NFL Playoffs (Page 13)

I keep seeing people trying to justify running into the kicker, except there is none.  It's very clear he runs into and rolls the ankle on the plant foot.  Zero question it is a 15 yard penalty that was agreed it was incorrect by all the experts.

Btw, I know this is probably adding fuel to the fire, but click really slowly over that video during the running into the kicker penalty.  It's a subtle rule and I hadn't read it in detail until just now.

If his plant foot is down and the Seattle player hits it, it's roughing (1a).  But if his foot comes down on the Seattle player (in this case, Maragos's left hand), it means the defender slid under him and it's running into the kicker (2b).  From the 2nd video angle at 7:02, looks like the latter.

The rule also says when in doubt, it's roughing.  But maybe the ref had a better view.

Official rulebook:

Item 1: Roughing the kicker
.
It is a foul for roughing the kicker if a defensive player:
(a) contacts the plant leg of the kicker while his kicking leg is still in the air; or
(b) slides into or contacts the kicker when both of the kicker’s feet are on the ground.
It is not a foul if the contact is not severe, or if the kicker returns both feet to the ground prior to the contact and falls over a defender who is on the ground.
Note: When in doubt, it is a foul for roughing the kicker.

Item 2: Running into the Kicker
.
It is a foul for running into the kicker if a defensive player:
(a) contacts the kicking foot of the kicker, even if the kicker is airborne when the contact occurs; or
(b) slides under the kicker, preventing him from returning both feet to the ground.

If you step frame by frame from this point, he clearly lands on the defender's hand before the defender's shoulder hits his leg.  You may not like the way the rule reads, but that's running-into.

The "experts" on TV were not quoting the entire rule.

Not creative, just that the rule deals with "into" versus "under", and who contacted whom.

This play is the perfect storm because it's not the initial contact but the continuing slide that causes the injury.

You niner fans are completely skipping over the part of the rule that was quoted earlier... "It is not a foul if the contact is not severe".

That contact was in no way severe IMO and was completely accidental. The refs did the right thing by not handing you a freebie based on incidental "non-severe" contact. 

If I were a niner fan I would be b&tching about the turnovers they had.

Funny how when a fan base other than one's own cries and whines about a "missed call" or terrible ref's it is easy to tell them to shut up. Then when it is one's own team that you feel has gotten the short end, it becomes the end of the world. 

Anyway, as a GB fan with no dog in the fight, Seattle won that game fair and square IMO. Yes the bad call on the interception was a bad call, but it had little to no impact on the outcome of the game. The rest is just football.

Haha I'll split some hairs for ya. The initial contact was not severe, the ending result may have been more severe, but that was due to his foot rolling, not due to force trauma from the contact. 

Kinda like if you slap someone and they fall down some stairs and break a leg. The contact was not severe, but the result was. 

:P 

Your turn, keep it goin!

You are arguing for running into the kicker then. The rule says no foul if contact is not severe. That contact was not severe.

Anyway, I think the rule needs a bit of a wording change anyway. 15 yards and first down should be reserved for blatant intentional fouls, not for a guy just trying to make a play and having incidental contact at the end of it. 

If the niners wanted a first down they should have earned it. Maybe use that "dual threat" bicep kissing QB of theirs.