Hit on McGahee... Illegal? (2 Viewers)

[switz]

I know during the game they said no, but I recall seeing players get flagged numerous times previously for "accidental" helmet to helmet hits, with the reason given being that you are not allowed to "launch" into a player, or leave your feet in an effort to hit a player.

I don't know where the rule are re: tackling like that, but to me it seemed like a dirty hit, which should be illegal, as the player was clearly head hunting.

I don't think it had an impact on the outcome of the game, etc., so I don't want replies about whether or not the Steelers would have won/lost , whatever...

Just simply, how was that hit not illegal?

 

[gman74]

100% that he should be find and suspended for the Bowl

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

There was some heated debate on that hit in the game thread.

My take was that it could easily have drawn a flag, and I thought it should have watching it live.

Was it illegal? Close - extremely close. He didn't launch nor lead with his head, he did lead with his shoulder. However he did lead with the off shoulder which put his helmet directly in line with McGahee's - not good technique (you want your helmet outside of the body on the ball, if at all possible) but he had little time to adjust. It was helmet-to-helmet and will likely draw a fine from the league as they are emphasizing safety - which is a different debate as to legal or illegal hit.

The day after the game I don't believe it was a dirty hit. I do believe that, by the letter of the league rules, it was an illegal hit. Intentional or not, helmets did hit first and that should have been unnecessary roughness.

No one at this time can clearly say it is 100% clean or 100% illegal - it's too close to define it either way.

It'll be interesting to see if the league does fine (or even suspend?) Clark. I doubt the suspension but I do think the fine will come.

 

[Ghost Rider]

He led with his shoulder. The helmet contact happened because McGahee lowered his head (understandably) in preparation for the hit. I know opinions all over the map on this one, but I have seen the replay numerous times and am still convinced that, while brutal, it was relatively clean.

 

[Godsbrother]

I know during the game they said no, but I recall seeing players get flagged numerous times previously for "accidental" helmet to helmet hits, with the reason given being that you are not allowed to "launch" into a player, or leave your feet in an effort to hit a player.I don't know where the rule are re: tackling like that, but to me it seemed like a dirty hit, which should be illegal, as the player was clearly head hunting.I don't think it had an impact on the outcome of the game, etc., so I don't want replies about whether or not the Steelers would have won/lost , whatever...Just simply, how was that hit not illegal?

The officials know the rulebook pretty well and didn't call it illegal. Mike Golic and Phil Simms, former football players, both said it was a legal hit. I am sure the NFL will review if and if they deem it was illegal they will levy a fine on Clark. Until that happens I am willing to go with the officials ruling.

 

[treat88]

I know during the game they said no, but I recall seeing players get flagged numerous times previously for "accidental" helmet to helmet hits, with the reason given being that you are not allowed to "launch" into a player, or leave your feet in an effort to hit a player.

I don't know where the rule are re: tackling like that, but to me it seemed like a dirty hit, which should be illegal, as the player was clearly head hunting.

I don't think it had an impact on the outcome of the game, etc., so I don't want replies about whether or not the Steelers would have won/lost , whatever...

Just simply, how was that hit not illegal?

Clark didn't lower his head and lead with the crown of his helmet.He lead with his shoulder with both feet planted firmly on the ground.

The side of Clark's helmet was the second point of contact (with Mcgahee's helmet), after their shoulders hit and was initiated as much by Mcgahee as Clark.

The rule is meant to limit leading with the crown of your helmet, not bumping heads in the course of making a tackle. Scott laying out Parker was the exact same thing only no one was injured, so no one comments.

It's unfortunate Mcgahee was hurt. The tackle was clean.

Not a criticism switz, but I truly wonder about the content of any discussion this thread can generate. There have been any number of postings after a hit like this and the board is fairly well divided into two camps. One camp will always say incidental helmet to helmet is a part of the game and not covered by the rule, the other will say any helmet to helmet is the defender's fault and they should always be flagged. It's never going to change.

I fall into the first camp and believe that an offensive player, by trying to avoid contact, can initiate a helmet to helmet collision. I don't think the defender should be called for that, regardless of injury.

I also offer my opinion knowing that 50% of the folks who post in this thread will 100% disagree.

 

[Sheriff66]

 

[Godsbrother]

100% that he should be find and suspended for the Bowl

Now there's a surprise...

 

[Ralph Furley]

100% that he should be find and suspended for the Bowl

 

[Sheriff66]

100% that he should be find and suspended for the Bowl

Now there's a surprise...

 

[B Will]

Looked alright when i saw it ?..... those *******

 

[Da Guru]

I TIVOed the game and watched the hit 10 times.

It was a legal hit. It is so difficult to call illegal hits.

It is a playoff game, emotions are running high. You have a RB running full speed after catching a pass, you have a DB running full speed right at the RB, in a split second McGahee dips just a little, the DB is already selling out to stop him and may go a little higher than he intended. Lets face it..they both got knocked out.

These are bang..bang plays. In slo-motion of course it looks different. In reality it is about 1/8 of a second.

 

[[icon]]

100% that he should be find and suspended for the Bowl

Impartial Take: You're nuts. Violent but clean hit.

 

[mozzy84]

is he ok??

looked legal to me anyways.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Unfortunate. But not illegal.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I dont think it's illegal to hit the ball carrier with the helmet

 

[Black]

He led with his shoulder. The helmet contact happened because McGahee lowered his head (understandably) in preparation for the hit.

Exactly. Wans't a spear or anything of the kind. He even looked like he was going to try to wrap him up and not just 'stick' McGahee. McGahee saw the hit coming, lowered his head and covered the ball...then the hit.

 

[Godsbrother]

I dont think it's illegal to hit the ball carrier with the helmet

If it was then running backs would be illegally hit on a lot of plays on every game.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I dont think it's illegal to hit the ball carrier with the helmet

If it was then running backs would be illegally hit on a lot of plays on every game.

then it should have been flagged? or no?

 

[parrot]

I know during the game they said no, but I recall seeing players get flagged numerous times previously for "accidental" helmet to helmet hits, with the reason given being that you are not allowed to "launch" into a player, or leave your feet in an effort to hit a player.

According to Pereira when he reviewed the Clark hit on Welker earlier in the year:"A lot of people think it's a foul to leave your feet," ... Pereira said yesterday from New York. "Launching is not a foul. There is nothing in the rulebook that states that at all. It's a misconception people have."

 

[wadegarrett]

Don't think it was a cheap shot.

Don't think it was illegal.

Don't think it should warrant a fine.

 

[Parrothead]

Don't think it was a cheap shot.Don't think it was illegal.Don't think it should warrant a fine.

yepLegal hit..It's football people..

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'll stick with last night's reply in the game thread...

As a Ravens fan that was up in arms when I first saw the play live, I think it was a just an unfortunate hit that was perfectly legal with no inappropriate intentions. Sometimes the offensive player just moves or ducks or whatever. I'm not sure whether the defensive player technically lead with head or shoulder but it just looked like a defensive player doing what he could to stop the play.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Can anyone find the rule that would make it legal/illegal?

I just see a bunch of posters citing random characteristics of the hit, but I don't know which, if any of them, apply here.

 

[MAC_32]

Hit was 100% legal, shouldn't get fined, but probably will.

This is coming from a die hard Clowns fan, thought that might make it more meaningful. To be honest, those who think it was dirty should consider taking up flag football and tennis.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Can anyone find the rule that would make it legal/illegal?

I just see a bunch of posters citing random characteristics of the hit, but I don't know which, if any of them, apply here.

They've tried to clarify the rule, but it is still pretty vague (which I believe is intentional, as officials can use their own judgement as to what is a "violent or unnecessary" hit):LINK

"Using any part of a player’s 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 is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protect those players who are in virtually defenseless postures."

It's from the rulebook which I did look at last night, but it's a major pain to link (it's a gigantic PDF). I don't recall the rule number.It doesn't differentiate players by position.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Can anyone find the rule that would make it legal/illegal?

I just see a bunch of posters citing random characteristics of the hit, but I don't know which, if any of them, apply here.

They've tried to clarify the rule, but it is still pretty vague (which I believe is intentional, as officials can use their own judgement as to what is a "violent or unnecessary" hit):LINK

"Using any part of a player’s 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 is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protect those players who are in virtually defenseless postures."

It's from the rulebook which I did look at last night, but it's a major pain to link (it's a gigantic PDF). I don't recall the rule number.It doesn't differentiate players by position.

Okay, so for staters, all of this talk about "launching" or "leaving his feet" appears to be irrelevant. I also doubt that what McGahee was doing falls under the "virtually defenseless postures."

I believe that it's fairly obvious that the helmet to helmet was the first point of contact between Clark and McGahee, but I don't think it was the result of "using the helmet to butt/spear/ram," I think he went in shoulder-first, and it just ended up being helmet to helmet first...I don't think there's a penalty here.

Just my reading of it though.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can anyone find the rule that would make it legal/illegal?

I just see a bunch of posters citing random characteristics of the hit, but I don't know which, if any of them, apply here.

They've tried to clarify the rule, but it is still pretty vague (which I believe is intentional, as officials can use their own judgement as to what is a "violent or unnecessary" hit):LINK

"Using any part of a player’s 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 is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protect those players who are in virtually defenseless postures."

It's from the rulebook which I did look at last night, but it's a major pain to link (it's a gigantic PDF). I don't recall the rule number.It doesn't differentiate players by position.

If it is a gigantic PDF it would still probably suck to open, but just for future reference-

Open a PDF file to a specific page

To target an HTML link to a specific page in a PDF file, add #page=[page number] to the end of the link's URL.

For example, this HTML tag opens page 4 of a PDF file named myfile.pdf:

<A HREF="http://www.example.com/myfile.pdf#page=4">

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I hate the Steelers, but there's no way you can suspend him for that. And even a fine seems harsh unless the league wants to apply the same rule the NHL has for players' sticks to NFL helmets, i.e. you're responsible for what happens with it regardless of intent.

Until then... just bad luck for McGahee.

 

[CrossEyed]

100% that he should be find and suspended for the Bowl

Now there's a surprise...

 

[T Bell]

There was some heated debate on that hit in the game thread.My take was that it could easily have drawn a flag, and I thought it should have watching it live.Was it illegal? Close - extremely close. He didn't launch nor lead with his head, he did lead with his shoulder. However he did lead with the off shoulder which put his helmet directly in line with McGahee's - not good technique (you want your helmet outside of the body on the ball, if at all possible) but he had little time to adjust. It was helmet-to-helmet and will likely draw a fine from the league as they are emphasizing safety - which is a different debate as to legal or illegal hit.The day after the game I don't believe it was a dirty hit. I do believe that, by the letter of the league rules, it was an illegal hit. Intentional or not, helmets did hit first and that should have been unnecessary roughness.No one at this time can clearly say it is 100% clean or 100% illegal - it's too close to define it either way.It'll be interesting to see if the league does fine (or even suspend?) Clark. I doubt the suspension but I do think the fine will come.

I have nothing to add to this.

 

[switz]

I know during the game they said no, but I recall seeing players get flagged numerous times previously for "accidental" helmet to helmet hits, with the reason given being that you are not allowed to "launch" into a player, or leave your feet in an effort to hit a player.

According to Pereira when he reviewed the Clark hit on Welker earlier in the year:"A lot of people think it's a foul to leave your feet," ... Pereira said yesterday from New York. "Launching is not a foul. There is nothing in the rulebook that states that at all. It's a misconception people have."

Thanks! That's pretty much what I was wondering about.

 

[T Bell]

I know during the game they said no, but I recall seeing players get flagged numerous times previously for "accidental" helmet to helmet hits, with the reason given being that you are not allowed to "launch" into a player, or leave your feet in an effort to hit a player.

According to Pereira when he reviewed the Clark hit on Welker earlier in the year:"A lot of people think it's a foul to leave your feet," ... Pereira said yesterday from New York. "Launching is not a foul. There is nothing in the rulebook that states that at all. It's a misconception people have."

Thanks! That's pretty much what I was wondering about.

Launching comes up when you have hits at the QB's in the Roughing the Passer context.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Why no outrage to Bart Scott's spear on the Pitt RB on the swing pass to Pitt's left? He clearly put his head down and speared. No injury = no foul on these boards? Injury/violence = illegal?

 

[Cookiemonster]

I know during the game they said no, but I recall seeing players get flagged numerous times previously for "accidental" helmet to helmet hits, with the reason given being that you are not allowed to "launch" into a player, or leave your feet in an effort to hit a player.

According to Pereira when he reviewed the Clark hit on Welker earlier in the year:"A lot of people think it's a foul to leave your feet," ... Pereira said yesterday from New York. "Launching is not a foul. There is nothing in the rulebook that states that at all. It's a misconception people have."

Thanks! That's pretty much what I was wondering about.

Launching comes up when you have hits at the QB's in the Roughing the Passer context.

... and defenseless WRs

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Why no outrage to Bart Scott's spear on the Pitt RB on the swing pass to Pitt's left? He clearly put his head down and speared. No injury = no foul on these boards? Injury/violence = illegal?

Its not a spear unless its a hit in the back. I dont remember it being in someones back

 

[Tanner9919]

He led with his shoulder. The helmet contact happened because McGahee lowered his head (understandably) in preparation for the hit. I know opinions all over the map on this one, but I have seen the replay numerous times and am still convinced that, while brutal, it was relatively clean.

Clark knocked himself out in the process!! It was 100% clean and legit, IMO..this is a hard hitting game, I mean Sweed's hit was equally brutal and just as potentially dangerous as this one on McGahee..

 

[Sinn Fein]

I thought the Sweed hit was closer to leading with the helmet than this hit.

 

[Eminence]

Here's how it is... if McGahee comes up unscathed people wouldn't challenge the hit. Since he got injured, then people say it's a dirty hit.

 

[phthalatemagic]

It should be legal just becuase it's on McGahee

 

[two_dollars]

It's football.. not pattycake.

 

[T Bell]

I know during the game they said no, but I recall seeing players get flagged numerous times previously for "accidental" helmet to helmet hits, with the reason given being that you are not allowed to "launch" into a player, or leave your feet in an effort to hit a player.

According to Pereira when he reviewed the Clark hit on Welker earlier in the year:"A lot of people think it's a foul to leave your feet," ... Pereira said yesterday from New York. "Launching is not a foul. There is nothing in the rulebook that states that at all. It's a misconception people have."

Thanks! That's pretty much what I was wondering about.

Launching comes up when you have hits at the QB's in the Roughing the Passer context.

... and defenseless WRs

True.

 

[Banger]

Hard hit, not an illegal one.

If that were illegal B. Dawkins would have multiple illegal hits each game...

 

[CrossEyed]

It's football.. not pattycake.

[lambert] Just put a skirt on all of them. [/lambert]

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Can anyone find the rule that would make it legal/illegal?I just see a bunch of posters citing random characteristics of the hit, but I don't know which, if any of them, apply here.

There is no rule governing helmet to helmet hits on a runner. The rule applies only to QBs and to defenseless receivers. In this case, McGahee had already made the catch and was running with the football (as evidenced by the fact that it was ruled a fumble, not an incompletion.) So, even if Clark did spear him with his helmet, it was a legal hit.Add to this, if you watch it, you can see Clark rotating his body to make the hit with his shoulder, but McGahee ducks his head and actually causes the helmet to helmet contact.

 

[Lord of the Rings]

Hard hit, not an illegal one. If that were illegal B. Dawkins would have multiple illegal hits each game...

I agree. I can't stand watching Dawkins. Everytime he attempts to tackle a player, he leads with his helmet. One day he is going to end up on a stretcher.

 

[T Bell]

Hard hit, not an illegal one. If that were illegal B. Dawkins would have multiple illegal hits each game...

I agree. I can't stand watching Dawkins. Everytime he attempts to tackle a player, he leads with his helmet. One day he is going to end up on a stretcher.

I like Dawkins as a player, but as I pointed out in the game thread he's been spearing and hitting guys who have already been down a lot the last couple of games and not been getting called for it.

 

[mbuehner]

I'm glad there was no call made. Too often these days the flag comes out just because the collision was viscious, and the Ref figures out why he threw the flag after the fact (usually hits on QBs granted). The DB is in a no-win position. Either lay the lumber or have McGahee run you over and risk injuring yourself. I can't think of anything much more dangerous in that situation than pulling up on a Willis McGahee when he lowers his shoulder on you with a full head of steam. Hit or be hit.

 

[belljr]

Why no outrage to Bart Scott's spear on the Pitt RB on the swing pass to Pitt's left? He clearly put his head down and speared. No injury = no foul on these boards? Injury/violence = illegal?

Its not a spear unless its a hit in the back. I dont remember it being in someones back

Pretty sure you hit a guy in the chest with the crown of your helmet it's spearing... that's why you're supposed "to see what you're hitting"

 

[switz]

Either lay the lumber or have McGahee run you over and risk injuring yourself. I can't think of anything much more dangerous in that situation than pulling up on a Willis McGahee when he lowers his shoulder on you with a full head of steam. Hit or be hit.

Or learn to tackle the way we've been taught, by wrapping up and driving through the mid section, with your HEAD UP