Chicago Sun-Times

Hochuli calls Suh's hit "non-football act"

| 17 Comments | No TrackBacks

After the game, referee Ed Hochuli said he flagged Ndamukong Suh for unnecessary roughness in the fourth quarter after the Lions defensive tackle hit Jay Cutler from behind because the contact was "an unnecessary non-football act."

The penalty, which came during the game-winning drive, gave the Bears a first-and-goal on the 7.

"I had a great angle to make a play and get the ball out, and that's what I went after," Suh said.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/37493

17 Comments

I don't see why all the-

" hulla-baloo"
about the Suh hit.

It's not like the play was 4th and 26 on their own 10 yard line, thus givng the Bears a 1st down and reviving a drive.

The Bears were driving the ball anyway, and most likely would have scored anyway.
the kid(Suh) has made a few dirt-ish plays, in his young career

He might be acquiring a "reputation".... {shrug}

Watch the replay. It was a two-handed push to the shoulders of a QB who crossed the line of scrimmage and was considered a runner. Perfectly legal hit. It resulted in a fumble and a Lion recovery of the football. The call more than likely cost the Lions the game. Couple this with the TD takeaway in the first meeting and the refs cost the Lins two victories against the Bears.

Everyone is focusing on the initial hit, and even the playbacks just show that hit.

But the most damaging one, including the forearm, came when Cutler was on the ground. Suh landed on the back of Cutler's head with his forearm, driving Cutler's helmet into the turf.

Forearms to the back of the head are illegal for all players, not just Quarterbacks

Clearly his intention was a cheap shot followed by a second cheap shot when Cutler was on his way down.That's not how anyone is taught to tackle. Watch the replay - there was no fumble on the play. Cutler was already on the ground when the ball came out. The ball probably came out cause Cutler was dazed after being cheap-shot twice.

With the Suh hit, as I was watching the game on TV, it sure looked like a personal foul, and that is what the official saw...even if people think that it was a clean hit, that is not correct. Suh bench presses about 500 lbs., he tried to bench press Jay Cutler through the turf. It was a cheap shot---period! Cutler was going doing, and no matter who the player is as he is going down why put that hit on him...Suh, knew who it was and
tried to smash him! The referee was correct, and all the people who think it was a clean hit has been hit in the head once to often. Shoe 75

You're an idiot... First of all, the ball came out after he hit the ground. Second, the penalty gave them a whole seven yards AFTER he got the first down. It was not a game changing call..... going for it on 4th down and NOT making it, not being able to score more than 3 points in the second half, not being able to get off the field on thrid downs....take your pick of any of these game changers, not a penalty that was un called for. You will NEVER see any Bears players take a shot at a QB like that... CHICKEN SH*T, Suh!!

Nick is right -- Suh whacked Cutler in the head twice, but the bad one was after Jay had already hit the ground. It was a twofer. Of course, the idiot TV announcers completely missed that one and never mentioned it. Ryan was really getting into defending Suh (I think that because he is an ex-Bear, he has to go out of his way to appear fair by taking anti-Chicago stances.).

Nick is right that a forearm to the back of the head is illegal, however I think what is illegal is an 'intentional' forearm to the back of the head. In this case, Suh had made the hit and was twisting and falling down after being hit from the side when he landed on Cutler. It was not intentional, and thus not illegal. I don't think that is the part of the play that is at issue here though.

re: the first hit, it was clearly a two handed push - albeit one by a ridiculously strong beast man. I doubt, however, that at normal speed the ref could have distinguished between the two given the way he followed through with his right arm. If you slow it down, and you don't see that it's a push, you're not looking at it objectively. Even on the broadcast, within 2 seconds of seeing the replay, the broadcasters were all over it.

I have watched the play at least 10 times. He never touched Cutler with his forearm. Never. The call on the field was "Illegal forearm to the back of the head" He even motioned with his own forearm while making the call. Only after the game did he change the call to "unatural football act" Why change the call if what you actually saw was a forearm to the head? ... Because he saw that he was wrong. But instead of saying that he found it to be esier to just change the reasoning.

There was no fumble. Cutler lost the ball AFTER he was on the ground. It was a dirty hit by Suh, and it certainly did NOT cost the Lions the game. The Lions being inept cost the Lions the game. Even Mitch Albom, your award winning hometown news columnist agrees: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101206/COL01/12060420/1049/sports01/Lions-lose-(again)-but-not-just-because-of-one-play&template=fullarticle

Some of the guys on here have been saying for years that the media hates the Bears or that they are unfair to the Bears when reporting on them as opposed to other teams. And I always thought yeah whatever, every fan probably thinks that about their team in respect to the coverage they receive. But that viewpoint of mine changed on Sunday. Everywhere, from the ESPN to Yahoo! to NBC they did a recap of the Bears-Lions game with the following headline or a facsimilie thereof: "Questionable call again helps Bears beat Lions."

I was like wow, really? The call happened on 1st down after Cutler scrambled for a few yards, he didn't fumble as the ball came out after he hit the ground, we gained like seven yards out of it...and the media takes that and runs with it as if that's the only way the Bears could beat the Lions? What a joke. Not to mention Cutler was also a perfect 10/10 in the 2nd half. He would've toasted the Lions anyway.

As for the call itself, it was the RIGHT CALL. Why Ndumb@ss Suh felt the need to throw a punch at the back of Cutler's head is beyond me when he could have easily just made a regular tackle. I've been against all the fines and penalties as of late but this one was clearly done with malicious intent and no intentional blows to the head should ever be allowed.


Cheap shot. Check the profile of his shoulders after he cocked his right forearm. Obvious forearm delivery

Wrong--forearm was delivered. Check the profie angle of his shoulders b4 and at contact. Obvious to see the cheap shot.

All you have to do is observe the aspect of Suh's shoulders after he cocked his right forearm before delivering the forearm in conjunction with his left hand. His right shoulder is leading with his forearm as he thrusts it violently towards Cutler's head. The forearm didn't hit his head, just below it. Bottom line it was a definite cheap shot.

His head was never hit, he got shoved in the back. There were no fore arms thrown. Granted the Bears would have probably scored anyway. The problem is the complete pansy nature of the NFL, also the inconsistancy in officiating. Ben gets his nose broke, no penalty flag. Cutler gets shoved in the back and Ed thinks it isn't a football act? Why don't they put pink uniforms on QB's from now on so they don't get hurt. The league is becoming soft.. What is your responce if the great Brian Urlacher makes the same hit on Brett Farve?

Turk,

I see what you're saying, but IMO, he did go for Cutler's head and ended up hitting him in the neck and shoulder area. He also led with his forearm and swung his elbow.

When I saw that, I thougtht "jesus," that was cheap shot.

Legal hit? Maybe. I'll listen to that argument.

Unnecessary roughness? I'll listen to that too.

If Suh had been flagged for clocking Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or Drew Brees, this wouldn't even be a story.

I don't think Ed needed to defend himself. I thought it was am unnecessary, high, de-cleater style hit, in the back or the back of the head. Either way, I don't think Suh was trying jar the ball loose, otherwise he would have tackled Jay with a Lawrence Taylor-style strip.

There really wasn't anything wrong with the call. Had it gone as a no-call, I would have been okay with that too.

There was also no fumble. Jay was down.

Late.

That call didn't cost the Lions the game. What cost the Lions the game was the arrogant and stupid call by the Lions coach to go for it on 4th down with a three point lead. they already had converted one 4th down on that drive and were at the Bears 4o yrd. line. Punt the ball and make the bears go the length of the field. But going for it on 4th down and NOT making it, the field was basically cut in half for the Bears. By giving the Bears the ball on the 40 yard line, we only had to go about 35 0r 40 yds to be in position to kick the tying field goal. Going for 4th down with that field position against the Bears defense was assinine. the Bears defense in the second half had stilfed the Lions offense. That was the call that cost the Lions the game. there was still around 8 or 9 minutes left in the game at that time. No one is talking about THAT call. Just the Bears were lucky again! Give the Bears their due! they have taken care of business the second half of the season. Add Greg's name to the likes of Dilfer, Schlerth and Creighton. BLAH....BLAH.....BLAH.....

Leave a comment

Twitter updates

Categories

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Neil Hayes published on December 5, 2010 5:06 PM.

Another big day for Bennett was the previous entry in this blog.

Peppers: Stats are for losers is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.