way it was pretty stupid, thank goodness we didn't need those 7 points.

[J. Spanky]

bad move by heyer. bad call by the refs to negate the td. great move by the team to overcome. bad calls are part of the game; it is not an excuse for losing.