Did Saints benefit from an illegal block in the back?

[Deb]

Did Saints benefit from an illegal block in the back?

Posted by Michael David Smith on February 8, 2010 6:03 PM ET


By the end of the day on the Monday after the Super Bowl, we've usually beaten every single topic to death.

But there was a suggestion on ESPN's Pardon the Interruption today that a potentially major officiating error -- a block in the back on Tracy Porter's pick-six off Peyton Manning -- has been overlooked.

The Pardon the Interruption mailbag segment began with the question, "Why is no one talking about the block in the back hit that Peyton took on the interception return?" ESPN then showed a replay spotlighting Saints defensive end Will Smith shoving Manning in the back as Porter ran past him for a touchdown.

It was hardly the most flagrant example of an uncalled block in the back you'll ever see, but it's a fair question: Should Smith have been flagged for blocking Manning in the back?

If Smith had been flagged, it would have significantly changed the game. Instead of being ahead 31-17, the Saints would have been up just 24-17, with the ball on their own 40-yard line and the Colts having all three timeouts. If the Colts had been able to stop the Saints there, they could have gotten the ball back down just seven points with more than two minutes left in the game.

Instead, Porter's touchdown stood, and the Saints won 31-17.

You can watch the play at NFL.com. What do you think, PFT Planet? Did the Saints benefit from a block in the back?

[Matt In A Hat]

Yeah it was a block in the back, but I don't think it was a huge conspiracy, and I also don't think that it was the difference in the game.

[Titans4Vols]

Wouldn't matter, Manning would have choked again if he got the ball back.

[Reveryroadie]

was it a block in the back...yes, should it have been called.....nope. the officials did a great job of staying out of the way in this game. if it had been called, who is to say the saints wouldn't have run the clock down, and scored anyway? they were pushing the colts defense all over the field in the 4th quarter.

[LMD]

It's not an illegal block in the back. Porter cut inside, spinning Manning around, allowing Smith to block him.

The same issue came up a couple of years ago during a Jags game where Taylor broke off a 60 yard run or something and the only defensive back close to him had the same thing happen, which is why I know this. =\ When a player gets turned around by a juke, the block becomes legal. Manning overran the play, Porter cut in, and Smith blocked Manning as he was turning around. Clean block.

Edit: The play I'm talking about can be found here:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-m...aylor-62-yd-TD

Fred jukes one way, and then cuts back, which spins the defender around allowing Khalif Barnes to make the touchdown-springing block legally, even though it looks like an illegal block in the back.

[NYSportsRule]

It's a clean block, Manning turned into it.

[leeman]

Originally Posted by Deb

[b][url="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/08/did-saints-benefit-from-an-illegal-block-in-the-back/"]
If Smith had been flagged, it would have significantly changed the game. Instead of being ahead 31-17, the Saints would have been up just 24-17, with the ball on their own 40-yard line and the Colts having all three timeouts. If the Colts had been able to stop the Saints there, they could have gotten the ball back down just seven points with more than two minutes left in the game.

If...If...If... What B.S.

I bet we could go back and find some illegal blocks by the Colts that weren't called, and If they were called then ... Oh never mind.

The Saints would have had the ball in great field position with a 7 point lead 3 minutes left. I'm not going to if... if... if... what would have happened. Bottom line is that the Colts never scored again and losing 24-17 is just as much a loss as losing 31-17. Either way, the Saints got the Lombardi.

[Xxxyank]

Sour Grapes...

[rondo]

Originally Posted by Xxxyank

Sour Grapes...

Ditto!

Originally Posted by LMD

It's not an illegal block in the back. Porter cut inside, spinning Manning around, allowing Smith to block him.

The same issue came up a couple of years ago during a Jags game where Taylor broke off a 60 yard run or something and the only defensive back close to him had the same thing happen, which is why I know this. =\ When a player gets turned around by a juke, the block becomes legal. Manning overran the play, Porter cut in, and Smith blocked Manning as he was turning around. Clean block.

Edit: The play I'm talking about can be found here:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-m...aylor-62-yd-TD

Fred jukes one way, and then cuts back, which spins the defender around allowing Khalif Barnes to make the touchdown-springing block legally, even though it looks like an illegal block in the back.

Yep.

It's the same thing if/when a defender spins to get away from a block and the blocker stays engaged, it looks like a block in the back, but it was brought about by the defender's actions. Thus it's legal.