49'ers The San Francisco 49’ers Thread

[OldSchool]

I would likely be mad if that was called on a Rams player. Can't blame them for the same on their guy, though I'd want it called for us playing them.

 

[Ramstien]

This 9ers teams lives on taking cheap shots; Warner and Debo are two of the biggest.

 

[Oyster]

that was a BS call fellow rams fans... and the replay shows it..

no one ... and i mean no one, hates the 49r's more than i do...

he wasn't targeting with the helmet..he didn't make contact with the receivers head..

it was shoulderpad to shoulderpad....

go rams

slo

Yeah, it wasn't helmet to helmet. To me it looked more like the forearm to the throat.

 

[Tano]

Yeah, it wasn't helmet to helmet. To me it looked more like the forearm and shoulder to the throat and head.

FIFY

 

[Tano]

I would likely be mad if that was called on a Rams player. Can't blame them for the same on their guy, though I'd want it called for us playing them.

I wouldn't be mad because that was a penalty

 

[RhodyRams]

lets put an end to this with a simple google search

1. Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
   1. forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenselessplayer by encircling or grasping him
   2. lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or ”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenselessplayer’s body
   3. illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body. (This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered to be a defenseless player, as defined in Article 7.)

 

[Tano]

lets put an end to this with a simple google search

1. Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
   1. forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenselessplayer by encircling or grasping him
   2. lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or ”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenselessplayer’s body
   3. illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body. (This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered to be a defenseless player, as defined in Article 7.)

Should also include 1 as well (bolded area)

 

[OldSchool]

I wouldn't be mad because that was a penalty

Not from what I see off just the stills. Don't really care enough to watch more, agree to disagree I guess

 

[Tano]

Not from what I see off just the stills. Don't really care enough to watch more, agree to disagree I guess

How about this shot that shows both feet off the ground when he leaped to hit the receiver

Per Rhody's #3 - that is a penalty

This is the last that I will say on the matter

 

[RhodyRams]

Should also include 1 as well (bolded area)

To me it was the launch that drew the flag

 

[Tano]

To me it was the launch that drew the flag

Yeah - but I think it was a combo of 1 & 3 since his arm and shoulder hit the neck area and then into the head area

 

[CanadaRam]

Cant believe that there is even discussion on this one. With all the tricky tack penalty calls, this was obvious targeting and easily could result in injury.

 

[Merlin]

Looks clean to me. Though SF can eat shit and I always enjoy if a call goes against them.

 

[fanotodd]

To me it was the launch that drew the flag

I think it was a combo of the launch and their reputation.
Again, the 9ers might not be getting the benefit of the doubt on that play because of who they are—not above dirty cheap shots.

 

[Selassie I]

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CybzRmIJXn4/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

 

[Q729]

LOL, it wasn't but 10 days ago when I wished for this!!! LOL.


View attachment 61895

Kinda makes me wonder what price we're gonna have to pay for getting this!

 

[snackdaddy]

Kinda makes me wonder what price we're gonna have to pay for getting this!

We lost Kyren and Rivers.

 

[Psycho_X]

View: https://x.com/RapSheet/status/1715836527966879949?s=20

 

[RamFanWA]

View: https://x.com/RapSheet/status/1715836527966879949?s=20

That is likely the best opportunity against SF, that you are going to get, Minnesota!!

 

[Merlin]

Sadly they'll still beat the Vikes by two TDs.