Helmet to Helmet

[BrokenArrow]

All people do is bash the officials. Real nice.

I'm sorry, but where is it written that officials are immune to justified criticism, especially when it has a direct impact on the outcome of the game?

 

[Croquet]

On that clip you could hear the helmet to helmet. Watt looked back with concern probably knowing that the hit was very close to borderline. Then when he saw that Hundley was getting up thats when he started to celebrate.

If the Helmet to helmet protection doesnt apply in that instance then that just leaves me smh.

 

[sschind]

there are a lot of helmet to helmet hits every single game that aren't called.

Just like there are lots of holds that are not called. Missing a call is one thing but that one was so obvious. I have to think the ref simply didn't see it or it would have been called.

Was it earlier in the game or maybe an earlier game where the defender went to tackle the runner and dove over him and barely, I mean barely, grazed the helmet and it was called.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You are so silly. It doesn't matter if the qb or rb or we etc gets hit in the head standing straight up kneeling down or whatever a helmet to helmet is a penalty.

That is flatly untrue. Familiarize yourself with the rules beginning on page 51 of the following document:

https://operations.nfl.com/media/2725/2017-playing-rules.pdf

1) Did the defender "use any part of [his] helmet or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily"? Did Hundley for that matter? That rule applies to both offensive and defensive players. When a runner and defender dip their heads and collide helmets, you are not going to get that call, nor should you.

2) Was Hundley a "defenseless player"? Was he "a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass (passing posture)"? Here's your problem. He was stepping up and his arm was not cocked. The refs interpreted him to be a runner. It's hard to argue with that. It is not the refs job to read Hundley's mind as to whether he was intending to eventually throw the ball or run. Saying he was not in a throwing posture and that he was in fact a runner is fair.

3) Did the defender (or Hundley for that matter) initiate contact with the crown of the helmet outside the tackle box? No, they were in the tackle box. Anyway, the crown is the top of the helmet requiring a spearing action.

Here's the deal. Running backs collide helmet-to-helmet with linemen and linebackers all the time in the tackle box. It's routine. There's nothing illegal about it. Both the runner and the defender are on an equal plane.

When a QB assumes a running posture he has no special protection compared to a running back.

So, saying Hundley was a runner, i.e., not in a passing posture, and in the tackle box is not an unfair interpretation. The non-call was the right call.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

This is actually where the college game gets it right. That would have been reviewed and based on what I saw, that's helmet to helmet, 15 yard penalty.

The college game gets it wrong a lot. I have seen guys get thrown out for hitting opponents how all coaches would want them to. Watch this video with the speakers on.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[TouchdownPackers]

All people do is bash the officials. Real nice.

Be nice to who? We don't bash officials for everything they do. Sometimes Green Bay gets some lucky breaks such as a blatant DPI by Sam Shields not being called last year. Other times it is questionable whether the officails should have called a penalty or not. In this case any Packers fan who saw a deliberate helmet collision should complain.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The college game gets it wrong a lot. I have seen guys get thrown out for hitting opponents how all coaches would want them to. Watch this video with the speakers on.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Define "a lot". You find one play that you disagree with and is "that a lot"? By allowing possible targeting or head blows to be reviewed, I stand by my statement, The College game gets it right.

Be nice to who? We don't bash officials for everything they do. Sometimes Green Bay gets some lucky breaks such as a blatant DPI by Sam Shields not being called last year. Other times it is questionable whether the officails should have called a penalty or not. In this case any Packers fan who saw a deliberate helmet collision should complain.

Why does it just have to be Packer fans? Any true fan of the game wants that call to be correct.

You do realize that Sam Shields was out every game but one last year right?

 

[HardRightEdge]

In this case any Packers fan who saw a deliberate helmet collision should complain.

A helmet collision in this case, deliberate or not, is legal. To reiterate, Hundley was a runner in the tackle box. But that's just a repetition of what I and others have already said.

Anyway, "deliberate" implies intent. In recent years the rules have been scrubbed of the words "deliberate" and "intentional", thankfully, because refs should not be charged with job of reading minds.

The term of art in one context is "excessive", it's "unnecessary" in another. The judgements are confined to the nature of the act, not the intent.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

Define "a lot". You find one play that you disagree with and is "that a lot"? By allowing possible targeting or head blows to be reviewed, I stand by my statement, The College game gets it right.

I was citing one blatant example. There are others; in fact another YouTube videof is a compilation of various stupid targeting ejections. By a lot I mean not just players tacklling the way they are coached to, but also hitting the shoulder first and then the head. If that happens, it is not targeting .I even saw the wrong guys get thrown out a couple times.

Why does it just have to be Packer fans? Any true fan of the game wants that call to be correct.[/QUOTE]

Any Steelers fan would be glad T.J. Watt got away with it. Of course anyone who did not care who won should complain, but would you get mad if you were rooting for Pittsburgh?

[QUOTE[You do realize that Sam Shields was out every game but one last year right?[/QUOTE]

In the one game he did play, I saw him hold Allen Robinson's arm after Blake Bortles threw the ball. If that was not DPI, tell me what is.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Just like there are lots of holds that are not called. Missing a call is one thing but that one was so obvious. I have to think the ref simply didn't see it or it would have been called.

If he didn't see it then he wasn't doing his job. The referee's sole responsibility until the ball leaves his hand is to monitor the QB. If you watch the replay, there's nothing there that should have obstructed his view. Old Eddie swallowed his whistle, plain and simple.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Any Steelers fan would be glad T.J. Watt got away with it. Of course anyone who did not care who won should complain, but would you get mad if you were rooting for Pittsburgh?

Of course I would be glad he got away with it, but I would also acknowledge that it should have been called.

 

[BrokenArrow]

A helmet collision in this case, deliberate or not, is legal. To reiterate, Hundley was a runner in the tackle box.

He wasn't trying to run. He was scanning the field to pass the ball and only tried to evade when pressure came and Watt was in his face. They can use that BS excuse all they want but they call penalties in that exact same situation all the time. If that was Big Ben on that play and Martinez on the hit it would have been 15 yards every time.

 

[BrokenArrow]

BTW, in looking at the roughing rule, in case there is anyone who still thinks the hit on Rodgers should not have been roughing here is the second part of the rule:

UNNECESSARY ACTS AGAINST PASSER (2) A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball, even if the rusher makes his initial contact with the passer within the one-step limitation provided for in (1) above. When tackling a passer who is in a defenseless posture (e.g., during or just after throwing a pass), a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down and land on top of him with all or most of the defender’s weight. Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap up or cradle the passer with the defensive player’s arms.

So even if he was hit within the one step allowed, he cannot drive him to the ground. Barr took TWO steps.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He wasn't trying to run. He was scanning the field to pass the ball and only tried to evade when pressure came and Watt was in his face. They can use that BS excuse all they want but they call penalties in that exact same situation all the time. If that was Big Ben on that play and Martinez on the hit it would have been 15 yards every time.

The refs made the right call on that play as helmet to helmet does not apply to a runner, which is how Hundley is treated in that situation. A passer is a player in the act of passing. Even though in the pocket, he's not a defenseless player, especially since he's trying evade tackles and gain yards. There are QB protections, but none of those were violated on this play.

 

[BrokenArrow]

The refs made the right call on that play as helmet to helmet does not apply to a runner, which is how Hundley is treated in that situation.

And I'm going to repeat what I said before hopefully for the last time. We have all seen quarterbacks get that protection in the past in the exact same situation. A little consistency would be appreciated. Either call those, or don't. Don't make it an option of when and if you're going to call it depending on who the QB is.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And I'm going to repeat what I said before hopefully for the last time. We have all seen quarterbacks get that protection in the past in the exact same situation. A little consistency would be appreciated. Either call those, or don't. Don't make it an option of when and if you're going to call it depending on who the QB is.

I don't like some of the calls quarterbacks have received in the past as well but there's no reason to complain about Watt not getting a 15-yard penalty as it was a correct call.

 

[HardRightEdge]

He wasn't trying to run. He was scanning the field to pass the ball and only tried to evade when pressure came and Watt was in his face. They can use that BS excuse all they want but they call penalties in that exact same situation all the time. If that was Big Ben on that play and Martinez on the hit it would have been 15 yards every time.

You evidently did not read my post which quoted the rules or the rules themselves to which I posted a link.

The quarterback must be in a"throwing posture" to get the call you are looking for. That was not the case here. The ball was tucked a couple of steps before contact. Hundley was a runner at that point, not a passer.

The rules do not call for the refs to speculate as to what Hunley intended to do. If Watt was not there, neither you nor I nor the refs nor perhaps even Hundley knew if he would have kept running or thrown the ball. Thankfully, the rules have been stripped of all mind reading requirements placed on the refs. Throwing posture is what matters.

You can speculate all you want about what call another QB might get in that situation, but any call other than no penalty would be the wrong one.

QBs only get special protection when in the throwing posture, otherwise they are runners. It could not be any clearer.

 

[BrokenArrow]

You evidently did not read my post which quoted the rules or the rules themselves to which I posted a link.

The quarterback must be in a"throwing posture" to get the call you are looking for. That was not the case here.

And again, I'm not talking about the letter of the rule. I'm talking about it's usual application. They USUALLY call it in that exact situation.

Apparently nobody believes me, so here. BTW, the controversy in this case isn't because the QB had supposedly become a runner. It was because the ref mistakenly thought he was hit in the head. Hundley definitely was. Simply tucking the ball away to protect it doesn't make one a runner.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

If they're not going to call that and adhere strictly to the rule when it's Hundley getting hit, then they need to stop calling it when Rodgers, Brady, Roethlisberger, et al get hit in those situations, too.

 

[HardRightEdge]

And again, I'm not talking about the letter of the rule. I'm talking about it's usual application. They USUALLY call it in that exact situation.

Apparently nobody believes me, so here. BTW, the controversy in this case isn't because the QB had supposedly become a runner. It was because the ref mistakenly thought he was hit in the head. Hundley definitely was. Simply tucking the ball away to protect it doesn't make one a runner.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

If they're not going to call that and adhere strictly to the rule when it's Hundley getting hit, then they need to stop calling it when Rodgers, Brady, Roethlisberger, et al get hit in those situations, too.

Bad call.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Bad call.

Yeah, because he didn't actually hit him in the head. Look, you can argue "letter of the rule" all you want and you'd be right about that aspect of it. But the application of the rule has CONSISTENTLY been different. If you want to be a literalist and go by a strict interpretation, then a QB gives up his protection simply by bringing the ball down to protect it. I don't believe that is the spirit of the rule at all which would explain why they routinely call hits like the one on Hundley roughing in most instances. If they want to call it that way, fine. But call it the same for EVERYONE.

BTW, here are more examples illustrating the convention that has been established:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

That's just a couple minutes looking on youtube. I'm sure if I went through every game play by play I could find you a dozen more just from this season. They need to be consistent in how they are going to interpret the intent of the rule otherwise it is a situation where the ref can simply decide if he wants to call it or not.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

He wasn't trying to run. He was scanning the field to pass the ball and only tried to evade when pressure came and Watt was in his face. They can use that BS excuse all they want but they call penalties in that exact same situation all the time. If that was Big Ben on that play and Martinez on the hit it would have been 15 yards every time.

The rule is very clear - at least to people who watched Cam Newton get hit last year and the controversial complaints about it. Dean Blandino explained once the QB is outside the tackle box, he loses all passer protections and is treated like a runner.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

BTW, in looking at the roughing rule, in case there is anyone who still thinks the hit on Rodgers should not have been roughing here is the second part of the rule:

UNNECESSARY ACTS AGAINST PASSER (2) A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball, even if the rusher makes his initial contact with the passer within the one-step limitation provided for in (1) above. When tackling a passer who is in a defenseless posture (e.g., during or just after throwing a pass), a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down and land on top of him with all or most of the defender’s weight. Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap up or cradle the passer with the defensive player’s arms.

So even if he was hit within the one step allowed, he cannot drive him to the ground. Barr took TWO steps.

So would you kindly explain to me why the official directly behind Barr, watching him the whole time, did not throw a flag? If I was the umpire, I would have thrown a flag whether it is legal or not to make those hits outside the pocket.

 

[Mondio]

The rule is very clear - at least to people who watched Cam Newton get hit last year and the controversial complaints about it. Dean Blandino explained once the QB is outside the tackle box, he loses all passer protections and is treated like a runner.

I remember all those, but that is different. The contact with Rodgers was completely legal. As is the stuff with Newton running his read options all the time. I'm fine with the contact. Guys were hitting him, getting their contact and that was it. guys weren't taking 2 full steps then picking him up and carrying him another step, then twisting their hips in the air in order to drive all their weight into him. knowing the entire time he's not a ball carrier.

They allow more contact out of the pocket because they are giving them leeway because they know they can't stop on a dime. I'm too lazy to look now, but I thought the rest of the rule also extended the stuffing penalties to outside of the pocket too. anyway, it doesn't matter. They aren't going to fix the collar bone and give us a do over and throw a flag to start the next game. If the rule wasn't clarified before, I have a feeling this coming season this will be a point of emphasis. I'm all for letting QB's get hit, trust me. and when they want to push the line and slide at the last possible second i would be perfectly happy if they lost all protections unless they start their slide 5 yards before coming in contact with a defender. Make it obvious and simple. Otherwise suffer your consequences. I'm also fine with hits when throwing the ball and the vast majority are just shoves or the defender falls off the side when they know the ball is gone. The wrap, carry and drive into the ground will be a penalty going forward. If a stupid finger graze across a facemask as they're being blocked and they're doing nothing more than trying to get a hand up to obstruct a view or tip a pass is 15 yards, i can't imagine stuff like that isn't going to be addressed going forward.

I also don't think what Watt did to Hundley was a penalty either. But I will admit I expected to see one and then I had a conflict within myself. Do I want the 15 yards because it will help us potentially win, or was I happy they didn't, because i think unless a guy is targeting high or is passing I don't like to see those things called. I wish they'd be more consistent with it though. I still see really cheap personal foul penalties almost weekly and I don't watch that many games anymore.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

I never heard of a "stuffing" rule in over two decades of watching football. When was that word added to the rulebook?

Allowing contact out of the pocket is one thing. Letting a linebacker rough the passer outside the tackle box is a different animal. I absolutely want to see that become a point of emphasis next season.

 

[OldSchool101]

The league could’ve defended that call if it went either way. Close call but the referee should be the deciding vote and I trust them in most cases.
That Hundley must have a hard head, he’s gotten killed out there repeatedly starting in MN and he just pops back up like a weeble wobble.