Richard Sherman believes highlight edit was “100 percent intentional”

Getty Images

Inside the NFL made a bizarre edit to the final Falcons offensive play in Sunday’s loss at Seattle, removing receiver Julio Jones’ slap to the head of cornerback Richard Sherman and replacing it with video of Jones getting a free release from the line of scrimmage.

Sherman believes the change to the highlight was no accident.

“100 percent intentional,” Sherman told reporters on Wednesday. “It’s just how the league is. It’s an offensive league, they don’t want to help the defense in the least.”

Sherman explained that the blow to the head from Jones, missed by the officials, impacted his ability to defend the play.

“It’s difficult to recover when you almost fall at the start of the play, you get pushed in the face,” Sherman said. “If I pushed a receiver in the face, I guarantee you it would be the highlight of every SportsCenter, everything, if it was fourth quarter, the last play, and I pushed him in the face.”

He’s right. Most didn’t notice or didn’t care about the maneuver by Jones that allowed him to shake free from Sherman at the line of scrimmage, possibly because Jones doesn’t have a reputation for that kind of play. It’s amazing, frankly, that Sherman was even in position to make a play when the ball arrived, given the extent to which the blow to the head knocked him off track.

Bottom line? Both fouls were missed. Whether with the use of replay review or without it, the NFL must do a better job of calling these fouls in key moments. All too often, flags get shoved deeper into the pockets of the officials’ pants because no one wants to be the person who potentially decides the outcome of a game by calling a penalty.

26 responses to “Richard Sherman believes highlight edit was “100 percent intentional”

  1. Everybody hates the hawks, cause they are so good! Some teams might get a lucky break, oncs in while,but just an’t play with power teams There are even remarks in power ranking, about who will be #1 before Thanksgiving

  2. Not sure how the argument can be made they don’t want to help the defense by removing part of a play of a game that is completed and nothing can be changed. Also, if the league doesn’t want to help the defense they sure let that pass interference slide as well. I would say that Inside the NFL probably just screwed up in the edit room. I see no benefit that the show or league could gain by removing that piece.

  3. LOL, whatever, Richard. The facts remain:

    1. Sherman’s entire “legacy” is built on:
    A. benefitting from having actual elite teammates on defense bailing you out and gaining most interceptions on balls tipped that luckily fall into your arms
    B. Getting away with holding/pass interference on 99% of plays and refs not calling it (Seahawks team strategy)
    2. Brent Grimes > Richard Sherman
    3. Shippensburg > Stanford
    4. Julio Jones, without question, OWNED Richard Sherman in this matchup, and Sherman committed pass interference on that play
    5. No, James O’Queefe did not edit this Inside the NFL clip

  4. Exactly. The refs are expected not gift a game by flagging a 4th and 10 prayer. If it were 3rd and 10, there would have been an immediate flag. But 4th and 10 from a team’s own territory is by definition a desperation attempt. Not a typical football play.
    The problem becomes when they let them maul each other on typical football plays at the ends of games. That happens too often. 4th and goal or 4th and short in opposition territory, those happen throughout games, not just in desperation at the end.
    In this particular game, the refs did the right thing. Don’t gift wrap the game for the losing team based on a desperation, atypical play.

  5. “Most didn’t notice or didn’t care about the maneuver by Jones that allowed him to shake free from Sherman at the line of scrimmage, possibly because Jones doesn’t have a reputation for that kind of play.”

    He has that reputation now.

  6. Never quite understood how an offensive player with the ball pushes a defensive player in the face, it is a well played stiffarm, but the same play by a defensive player is a penalty for illegal use of the hands to the face.

  7. – “It’s amazing, frankly, that Sherman was even in position to make a play when the ball arrived, given the extent to which the blow to the head knocked him off track.”

    Second time I read this but even as a Hawks fan, it’s annoying. There’s a simple explanation to that “amazing” feat. The ball was underthrown.

    D’oh

  8. of course it was, defensive backs are the villains, receivers the heroes in Roger’s NFL…funny thing is: in 1966 offenses averaged 22.03 pts a game, in 2015 offense averaged 22.81 pts a game…think the defenses have evolved, in spite of all the rule changes benefiting the offense, better than the offenses…

  9. Of course it was intentional. The NFL engages in revisionist history to make itself look better as a matter of policy. That’s part of the whole ‘integrity’ philosophy championed by Goodell.

  10. What’s worse is how the media swallowed it hook, line and sinker, then sold it to the ignorant masses. 2-3 days later, we get the real story, but the average idiot has already been predisposed to think differently.

  11. Julio is a monster but he seems to do a lot of under the radar stuff. He learned it from Roddy White, otherwise known as Captain Pushoff.

  12. Well, someone had to actually splice in a different play where Julio Jones doesn’t commit a foul at the line of scrimmage. So what was the motivation? To create drama? To make the Seahawks look bad? To mask blows to the head? I’m not sure why they altered the footage, but it’s a blatant attempt to sway opinion of what happened on that play.

  13. Not a Seahawks or Falcons fan, but if you can’t see Jones committing a penalty then you’re completely blinded by arrogance. The Sherman DPI at the end was a bit iffy though. If I’m a Hawks fan, I deny the PI entirely. If I’m a Falcons fan, I’m screaming my head off for the flag. But as a neutral fan, I think it was a good no call. The game has become too flag happy, just let the boys play.

  14. pound30 says:
    Oct 20, 2016 1:00 AM
    Not sure how the argument can be made they don’t want to help the defense by removing part of a play of a game that is completed and nothing can be changed. Also, if the league doesn’t want to help the defense they sure let that pass interference slide as well. I would say that Inside the NFL probably just screwed up in the edit room. I see no benefit that the show or league could gain by removing that piece.
    ——————–

    Well let’s see….the clip was set up with a close up of Julio the beast of a receiver starting off the line with audio from Atlanta radio team……….it was produced to maximize the media made up controversy.

  15. THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH: Of Course “big Mouth” Sherman now wants to “believes pass interference should be a 15-yard penalty, and not a spot foul, for both offensive and defensive interference penalties.” Because he now is getting beat often on deep passes! And some refs (with the exception of last Sunday’s incompetent missed called by Ref that stole game from Atlanta) are not letting Seattle DBs get away with their continuous holding and grabbing down field on pass plays!

  16. “But as a neutral fan, I think it was a good no call. ”

    I haven’t seen the video of the first penalty no-call, but, as a neutral fan, I’d have to disagree. Ignoring the rules isn’t “good” for the officials to do. Certainly Sherman’s grab kept Jones from making a catch. That needs to be flagged. If Jones also did a head slap at the beginning of the play, that should also be flagged.

    Offsetting penalties, replay the down. Until the teams figure out how to play without fouling each other.

    The NFL’s attitude of burying whistles at the end of the game only serves to deteriorate the product. If a defender isn’t allowed to grab and pull for the first 57 minutes, he shouldn’t be allowed to do so when the game is “on the line”, either.

  17. Richard Sherman probably gets away with more holding and grabbing and interfering, than any player in history. There is an old saying: When someone points their finger, three fingers are pointing back at him.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!