Walter Thurmond calls out Welker

[cdumler7]

So looks like this play on Welker is not going to go away. Thurmond said that Welker's hit was "Uncalled for" and that the league is not out to protect defensive players. To me listening to him talk like this sounds more like he is trying to get a call in the Super Bowl to go their way more than he actually thinks this was a dirty play. Not a bad decision if that is what he is trying to do but can't believe how many people are calling this a dirty play. Every team runs these pick routes throughout the season and it just so happened that Welker and Talib collided and it could have just as easily gone the other way of Welker being hurt and Talib fine. Injuries happen in the NFL and this is one that happened on a legal play. The NFL has deemed it legal, officials have deemed it legal, most in the media deem it legal.

 

[WalkerBoh]

He's on the losing side in the Court of Public Opinion. He isn't going to change that either.

Arrington was going off on the same thing, claiming Talib was a "defenseless defender"....

 

[Malibu]

It is what it is.

 

[pantherfanforever11]

i wouldnt worry about it too much. it will soon blow over, this right now is just an excuse to throw fuel and try to bait Denver into a trash talking media frenzy. iFox will do all he can to keep the Broncos quiete

 

[iknowftbll]

i wouldnt worry about it too much. it will soon blow over, this right now is just an excuse to throw fuel and try to bait Denver into a trash talking media frenzy. iFox will do all he can to keep the Broncos quiete

My thoughts exactly. I don't necessarily think this is the Seahawks' M.O. but it definitely seems like an attempt to bait the Broncos into giving up some bulletin board material. I hope the Broncos issue a gag order and let their play on the field do all the talking.

 

[Southieinnc]

Welker's hit was a viscious hit. It was not dirty or illegal. The injury was unintentional. Most of the talk is because of pick plays being illegal. Yes the defender is vulnerable out there in this circumstance. Might make a DB think twice about putting a hurt on the receiver.....

 

[cdumler7]

Welker's hit was a viscious hit. It was not dirty or illegal. The injury was unintentional. Most of the talk is because of pick plays being illegal. Yes the defender is vulnerable out there in this circumstance. Might make a DB think twice about putting a hurt on the receiver.....

Yeah this is what I was thinking. I keep hearing Seattle fans comment about how Denver receivers better not try this one them or they are in for a world of hurt. It goes both ways with the world of hurt thing. Plus a defensive player deciding to lay the big hit on the receiver picking him is actually hurting his team because that means his receiver is running free. A DB's job on these plays is to get around all the traffic and still be in position to make a play on the receiver they are covering not lay a big hit on a guy that isn't actually going to get the ball. Yes I understand the intimidation factor that can come by laying a big hit but guys have been trying to do it all year to the Broncos on these pick plays and well they are all still standing and all still had a great year.

 

[Morpheus]

Welker's hit was a viscious hit. It was not dirty or illegal. The injury was unintentional. Most of the talk is because of pick plays being illegal. Yes the defender is vulnerable out there in this circumstance. Might make a DB think twice about putting a hurt on the receiver.....

But Pick plays are not illegal.

 

[Morpheus]

Yeah this is what I was thinking. I keep hearing Seattle fans comment about how Denver receivers better not try this one them or they are in for a world of hurt. It goes both ways with the world of hurt thing. Plus a defensive player deciding to lay the big hit on the receiver picking him is actually hurting his team because that means his receiver is running free. A DB's job on these plays is to get around all the traffic and still be in position to make a play on the receiver they are covering not lay a big hit on a guy that isn't actually going to get the ball. Yes I understand the intimidation factor that can come by laying a big hit but guys have been trying to do it all year to the Broncos on these pick plays and well they are all still standing and all still had a great year.

The interpretation of the pick play as I read it-

NFL Rules Clarification: Pick Plays - Mile High Report

Rule 8, Section 5, Article 2 (Forward Pass, Backward Pass, Fumble)

Prohibited Acts by both teams while the ball is in the air. Acts that are pass interference include, but are not limited to:

(e) cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball.

Seems simple enough right? The important wording in this portion of the pass interference rule is "making contact with him." The tricky part is it is still completely a judgement call by the ref. In most cases (even though we know these plays are designed to create the pick effect), the question that arises is intent. If there is contact, was the contact intentional? Did the receiver knowingly cut off a defender to spring someone else open? Was the receiver just running a route and things got congested?

When judging intent, the little things that Broncos receivers do make it near impossible to call the penalty. I have seen these plays run many times and almost every time, the receiver slows down and seems to try and avoid blatant contact with the receiver. They keep their arms to themselves and make no chuck content whatsoever. So they avoid blatant contact which takes away that first part of subsection (e).