The Los Angeles Rams were once again on the wrong end of a controversial call at the end of their Week 6 loss to the Arizona Cardinals . After the Rams took the lead, the Cardinals took over at their own 35-yard line with 47 seconds left, needing a field goal to win.
Quarterback Jacoby Brissett completed a pass over the middle to wide receiver Jalen Brooks, who was hit by Josh Wallace. Brooks' head made slight contact with Wallace's shoulder. What would have been a 21-yard gain that left the Cardinals outside of field goal range instead put them well within Chad Ryland's range.
On the broadcast, color analyst Greg Olsen asked rules analyst Mike Pereira what he thought of the call. "It didn't look to me like there was forcible contact at all, was there?" asked Olsen. "My first thought was, this is one that replay could take off if there was no contact," Pereira responded. "There is contact, but is it enough contact? To me, that's one that does not need to be called."
It was the second time this season that Wallace has been on the wrong end of a controversial call. Back in Week 3, Wallace was called for defensive pass interference on a play in which he intercepted Bo Nix in the fourth quarter.
According to Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9 of the NFL rulebook, there is unnecessary roughness if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless position. Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless position includes lowering the head and making forcible contact with any part of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player's body.
The NFL rulebook also states in Rule 7, Section 2 that if a defender has already committed himself and the contact is unavoidable, it is not a foul unless the defender makes forcible contact into the head or neck area of the runner with the helmet, shoulder, or forearm, or commits some other act that is unnecessary roughness.
With this penalty in particular, the gray area comes into play with the "forcible contact" terminology.It's hard to say that Wallace's contact was forcible, as it looked to be more incidental. There's not much more that Wallace could have done in that situation to avoid the contact.
While this call didn't necessarily give the Cardinals the win, it certainly put them in a position to win the game. It's also worth noting that the Rams were also offside on the play. However, without the unnecessary roughness penalty, the Cardinals would have had the ball at the Rams' 44-yard line with 41 seconds left. That's still a 62-yard field goal. It would have forced the Cardinals to be more aggressive than they were on their final three plays.
The Rams had only two penalties entering the fourth quarter but committed three more in the final period, including the unnecessary roughness penalty. Timely penalties and mistakes have cost the Rams throughout the year, and this is just another example.
Sign up to our free newsletter and follow us on Facebook , X , and Instagram for the latest news.
This article was originally published on www.si.com/nfl/rams/onsi as Rams on Wrong End of Another Controversial Call in Week 6 Loss to Cardinals .
