Helmet to Helmet Hits (1 Viewer)

[az_prof]

First, NE defender hits Ward helmet to helmet. Sure, the ball came out of his hands--you hit him in the head and concussed him!!!!!

Then the very next play Wallace is hit helmet to helmet. No comments. No flags. Lesson learned: if you are NE you can hit helmet to helmet.

By the way, I am NOT a Pitt fan. I just think the NFL rules and referees are awful--week after week the rules are applied inconsistently.

 

[fruity pebbles]

They dont apply to Ward

 

[MAC_32]

Sometimes I think I am the only football fan that doesn't let the refs mistakes interfere with my love of the game.

 

[[icon]]

love these threads

 

[Stinger Ray]

love these threads

 

[benm3218]

Chung is a beast. Love him.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Officiating is pretty bad right now across the board.

 

[thehornet]

First, NE defender hits Ward helmet to helmet. Sure, the ball came out of his hands--you hit him in the head and concussed him!!!!!Then the very next play Wallace is hit helmet to helmet. No comments. No flags. Lesson learned: if you are NE you can hit helmet to helmet.By the way, I am NOT a Pitt fan. I just think the NFL rules and referees are awful--week after week the rules are applied inconsistently.

cry more

 

[belljr]

I am a pitt fan and the hit on wallace was clean

 

[az_prof]

I am a pitt fan and the hit on wallace was clean

Are you saying it wasn't Helmet hitting Helmet? Or, do you just think that should be considered "clean." I have no problem with allowing hits like that as long as they are consistent. But it was clearly leading with the helmet and a hit to the helmet. So, by what rationale was it "clean" according to the rules as they are [in]consistently being enforced?

 

[belljr]

I am a pitt fan and the hit on wallace was clean

Are you saying it wasn't Helmet hitting Helmet? Or, do you just think that should be considered "clean." I have no problem with allowing hits like that as long as they are consistent. But it was clearly leading with the helmet and a hit to the helmet. So, by what rationale was it "clean" according to the rules as they are [in]consistently being enforced?

I didn't think he hit his helmet, but either way he was a runner so technically legal

 

[mr roboto]

First, NE defender hits Ward helmet to helmet. Sure, the ball came out of his hands--you hit him in the head and concussed him!!!!!

Then the very next play Wallace is hit helmet to helmet. No comments. No flags. Lesson learned: if you are NE you can hit helmet to helmet.

By the way, I am NOT a Pitt fan. I just think the NFL rules and referees are awful--week after week the rules are applied inconsistently.

While everyone else is flaming you, I actually read to the end of your post.You hit on the problem. They don't have a good metric for what constitutes a helmet-to-helmet hit and what doesn't. I wonder if the overreaction to a couple hits in the same week has caused them to crack down on a rule that is relatively undefinable. Judging intent is SOMETIMES easy; launching is clear in a few cases where the defender had plenty of time to line it up and the receiver was traveling in a consistent line.

Unfortunately, the majority of the hits to the head are much less clear than this, and if the refs have to judge intent before throwing the flag, it will be impossible to be consistent.

 

[Bad_Mo]

Yes

 

[kinghill]

Let the referees referee.

 

[NJJets]

First, NE defender hits Ward helmet to helmet. Sure, the ball came out of his hands--you hit him in the head and concussed him!!!!!

Then the very next play Wallace is hit helmet to helmet. No comments. No flags. Lesson learned: if you are NE you can hit helmet to helmet.

By the way, I am NOT a Pitt fan. I just think the NFL rules and referees are awful--week after week the rules are applied inconsistently.

While everyone else is flaming you, I actually read to the end of your post.You hit on the problem. They don't have a good metric for what constitutes a helmet-to-helmet hit and what doesn't. I wonder if the overreaction to a couple hits in the same week has caused them to crack down on a rule that is relatively undefinable. Judging intent is SOMETIMES easy; launching is clear in a few cases where the defender had plenty of time to line it up and the receiver was traveling in a consistent line.

Unfortunately, the majority of the hits to the head are much less clear than this, and if the refs have to judge intent before throwing the flag, it will be impossible to be consistent.

Great example from last weeks Eagles/Colts game Eagles safety Quintin Mikell separated Colts wide receiver Austin Collie from the ball with what appeared to be a clean hit (No fine as it was a CLEAN hit). Collie pin-balled into Eagles rookie safety Kurt Coleman and their helmets collided. (Not his fault as Collie was bracing for the hit that was coming from Mikell) Collie remained motionless for several minutes before being strapped onto a backboard and carted off the field (Which is why the REFEREE threw a flag on the play) Collie suffered a concussion

Let the referees referee.

See post above for some BAD/Overreaction from the referees.The yellow hankies should only come out of their pockets for FLAGRANT calls not every ticky-tack one/To give the impression that they're doing their jobs.

 

[az_prof]

First, NE defender hits Ward helmet to helmet. Sure, the ball came out of his hands--you hit him in the head and concussed him!!!!!

Then the very next play Wallace is hit helmet to helmet. No comments. No flags. Lesson learned: if you are NE you can hit helmet to helmet.

By the way, I am NOT a Pitt fan. I just think the NFL rules and referees are awful--week after week the rules are applied inconsistently.

While everyone else is flaming you, I actually read to the end of your post.You hit on the problem. They don't have a good metric for what constitutes a helmet-to-helmet hit and what doesn't. I wonder if the overreaction to a couple hits in the same week has caused them to crack down on a rule that is relatively undefinable. Judging intent is SOMETIMES easy; launching is clear in a few cases where the defender had plenty of time to line it up and the receiver was traveling in a consistent line.

Unfortunately, the majority of the hits to the head are much less clear than this, and if the refs have to judge intent before throwing the flag, it will be impossible to be consistent.

Thanks. I would prefer they don't have the rule or that they again simplify it. If the defenders helmet hits the running back or receivers' helmet call it. Or else, don't have it at all. Because right now there is too much subjectivity. This in a nutshell is the problem with a lot of what the NFL is doing now. Too much subjectivity and not enough consistency. Simpler rules and fewer rules allow for greater consistency.

 

[comfortably numb]

The refs were Wang Chunging tonight

 

[Short Corner]

So this was the only helmet-to-helmet no call yesterday?

 

[DoubleG]

So this was the only helmet-to-helmet no call yesterday?

No. And BTW, Jay Cutler's helmet was touched by Mullet-Man and there was no flag. OH THE HUMANITY!!!!ETA: I DO agree that crews are inconsistant in the way they are calling games. It is frustrating at times. Calls that are defensive holding or helmet to helmet or (joking aside) "roughing the passer" for touching his helmet or hitting him low one week, are not the same the next. The NFL really needs to do a much better job of getting their refs on the same page.

 

[Godsbrother]

Officiating is pretty bad right now across the board.

[/thread]

 

[dennis.moore]

First, NE defender hits Ward helmet to helmet. Sure, the ball came out of his hands--you hit him in the head and concussed him!!!!!Then the very next play Wallace is hit helmet to helmet. No comments. No flags. Lesson learned: if you are NE you can hit helmet to helmet.By the way, I am NOT a Pitt fan. I just think the NFL rules and referees are awful--week after week the rules are applied inconsistently.

The hit on Wallace was a clean hit.

 

[Deadman31]

I thought the hit on Ward was clean.

 

[Bayhawks]

First, NE defender hits Ward helmet to helmet. Sure, the ball came out of his hands--you hit him in the head and concussed him!!!!!Then the very next play Wallace is hit helmet to helmet. No comments. No flags. Lesson learned: if you are NE you can hit helmet to helmet.By the way, I am NOT a Pitt fan. I just think the NFL rules and referees are awful--week after week the rules are applied inconsistently.

The hit on Wallace seemed clean to me. Maybe the way the rules are written/interpreted, it should have been a penalty, but (IMO) there wasn't anything wrong with that hit.The refs weren't very good last night though.There was a play in the 2nd half (I think) when Harrison was falling/dragged down, and he dove at Brady, and hit him right at the knees. Isn't that supposed to be a penalty now? I thought the QB's head and knees were off-limits? No flag thrown.As for the Ward hit/incompletion. I think it highlights a HUGE problem with these rules, instant replay, etc.The play was ruled a catch on the field. After review, it was ruled that the ball came loose when Ward went to the ground, and was therefore incomplete.Here's the issue:Ward's knee was down before the ball came loose (IMO). But, because he was going to the ground in the act of making the catch, he had to maintain control through the fall and basically get up with the football. That's the rule, and I understand it (although I don't agree with it). However, if he was going to the ground while in the act of catching the ball, then he was, technically, a "defenseless receiver." As a defenseless receiver, he should not have been able to be hit, helmet-to-helmet. He was, clearly.So, is it fair that instant replay can be used, clearly show an illegal (according to the rules) hit by NE, but the review turns out in favor of the Patriots?I don't think they should be able to challenge penalties, but if one is clearly evident on replay, it should be accounted for.

 

[Bayhawks]

I thought the hit on Ward was clean.

Not based on the rules, or the officials interpretation of them.Read my post above if you want, but they ruled the pass incomplete because he didn't maintain control through the ground. You only have to maintain control through the ground if you are going to the ground in the act of catching the ball. If you are going to the ground in the act of catching the ball, you are a "defenseless receiver." If you are a "defenseless receiver," you CAN NOT be hit, helmet-to-helmet. Ward was clearly hit helmet-to-helmet.Therefore, based on the way the officials ruled (after the replay), the hit was illegal.

 

[Godsbrother]

First, NE defender hits Ward helmet to helmet. Sure, the ball came out of his hands--you hit him in the head and concussed him!!!!!Then the very next play Wallace is hit helmet to helmet. No comments. No flags. Lesson learned: if you are NE you can hit helmet to helmet.By the way, I am NOT a Pitt fan. I just think the NFL rules and referees are awful--week after week the rules are applied inconsistently.

The hit on Wallace seemed clean to me. Maybe the way the rules are written/interpreted, it should have been a penalty, but (IMO) there wasn't anything wrong with that hit.The refs weren't very good last night though.There was a play in the 2nd half (I think) when Harrison was falling/dragged down, and he dove at Brady, and hit him right at the knees. Isn't that supposed to be a penalty now? I thought the QB's head and knees were off-limits? No flag thrown.As for the Ward hit/incompletion. I think it highlights a HUGE problem with these rules, instant replay, etc.The play was ruled a catch on the field. After review, it was ruled that the ball came loose when Ward went to the ground, and was therefore incomplete.Here's the issue:Ward's knee was down before the ball came loose (IMO). But, because he was going to the ground in the act of making the catch, he had to maintain control through the fall and basically get up with the football. That's the rule, and I understand it (although I don't agree with it). However, if he was going to the ground while in the act of catching the ball, then he was, technically, a "defenseless receiver." As a defenseless receiver, he should not have been able to be hit, helmet-to-helmet. He was, clearly.So, is it fair that instant replay can be used, clearly show an illegal (according to the rules) hit by NE, but the review turns out in favor of the Patriots?I don't think they should be able to challenge penalties, but if one is clearly evident on replay, it should be accounted for.

If it was an illegal hit (I was at the game and didn't get to see any replays) then a flag should have been thrown and the fact that it was ruled an incomplete pass would have been a moot point. Though I do understand what you are saying but who is to say that a receiver wouldn't have dropped the ball if the hit had been legal?

 

[renesauz]

First, NE defender hits Ward helmet to helmet. Sure, the ball came out of his hands--you hit him in the head and concussed him!!!!!

Then the very next play Wallace is hit helmet to helmet. No comments. No flags. Lesson learned: if you are NE you can hit helmet to helmet.

By the way, I am NOT a Pitt fan. I just think the NFL rules and referees are awful--week after week the rules are applied inconsistently.

While everyone else is flaming you, I actually read to the end of your post.You hit on the problem. They don't have a good metric for what constitutes a helmet-to-helmet hit and what doesn't. I wonder if the overreaction to a couple hits in the same week has caused them to crack down on a rule that is relatively undefinable. Judging intent is SOMETIMES easy; launching is clear in a few cases where the defender had plenty of time to line it up and the receiver was traveling in a consistent line.

Unfortunately, the majority of the hits to the head are much less clear than this, and if the refs have to judge intent before throwing the flag, it will be impossible to be consistent.

Thanks. I would prefer they don't have the rule or that they again simplify it. If the defenders helmet hits the running back or receivers' helmet call it. Or else, don't have it at all. Because right now there is too much subjectivity. This in a nutshell is the problem with a lot of what the NFL is doing now. Too much subjectivity and not enough consistency. Simpler rules and fewer rules allow for greater consistency.

While I understand the frustration, this is a case where it's difficult to simplify. Helmet to helmet hits happen far too often as a result of actions from BOTH the runner and the defender to throw the flag on every collision...doing so really would ruin the game. At the same time, SOMETHING has to be done to protect the players a bit better from concussions.

WHile I agree that the refs have generally been throwing the yellow hankies too quickly, I don't see how you take the subjectiveity out of this, which will keep the rulings inconsistant unless they have one guy in a central office making all those calls via monitors with the benefit of slo-mo replay....which they sort of do now for fines.

BTW...I didn't think either hit warranted a flag. IN both cases H2H contact occured less than 4 feet off the ground...no launch, no blatant leading with the helmet. Refs were consistantly letting close calls go....there was a hit on Brady that was actually at/below the knees they let go because contact was light and it was right on the edge of hittable area.

 

[Road Warriors]

I thought the hit on Ward was clean.

Not based on the rules, or the officials interpretation of them.Read my post above if you want, but they ruled the pass incomplete because he didn't maintain control through the ground. You only have to maintain control through the ground if you are going to the ground in the act of catching the ball. If you are going to the ground in the act of catching the ball, you are a "defenseless receiver." If you are a "defenseless receiver," you CAN NOT be hit, helmet-to-helmet. Ward was clearly hit helmet-to-helmet.Therefore, based on the way the officials ruled (after the replay), the hit was illegal.

I don't think it's a clear cut as you make it out. On the Ward play, he was being tackled from behind and was hit by Sanders ( I believe ) from the front. Sanders had his head up and didn't launch into Ward. The tackle from behind lowered Ward so there was helmet to helmet contact. The defenseless receiver rule was well illustrated last night, after an incompletion to Welker over the middle. Clark had him lined up, but pulled off when the pass sailed, knocking him down, but clearly not laying him out. They showed a replay from last year when the same 2 players were involved, and Clark crushed him. My take on the Ward hit was it was football, and unfortunate that he was knocked out of the game. But the hit didn't, IMO, fall into the defenseless receiver rule.

 

[Bayhawks]

If it was an illegal hit (I was at the game and didn't get to see any replays) then a flag should have been thrown and the fact that it was ruled an incomplete pass would have been a moot point.

Though I do understand what you are saying but who is to say that a receiver wouldn't have dropped the ball if the hit had been legal?

That's not what I'm saying.Originally, the pass was ruled complete.

BB challenged, and the replays showed that the ball came loose AFTER Ward's knee was down.

Since it was ruled incomplete (after replay), the officials must have determined that he was going to the ground WHILE he was making the catch, since in that situation, the rules mandate that the receiver must control the ball through the ground, and basically get up with the ball (Calvin Johnson, Arian Foster from this year). If they had determined that Ward had made a football move, then it would have been down by contact, since his knee hit the ground before the ball came loose.

Since they determined that he was going to the ground in the process of making the catch, that means he was a "defenseless receiver," and helmet-to-helmet hits on a "defenseless receiver" is a unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

 

[Bayhawks]

I don't think it's a clear cut as you make it out. On the Ward play, he was being tackled from behind and was hit by Sanders ( I believe ) from the front. Sanders had his head up and didn't launch into Ward. The tackle from behind lowered Ward so there was helmet to helmet contact.

The defenseless receiver rule was well illustrated last night, after an incompletion to Welker over the middle. Clark had him lined up, but pulled off when the pass sailed, knocking him down, but clearly not laying him out. They showed a replay from last year when the same 2 players were involved, and Clark crushed him.

My take on the Ward hit was it was football, and unfortunate that he was knocked out of the game. But the hit didn't, IMO, fall into the defenseless receiver rule.

That's my take on it as well.However, it CLEARLY WAS NOT the officials' take. If it didn't fall into the defenseless receiver rule, than the pass should have been ruled a completion, since they ruled it incomplete, Ward should have been considered a "defenseless receiver."

The ONLY time a player must maintain control of a football "through the ground" is when he is determined to have been going to the ground, while in the process of making the catch.

If a receiver is in the process of making the catch, he has not made a "football move."

If he has not made a football move, he's a "defenseless receiver."

 

[switz]

The hit on Ward wasn't helmet to helmet.

The hit on Wallace didn't look like helmet in helmet either.

 

[Road Warriors]

I don't think it's a clear cut as you make it out. On the Ward play, he was being tackled from behind and was hit by Sanders ( I believe ) from the front. Sanders had his head up and didn't launch into Ward. The tackle from behind lowered Ward so there was helmet to helmet contact.

The defenseless receiver rule was well illustrated last night, after an incompletion to Welker over the middle. Clark had him lined up, but pulled off when the pass sailed, knocking him down, but clearly not laying him out. They showed a replay from last year when the same 2 players were involved, and Clark crushed him.

My take on the Ward hit was it was football, and unfortunate that he was knocked out of the game. But the hit didn't, IMO, fall into the defenseless receiver rule.

That's my take on it as well.However, it CLEARLY WAS NOT the officials' take. If it didn't fall into the defenseless receiver rule, than the pass should have been ruled a completion, since they ruled it incomplete, Ward should have been considered a "defenseless receiver."

The ONLY time a player must maintain control of a football "through the ground" is when he is determined to have been going to the ground, while in the process of making the catch.

If a receiver is in the process of making the catch, he has not made a "football move."

If he has not made a football move, he's a "defenseless receiver."

My point is that hits on "defenseless receivers" aren't as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Receivers are eligible to be tackled before they've completed the process of making a catch. I don't think the helmet-to-helmet contact in this case warranted the flag, nor falls into the whatever they're labeling the big time hits of "defenseless receiver" these days.

 

[Road Warriors]

The hit on Ward wasn't helmet to helmet.

The hit on Wallace didn't look like helmet in helmet either.

The Ward hit had some H2H contact, but the Wallace hit was clean.

Looks bad in real-time, but watch at the 30 second mark. A nice slow motion replay showing the impact.

 

[LittlePhatty]

After watching the slow-mo replay during the game last night it didn't look like a helmet hit. It looked like Ward's neck/head injury probably happened when he hit the ground.

 

[Godsbrother]

The hit on Ward wasn't helmet to helmet.

The hit on Wallace didn't look like helmet in helmet either.

The Ward hit had some H2H contact, but the Wallace hit was clean.

Boy that is close. I *think* the defender hit Wallace with his shoulder first but his helmet clearly caught Wallace on the facemask. Normally I would say a legal hit but in Goodell's NFL it probably is illegal.

 

[Sabertooth]

That noise is the waaaaaambulance.

 

[Road Warriors]

The hit on Ward wasn't helmet to helmet.

The hit on Wallace didn't look like helmet in helmet either.

The Ward hit had some H2H contact, but the Wallace hit was clean.

I would be shocked if that hit is fined. Head across the body, hit with the shoulder, in the chest of the receiver. Yeah, Chung grazes Wallace's facemask, but to call this a H2H hit is REALLY pushing the limits.

 

[Bayhawks]

My point is that hits on "defenseless receivers" aren't as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Receivers are eligible to be tackled before they've completed the process of making a catch.

I don't think the helmet-to-helmet contact in this case warranted the flag, nor falls into the whatever they're labeling the big time hits of "defenseless receiver" these days.

No offense intended, but you are wrong.NFL Rule 12, section 2, article 8: **Note, it's fairly long; skip to the end if you want for the pertinent points**

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (Unnecessary roughness) in the NFL rulebook

(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; or

(2) Lowering the head and violently or unnecessarily making forcible contact with the “hairline” or forehead part of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body; or

(3) “Launching” (springing forward and upward) into a defenseless player, or otherwise striking him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player’s neck. (Examples: a defender buries his facemask into a defenseless player’s high chest area, but the defender’s trajectory as he leaps into the defenseless player causes the defender’s helmet to strike the defenseless player violently in the head or face; or a defender, using a face-on posture or with his head slightly lowered, hits a defenseless player in an area below the defenseless player’s neck, then the defender’s head moves upward, resulting in strong contact by the defender’s mask or helmet with the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face [an example is the so-called “dip and rip” technique]).

Note: The provisions of section (f) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or noncrown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on an opponent.

(g) if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

h) If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver’s head or neck area—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver’s neck.

Note: Launching is defined as springing forward and upward by a player who leaves his feet to make contact on the receiver.

(i) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked, is out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. During the kick or during the return, if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of the kicker/punter, it is a foul.

(j) any player who grabs a helmet opening of an opponent and forcibly twists, turns, or pulls his head.

(k) Illegal contact with the helmet against the knee of the snapper during an attempt for a field goal or kick try.

Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.

Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

I bolded these sections in the actual rule above:(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;

It goes on to say:

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

You say you don't think the rule applies, but it very clearly does.

Ward was a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass,

The defender forcibly hit Ward's head with his helmet or facemask

It violates the letter of the rule, and according to the NFL, that's not going to be tolerated.

 

[Tree Shaker]

I thought the hit on Ward was clean.

Not based on the rules, or the officials interpretation of them.Read my post above if you want, but they ruled the pass incomplete because he didn't maintain control through the ground. You only have to maintain control through the ground if you are going to the ground in the act of catching the ball. If you are going to the ground in the act of catching the ball, you are a "defenseless receiver." If you are a "defenseless receiver," you CAN NOT be hit, helmet-to-helmet. Ward was clearly hit helmet-to-helmet.Therefore, based on the way the officials ruled (after the replay), the hit was illegal.

My problem with this reasoning (or ruling) is that it was the same situation on the Collie hit as explained by the NFL. The Head of Officials essentially said that, after the Collie hit, the officials ruled that the call on the field was an incomplete pass; therefore Collie was "defenseless" and the hit should have been flagged. However, it surely looked like Collie caught the pass, took two steps, covered the ball, and lowered his head for the expected impact. Now, the defender has absolutely no idea what the referee's ultimate call will be prior to making contact. Had Andy Reid (rightly, in my opinion) challenged the ruling of an incomplete pass AND the ruling on the field had been overturned, that would mean that the receiver would, by rule, be no longer be classified as "defenseless" - making the hit completely legal and the flag would have had to be picked up. Except that they couldn't really do that because they want to be seen as "protecting the player". So, the Eagles lose the fumble recovery allowing the Colts a chance to get back into the game. The absurdity of the penalty was further reinforced when the league levied NO fines on that play. Ward's catch was similar, in that the original call *could have* been overturned by replay and ruled a fumble, so his "status" would have had to be changed from "defenseless" to "ready-to-be-hit". So, the defender really just never knows on any given play whether a receiver he thought was not defenseless could be ruled "defenseless" after the play is over. The interpretation of this rule is getting more and more complicated and is being increasingly ruled incorrectly on the field - in both directions.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

The hit on Ward wasn't helmet to helmet.

The hit on Wallace didn't look like helmet in helmet either.

The Ward hit had some H2H contact, but the Wallace hit was clean.

The hit that knocked out Williams a couple of weeks ago was a case of initial contact not being helmet to helmet but after contact the helmets made contact and it was a $50,000 fine.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

My point is that hits on "defenseless receivers" aren't as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Receivers are eligible to be tackled before they've completed the process of making a catch.

I don't think the helmet-to-helmet contact in this case warranted the flag, nor falls into the whatever they're labeling the big time hits of "defenseless receiver" these days.

No offense intended, but you are wrong.NFL Rule 12, section 2, article 8: **Note, it's fairly long; skip to the end if you want for the pertinent points**

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (Unnecessary roughness) in the NFL rulebook

(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; or

(2) Lowering the head and violently or unnecessarily making forcible contact with the “hairline” or forehead part of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body; or

(3) “Launching” (springing forward and upward) into a defenseless player, or otherwise striking him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player’s neck. (Examples: a defender buries his facemask into a defenseless player’s high chest area, but the defender’s trajectory as he leaps into the defenseless player causes the defender’s helmet to strike the defenseless player violently in the head or face; or a defender, using a face-on posture or with his head slightly lowered, hits a defenseless player in an area below the defenseless player’s neck, then the defender’s head moves upward, resulting in strong contact by the defender’s mask or helmet with the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face [an example is the so-called “dip and rip” technique]).

Note: The provisions of section (f) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or noncrown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on an opponent.

(g) if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

h) If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver’s head or neck area—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver’s neck.

Note: Launching is defined as springing forward and upward by a player who leaves his feet to make contact on the receiver.

(i) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked, is out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. During the kick or during the return, if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of the kicker/punter, it is a foul.

(j) any player who grabs a helmet opening of an opponent and forcibly twists, turns, or pulls his head.

(k) Illegal contact with the helmet against the knee of the snapper during an attempt for a field goal or kick try.

Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.

Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

I bolded these sections in the actual rule above:(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;

It goes on to say:

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

You say you don't think the rule applies, but it very clearly does.

Ward was a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass,

The defender forcibly hit Ward's head with his helmet or facemask

It violates the letter of the rule, and according to the NFL, that's not going to be tolerated.

The above bolded is the flaw in your arguement; it represents your opinion, not fact. If the referee agreed with your opinion it is clearly a penalty.IMHO, It didn't look like the defender lead with his head and it was unfortunate but clearly not intentional.

Put it this way, if Wards helmet had hit the defenders knee (knocked out) on the way down would should there still be a penalty? That is how I saw the hit, what else could the defender do, jump out of the way.

The Wallace hit was clean, period.

 

[((Morpheus))]

karma:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QGKlluCU0o

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The hit on Ward wasn't helmet to helmet.

Sorry you missed the game...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't think it's a clear cut as you make it out. On the Ward play, he was being tackled from behind and was hit by Sanders ( I believe ) from the front. Sanders had his head up and didn't launch into Ward. The tackle from behind lowered Ward so there was helmet to helmet contact.

The defenseless receiver rule was well illustrated last night, after an incompletion to Welker over the middle. Clark had him lined up, but pulled off when the pass sailed, knocking him down, but clearly not laying him out. They showed a replay from last year when the same 2 players were involved, and Clark crushed him.

My take on the Ward hit was it was football, and unfortunate that he was knocked out of the game. But the hit didn't, IMO, fall into the defenseless receiver rule.

That's my take on it as well.However, it CLEARLY WAS NOT the officials' take. If it didn't fall into the defenseless receiver rule, than the pass should have been ruled a completion, since they ruled it incomplete, Ward should have been considered a "defenseless receiver."

The ONLY time a player must maintain control of a football "through the ground" is when he is determined to have been going to the ground, while in the process of making the catch.

If a receiver is in the process of making the catch, he has not made a "football move."

If he has not made a football move, he's a "defenseless receiver."

My point is that hits on "defenseless receivers" aren't as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Receivers are eligible to be tackled before they've completed the process of making a catch. I don't think the helmet-to-helmet contact in this case warranted the flag, nor falls into the whatever they're labeling the big time hits of "defenseless receiver" these days.

According to the rules, and as Bayhawks detailed, the play warranted a flag... But it was a missed call... so be it, happens all the time...

That doesn't mean I agree with the rules, just that according to the rules, that was a helmet to helmet hit on a defenseless receiver...

 

[switz]

My point is that hits on "defenseless receivers" aren't as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Receivers are eligible to be tackled before they've completed the process of making a catch.

I don't think the helmet-to-helmet contact in this case warranted the flag, nor falls into the whatever they're labeling the big time hits of "defenseless receiver" these days.

No offense intended, but you are wrong.NFL Rule 12, section 2, article 8: **Note, it's fairly long; skip to the end if you want for the pertinent points**

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (Unnecessary roughness) in the NFL rulebook

(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; or

(2) Lowering the head and violently or unnecessarily making forcible contact with the “hairline” or forehead part of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body; or

(3) “Launching” (springing forward and upward) into a defenseless player, or otherwise striking him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player’s neck. (Examples: a defender buries his facemask into a defenseless player’s high chest area, but the defender’s trajectory as he leaps into the defenseless player causes the defender’s helmet to strike the defenseless player violently in the head or face; or a defender, using a face-on posture or with his head slightly lowered, hits a defenseless player in an area below the defenseless player’s neck, then the defender’s head moves upward, resulting in strong contact by the defender’s mask or helmet with the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face [an example is the so-called “dip and rip” technique]).

Note: The provisions of section (f) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or noncrown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on an opponent.

(g) if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

h) If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver’s head or neck area—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver’s neck.

Note: Launching is defined as springing forward and upward by a player who leaves his feet to make contact on the receiver.

(i) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked, is out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. During the kick or during the return, if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of the kicker/punter, it is a foul.

(j) any player who grabs a helmet opening of an opponent and forcibly twists, turns, or pulls his head.

(k) Illegal contact with the helmet against the knee of the snapper during an attempt for a field goal or kick try.

Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.

Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

I bolded these sections in the actual rule above:(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;

It goes on to say:

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

You say you don't think the rule applies, but it very clearly does.

Ward was a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass,

The defender forcibly hit Ward's head with his helmet or facemask

It violates the letter of the rule, and according to the NFL, that's not going to be tolerated.

Funny how you missed some of the bolded ... Violently or unnecessarily, and flagrantly. None of the huts u r complaining about were any of those.

 

[VaTerp]

Meriweather was one of the first 3 players fined for these types of hits so the premise that there is some sort of bias that favors NE here is laughable.

Secondly, the hit on Ward was not the type of hit that is a point of emphasis. Really not even close. It was an unfortunate consequence of playing football. I will have to look at the hit on Wallace again to offer a any thoughts on that one.

I agree that the refs and the league office need to do a better job of applying the rule consistenly. But I think that will come with time. Either way, using the hit on Ward is a poor example of the refs inconsistency. It was not, nor should have been, a hit that draws a penalty or any action from the league office. And I would be HIGHLY surprised if a fine comes into play here.

 

[switz]

The hit on Ward wasn't helmet to helmet.

Sorry you missed the game...

Actually they replayed the hit a number of times while I watched the game. Sorry you were blinded by your Pittsburgh fandom to see clearly

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The hit on Ward wasn't helmet to helmet.

The hit on Wallace didn't look like helmet in helmet either.

The Ward hit had some H2H contact, but the Wallace hit was clean.

Was some H2H, but he wasn't defenseless, and to me looked like a clean hit...

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Meriweather was one of the first 3 players fined for these types of hits so the premise that there is some sort of bias that favors NE here is laughable.Secondly, the hit on Ward was not the type of hit that is a point of emphasis. Really not even close. It was an unfortunate consequence of playing football. I will have to look at the hit on Wallace again to offer a any thoughts on that one.I agree that the refs and the league office need to do a better job of applying the rule consistenly. But I think that will come with time. Either way, using the hit on Ward is a poor example of the refs inconsistency. It was not, nor should have been, a hit that draws a penalty or any action from the league office. And I would be HIGHLY surprised if a fine comes into play here.

The Meriweather hit was the only hit teh league has fined that was clearly dirty. He should have been suspended for that hit and he got a smaller fine than others.

 

[Breesisdaman]

Honda- sort of

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=570618

and while I am posting let me be the first to insert this:

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I thought the hit on Ward was clean.

Not based on the rules, or the officials interpretation of them.Read my post above if you want, but they ruled the pass incomplete because he didn't maintain control through the ground. You only have to maintain control through the ground if you are going to the ground in the act of catching the ball. If you are going to the ground in the act of catching the ball, you are a "defenseless receiver." If you are a "defenseless receiver," you CAN NOT be hit, helmet-to-helmet. Ward was clearly hit helmet-to-helmet.Therefore, based on the way the officials ruled (after the replay), the hit was illegal.

My problem with this reasoning (or ruling) is that it was the same situation on the Collie hit as explained by the NFL. The Head of Officials essentially said that, after the Collie hit, the officials ruled that the call on the field was an incomplete pass; therefore Collie was "defenseless" and the hit should have been flagged. However, it surely looked like Collie caught the pass, took two steps, covered the ball, and lowered his head for the expected impact. Now, the defender has absolutely no idea what the referee's ultimate call will be prior to making contact. Had Andy Reid (rightly, in my opinion) challenged the ruling of an incomplete pass AND the ruling on the field had been overturned, that would mean that the receiver would, by rule, be no longer be classified as "defenseless" - making the hit completely legal and the flag would have had to be picked up. Except that they couldn't really do that because they want to be seen as "protecting the player". So, the Eagles lose the fumble recovery allowing the Colts a chance to get back into the game. The absurdity of the penalty was further reinforced when the league levied NO fines on that play. Ward's catch was similar, in that the original call *could have* been overturned by replay and ruled a fumble, so his "status" would have had to be changed from "defenseless" to "ready-to-be-hit". So, the defender really just never knows on any given play whether a receiver he thought was not defenseless could be ruled "defenseless" after the play is over. The interpretation of this rule is getting more and more complicated and is being increasingly ruled incorrectly on the field - in both directions.

The pass does not have to be incomplete for the receiver to be defenseless...