Should this be a 15 yard penalty on AD? (1 Viewer)

[Voice Of Reason]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd_62tLlpZU

Had an argument that a friend that helmet to helmet penalties for on defenders for hitting the ball carriers are ridiculous and he disagreed. He really didn't have an answer why this play should not have been a 15 yard penalty on Peterson using the same logic, curious what other FBGs think about this.

 

[spider321]

Helmet to helmet is football.

Otherwise, put em all in skirts and call em Sally.

I'm sick of these sissy rules.

 

[thekidd2009]

Helmet to helmet contact should only be called on a defenseless player IMO and i'll give the benefit of the doubt to the qb. However, everything else should be fair game. This is football and that is how alot of people hit. I know I went helmet to helmet when I played and it's unavoidable at times.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Helmet to helmet contact should only be called on a defenseless player IMO and i'll give the benefit of the doubt to the qb. However, everything else should be fair game. This is football and that is how alot of people hit. I know I went helmet to helmet when I played and it's unavoidable at times.

My problem with the defenseless player argument is that the player willingly put himself in a defenseless position. Why should the defender has the responsibility to avoid helmet to helmet hits, giving the offensive player the right to fly around head first knowing the defender has to adjust to his brazenness.

 

[certificate]

Yup, and I always thought that Mike Alstott should get spearing penalties.

 

[spider321]

Who invented this whole "defenseless player" BS anyway?

Sounds like some #### PETA would come up with.

 

[encaitar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd_62tLlpZU

Had an argument that a friend that helmet to helmet penalties for on defenders for hitting the ball carriers are ridiculous and he disagreed. He really didn't have an answer why this play should not have been a 15 yard penalty on Peterson using the same logic, curious what other FBGs think about this.

Simple answer? Absolutely not. I don't know that I've ever seen a defender called for a helmet to helmet on a RB(unless it was a piling on at the end type of thing, but never openfield), so why would a RB need to adhere to a helmet to helmet rule. That rule was enacted to protect QBs and defenseless WRs. What would they call it? Hitting a defenseless defender?

 

[karmarooster]

I was thinking about this during the MNF game when Sharper accidentally went helmet to helmet with the CB on his own team. I was wondering why they didn't call it on Sharper. I mean, the point of the rule is to discourage players from potentially causing a concussion/brain damage, so why didn't they penalize New Orleans 15 yards? Of course it was unintentional, but that doesn't make the concussion any less severe. Nor does it cause less brain damage because it was caused by his own teammate.

And then I was thinking, why do they never call this against offensive players? Adrian Peterson's hit would've been a flag, 15 yards, first down, and probably $10,000 fine if the situation were reversed and a safety did that to a RB or WR. It doesn't seem fair to me. It should go both ways or not at all, IMO.

 

[encaitar]

What would they call it?

Spearing with the helmet?

If you want I guess. It would be a terrible thing for the NFL to start calling spearing on ball carriers though. It's one thing for a defender to spear a player as he has only one target. It's quite another for the ball carrier to do so when he's got 11 guys to avoid or get through to score. I still say that I haven't seen a defender get called for leading with the helmet when tackling a RB before and think if that play had happened in reverse and Peterson had been the one knocked on his ### it wouldn't have been a penalty either. Hitting RBs is treated differently than hitting QBs and WRs.

 

[RandyDB]

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9

(g) 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 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 (e.g., a player in the act of or just after

throwing a pass, a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass, a runner already in the

grasp of a tackler, a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air, or a player

on the ground at the end of a play). All players in virtually defenseless postures are protected

by the same prohibitions against use of the helmet and facemask that are described

in the roughing-the-passer rules (see Article 12, subsection 3 below of this

Rule 12, Section 2);

ETA: I meant to add that my belief is the intent is to let the rough/violent nature of the game play when players

firmly have ball control and are intent on forward progress. I would contend that a receiver who catches the ball in the

open and is clearly advancing the ball should be the same as a running back in the open field and incidental contact of helmets

should be over looked much as it is on rushing plays.

 

[The Rook]

I think a more obvious inequality is that a RB can stiff arm to a defenders face... use a stiff arm is great, but it shouldn't be allowed to their face, just like a defender can't use the RB's facemask to bring him down.

 

[Synthesizer]

I think a more obvious inequality is that a RB can stiff arm to a defenders face... use a stiff arm is great, but it shouldn't be allowed to their face, just like a defender can't use the RB's facemask to bring him down.

There was a picture in SI a few weeks ago where a stiff arm was basically twisting the defender's neck backwards.

 

[thekidd2009]

I think a more obvious inequality is that a RB can stiff arm to a defenders face... use a stiff arm is great, but it shouldn't be allowed to their face, just like a defender can't use the RB's facemask to bring him down.

Wow...I don't know what to say about this. If you think a stiff arm shouldn't be allowed then I don't know what to tell you. This is football and a stiff arm is part of the game. It's not like someone can get really hurt from a stiff arm and I don't think any defender in the league is worried about it.

 

[basher]

I think a more obvious inequality is that a RB can stiff arm to a defenders face... use a stiff arm is great, but it shouldn't be allowed to their face, just like a defender can't use the RB's facemask to bring him down.

Wow...I don't know what to say about this. If you think a stiff arm shouldn't be allowed then I don't know what to tell you. This is football and a stiff arm is part of the game. It's not like someone can get really hurt from a stiff arm and I don't think any defender in the league is worried about it.

uhhhh .... i am pretty sure he clearly states that he believes there should be a stiff arm but he is pointing out an inequality between the offense and the defense in regards to being able to touch another players facemask

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think people need to look up the rule for helmet to helmet contact. Running backs get hit with helmet to helmet contact that's not a penalty ALL THE TIME. Probably upwards of a half a dozen times in a single game. These are not penalties, nor are they flagged.

Helmet to helmet contact only applies in certain situations. IE on a quarterback in the pocket or a receiver attempting to make a catch.

The OP's post operates under the assumption that any time a defender's helmet contacts an offensive player's helmet it is a penalty. This is NOT the case, which ruins the entire premise of the original post. If, in the video, Peterson were running up field and Gay had tackled Peterson and hit him helmet to helmet, it would not have been a penalty either.

 

[Steel Dillo]

I've wondered about this too.

I remember a couple of times when Hines Ward would lower his head and ram into a would be tackler with his helmet. Seems kind of strange not to call this on the offensive player also.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Wow. I'm surprised this is even a debate.

 

[JuniorNB]

Wow. I'm surprised this is even a debate.

You new here?Last week, we had a seven page thread about the evils of eating a hot dog.

 

[vandyt]

Helmet to helmet is football.Otherwise, put em all in skirts and call em Sally.I'm sick of these sissy rules.

What team do you play for again?

 

[treat88]

Wow. I'm surprised this is even a debate.

Agreed.It is beyond me how some can consider themselves fans of the game and not even understand the rules.

 

[Jobber]

Helmet to helmet is football.Otherwise, put em all in skirts and call em Sally.I'm sick of these sissy rules.

What team do you play for again?

You first.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I've wondered about this too.I remember a couple of times when Hines Ward would lower his head and ram into a would be tackler with his helmet. Seems kind of strange not to call this on the offensive player also.

Read the post above yours.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

What would they call it?

Spearing with the helmet?

If you want I guess. It would be a terrible thing for the NFL to start calling spearing on ball carriers though. It's one thing for a defender to spear a player as he has only one target. It's quite another for the ball carrier to do so when he's got 11 guys to avoid or get through to score. I still say that I haven't seen a defender get called for leading with the helmet when tackling a RB before and think if that play had happened in reverse and Peterson had been the one knocked on his ### it wouldn't have been a penalty either. Hitting RBs is treated differently than hitting QBs and WRs.

So the rules change for Reggie Bush when he is lined up at RB vs WR, or if they would ever run a Wild-Bush package?And this isn't a debate, my post was to bring up the point that almost all helmet to helmet hits on players should NOT be a penalty.

 

[encaitar]

What would they call it?

Spearing with the helmet?

If you want I guess. It would be a terrible thing for the NFL to start calling spearing on ball carriers though. It's one thing for a defender to spear a player as he has only one target. It's quite another for the ball carrier to do so when he's got 11 guys to avoid or get through to score. I still say that I haven't seen a defender get called for leading with the helmet when tackling a RB before and think if that play had happened in reverse and Peterson had been the one knocked on his ### it wouldn't have been a penalty either. Hitting RBs is treated differently than hitting QBs and WRs.

So the rules change for Reggie Bush when he is lined up at RB vs WR, or if they would ever run a Wild-Bush package?And this isn't a debate, my post was to bring up the point that almost all helmet to helmet hits on players should NOT be a penalty.

No, the rules don't change. I should've said runner instead of RB because once a WR establishes the catch he becomes the same as a RB. I agree that helmet to helmet hits should not normally be penalized. Although, I'm not upset when it is called against a defenseless WR or QB as I understand the league's need to protect players. I do think that calling a personal foul for defenders hitting the QBs head with their hand or arm is completely ridiculous though.

 

[vandyt]

Helmet to helmet is football.Otherwise, put em all in skirts and call em Sally.I'm sick of these sissy rules.

What team do you play for again?

You first.

Sorry, you're right. Its not asinine for some guy on a fantasy football BBS to call NFL football players sissies for not wanting to get hit head-to-head by a 6'3 220lb grown man who runs a 4.4 40. Hes probably one of those actual tough guys, as opposed to the many fake internet tough guys we have on here.