Question Regarding Rules

[aussiePanther]

51 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

It has nothing to do with color.

Cam runs with the wrong posture to get calls like that...

... "wrong posture"? Surely you're kidding.

[Jangler]

8 minutes ago, aussiePanther said:

... "wrong posture"? Surely you're kidding.

lol NFL words, so that must be it.

[LinvilleGorge]

1 hour ago, cookinbrak said:

Collinsworth said that since the QB was going towards the play, he was fair game. Should not have been called.

This. The rule was put in place to keep defenders from cheap shotting QBs after an INT. A lot of them were getting unnecessarily blown up after INTs despite not being actively involved in trying to stop the returner. But, if the QB is attempting to play a role in stopping the returner, he's fair game.

[OneBadCat]

If I was a big ass LB and ran back an INT it would be my goal to truck the QB every single time.

[Wundrbread33]

44 minutes ago, aussiePanther said:

... "wrong posture"? Surely you're kidding.

I was referencing what a ref said about Cam earlier this season. 

[aussiePanther]

11 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

I was referencing what a ref said about Cam earlier this season. 

Oh. Right.

12 minutes ago, OneBadCat said:

If I was a big ass LB and ran back an INT it would be my goal to truck the QB every single time.

Rogers didn't get trucked he got blocked (admittedly both he and the blocker went down awkwardly).

He was moving over to the sideline to position himself for a tackle. This was a BS call by Hochuli by what I saw and understand. The rule is that if the QB *doesn't* pursue the int return then he is still considered a defenseless player, exactly to stop Defenses from taking the chance to obliterate QB like you describe.