Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

Charles Woodson not ejected after thrown punch

Posted on: September 8, 2011 11:21 pm
Edited on: September 8, 2011 11:34 pm
 
Posted by Will Brinson

One of the NFL's rules is that "striking an opponent with fist" is illegal and will result in a 15-yard penalty and an ejection in the even that it's flagrant.

So Charles Woodson probably shouldn't have played the last quarter and a half against the Saints after he threw an uppercut David Thomas' way.

On a first and 10 from the 36, the Saints ran the ball to the left side. Woodson was blitzing but missed the play and while coming back to the runner got entangled with Thomas. A quick tussle ensued and Woodson swung at Thomas, which you can see to the right, courtesy of Chris Chase of Yahoo.

Sean Payton quickly pointed out that the referees "gotta throw a flag."

They did, and Woodson was given an unnecessary roughness penalty, but he should have been ejected because he winded up and threw a punch at Thomas given how flagrant it was.

But the referees decided to leave Woodson in and the Packers began to pull away thanks to some big defensive stops. He'll likely see a fine coming his way from Park Avenue, but if the Packers win the game because he stuck around, it'll be worth it.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnNFL on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Comments

Since: May 21, 2007
Posted on: September 11, 2011 11:59 am
 

Charles Woodson not ejected after thrown punch

See Vader your only making my points for me by making the comment
Bottom line:  get over it.  Your team won.  Quit with the sour grapes.
Basically what you are saying is that its perfectly excusable to be a little baby and cry if your team loses and there was a bad call against your team but not acknowledge any bad calls against the opponent. What people like you don't understand is that there are bad calls throughout the game that effect both teams, its football and the refs are only human and given a set of rules to memorize completely and interpret. Add that to the fact that the rules are changed and amended yearly its near impossible to make every call exactly as it should be.

As for the pass interference call sure its subjective which is why the league states 
Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: 
that is pretty much a catchall statement saying that if a ref blows a call then it could still be pass interference even if the play doesnt fit neatly into a rule, this is because the rules are interpreted differently by different people. This is sorta like the Bible some people look at it word for word at face value, whereas others look at the bible and look at it with more generalities.

P.S I know people are going to complain about me comparing the bible to the NFL rule book to those people just replace the word bible for any other piece of historical literature that can be interpreted in many ways such as the US constitution.

 



Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: September 11, 2011 5:43 am
 

Charles Woodson not ejected after thrown punch

So I assume you've got a degree in figures of speech, eh?  Thanks for the lesson, Professor.
You're welcome. You might think you've scored with your limp "professor" jab, but it only underlines the problem. You misused an expression, which muddled the meaning of your statements, which made you look foolish. This inference-by-insult attempt to defend the error only compounds the problem. But it's the rare individual who can learn from a mistake someone else points out. Most people have a reaction similar to your defensive, ad hominem reflex.

As for Hawk, that's your opinion, sir.  Clearly if you watch the video in slo-mo Hawk is there before the ball gets there.  No questions asked.
Clearly, you are dodging the point. Nearly every interception in football happens because the defender "gets there" before the ball does. The point is whether or not AJ Hawk violated any of the rules laid down by the NFL and reprinted downthread by pack_fan55. Clearly, the tape shows he did not. Hawk made a play on the ball while going over Sproles' shoulder. The contact occurred as Hawk batted the ball, which is not PI. If you think it should be PI, then it's a question of whether or not the rules should be rewritten. However, as written, it is not PI. I am glad you at least have enough integrity not to deny this fact. I'll give you credit for trying to change the subject, but it doesn't change the facts.

And to your point about Woodson...I am merely saying it's inexcusable after our friend pack_fan55 decided that it was cool to retaliate.
If by "it's" you're referring to the punch, then yes, it was inexcusable, and Woodson should have been ejected. If the "sour grapes" comment was intended to establish only that Woodson should have been ejected, then regardless of the misuse of expression, the material point is valid. I read it differently, but I will defer to your interpretation of your own meaning (it's not as if there's a better authority on what you meant than you).




Since: Apr 19, 2008
Posted on: September 9, 2011 4:49 pm
 

Charles Woodson not ejected after thrown punch

1. AJ Hawk did not touch the player before he touched the ball.
2. Having a job at Sirius XM Radio does not give one the power to bend reality and make Hawk touch the receiver before he touched the ball.
3. It's not "sour grapes" to point out a bad call. Is it "sour grapes" to point out that Charles Woodson should have been ejected from the game?
4. You're not even using the term "sour grapes" correctly. It refers to tearing down something someone didn't get, so as to give the impression it wasn't worth getting. It's envy, not a blanket term for disgreement.

So I assume you've got a degree in figures of speech, eh?  Thanks for the lesson, Professor.

As for Hawk, that's your opinion, sir.  Clearly if you watch the video in slo-mo Hawk is there before the ball gets there.  No questions asked.

And to your point about Woodson...I am merely saying it's inexcusable after our friend pack_fan55 decided that it was cool to retaliate.



Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: September 9, 2011 3:58 pm
 

Charles Woodson not ejected after thrown punch

pack_fan55, what rock are you hiding under exactly?  Listen to the guys on Sirius XM Radio.  They put quite a few Packers fans in their place over that penalty.  I know the rules perfectly well, thank you.  Perhaps you missed the part where the defender is not supposed to touch the receiver before the ball gets there?  Clearly, Hawk is there before the ball.  It might be by a fraction of a second but it's true.

Bottom line:  get over it.  Your team won.  Quit with the sour grapes.
1. AJ Hawk did not touch the player before he touched the ball.
2. Having a job at Sirius XM Radio does not give one the power to bend reality and make Hawk touch the receiver before he touched the ball.
3. It's not "sour grapes" to point out a bad call. Is it "sour grapes" to point out that Charles Woodson should have been ejected from the game?
4. You're not even using the term "sour grapes" correctly. It refers to tearing down something someone didn't get, so as to give the impression it wasn't worth getting. It's envy, not a blanket term for disgreement.



Since: Apr 19, 2008
Posted on: September 9, 2011 1:57 pm
 

Charles Woodson not ejected after thrown punch

pack_fan55, what rock are you hiding under exactly?  Listen to the guys on Sirius XM Radio.  They put quite a few Packers fans in their place over that penalty.  I know the rules perfectly well, thank you.  Perhaps you missed the part where the defender is not supposed to touch the receiver before the ball gets there?  Clearly, Hawk is there before the ball.  It might be by a fraction of a second but it's true.

Bottom line:  get over it.  Your team won.  Quit with the sour grapes.



Since: Apr 7, 2009
Posted on: September 9, 2011 12:07 pm
 

Charles Woodson not ejected after thrown punch

it was pass interference.....Woodson should have been ejected.   




Since: May 21, 2007
Posted on: September 9, 2011 10:52 am
 

Charles Woodson not ejected after thrown punch

@Vader did you even watch the game, cause if you did and actually know anything about football you would have seen that there was no pass interference, do yourself a favor and look up the rule before you type, pass interference is defined in the NFL rule book as:

Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: 

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch. 
Hawk was clearly playing the ball as he batted it down with his hands

(b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball. 
Hawk went over the shoulder of the receiver in an attempt to defend the pass and did not go THROUGH the back THROUGH being the key word

(c) Grabbing a receiver’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass. 
He did not grab the receiver 

(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball. 
his arms never made contact with his body from one side of the body to the other

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball. 
once again he hit the ball so he obviously played the ball

(f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving. 
never grabbed the receiver nor hooked him with his arm

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to: 

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference. 
Both players Were competing for the ball and there was incidental contact with the body

(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball. 
does not apply

(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players. 
does not apply

(d) Laying a hand on a receiver that does not restrict the receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball. 
Does not apply

(e) Contact by a defender who has gained position on a receiver in an attempt to catch the ball. 
HE MADE A PLAY AND WAS ABLE TO GET HIS HANDS ON THE BALL IT DID NOT BREAK ANY OF THE OTHER RULES SO NO PASS INTERFERENCE

So who are these "experts" you speak of even Colinsworth stated during the game that he didnt fully agree with the call. i copied and pasted the rules from  if you dont believe me on the specifics of the rule, and as far as the play goes the only thing i  could find on the play was a picture that shows that AJ went up and over the reciever, if you can find a video that proves me wrong then go ahead and find it but here is the pic



Since: Apr 9, 2008
Posted on: September 9, 2011 10:43 am
 

Hahaha! Having a Bear fan criticize a Packer....

....for not being "classy" is like Queen Latifah saying that Beyonce has gained a little weight.  VERY good, Lovington11--VERY good.  How's that classy QB Cutler workin' out for ya?  Who's going to step in this year when the going gets tough and he quits on you?



Since: Dec 1, 2006
Posted on: September 9, 2011 10:00 am
 

Charles Woodson not ejected after thrown punch

woodson is overrated.  And now we are seeing him pull some thug moves? Real classy leadership.  The media has him walking on water.  Collinsworth-less had a man crush on him last night that was borderline awkward. 




Since: Apr 19, 2008
Posted on: September 9, 2011 9:27 am
 

Charles Woodson not ejected after thrown punch

pack_fan55, take off  the green and gold shades for a moment.  Most all of the experts agree that the pass interference call on AJ Hawk was legit.  There was clearly contact before the ball arrived.  It was an excellent call.  Woodson's punch to the gut, on the other hand, was completely ruthless and uncalled for.  I like Woodson a great deal but I totally think the guy should have been tossed.  It's poor sportsmanship and it is clearly stated in the rules that if you throw a punch, you get tossed.  You can complain about bad calls all you like but there is no excuse for the punch by Woodson.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com