What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

So the Amendola hit... (1 Viewer)

ShamrockPride

Footballguy
I don't wanna bring up what I'm about to bring up, but the league sure is seeming fishy...

Vontaze - Black player on new contender, public sentiment that team is usually made up of "thugs". Immediately suspended after cheap shot.

Amendola - White player on established power, public sentiment is a team of cheaters, but also for rating/TV/money purposes, the league darling. Action is yet to come...but I better see a suspension of at least a game. That hit was every bit as dirty as Burfict's. Of course as of now, all I'm hearing about is a fine.

 
How many violations of league safety measures does Amendola have compared to Burfict?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No way does Amendola get suspended. Has nothing to do with race either. Cheap shot at worst. I don't even think it warrants a fine. And full disclosure, I despise everything even remotely connected to Patriots football so no homerism here.

 
I don't wanna bring up what I'm about to bring up, but the league sure is seeming fishy...

Vontaze - Black player on new contender, public sentiment that team is usually made up of "thugs". Immediately suspended after cheap shot.

Amendola - White player on established power, public sentiment is a team of cheaters, but also for rating/TV/money purposes, the league darling. Action is yet to come...but I better see a suspension of at least a game. That hit was every bit as dirty as Burfict's. Of course as of now, all I'm hearing about is a fine.
Burfict has done the "intentionally attempt to injure late" thing many times before. Amendola, as far as I can recall, is a first-time offender.

I think that accounts for the likely difference in discipline, without needing to invoke any racial issues or league conspiracies...

 
I don't wanna bring up what I'm about to bring up, but the league sure is seeming fishy...

Vontaze - Black player on new contender, public sentiment that team is usually made up of "thugs". Immediately suspended after cheap shot.

Amendola - White player on established power, public sentiment is a team of cheaters, but also for rating/TV/money purposes, the league darling. Action is yet to come...but I better see a suspension of at least a game. That hit was every bit as dirty as Burfict's. Of course as of now, all I'm hearing about is a fine.
:lmao:
 
Burfict, a player with 14 personal fouls. I would be shocked if Dola had two other personal fouls in his career.

He should be fined. Deposit your tears on the way out, thanks.

 
Burfict, a player with 14 personal fouls. I would be shocked if Dola had two other personal fouls in his career.

He should be fined. Deposit your tears on the way out, thanks.
He's a WR. Unless your name is Odell Beckham, what WR, heck even offensive player has a handful of personals? Terrible stat to base your opinion off.

 
I don't wanna bring up what I'm about to bring up, but the league sure is seeming fishy...

Vontaze - Black player on new contender, public sentiment that team is usually made up of "thugs". Immediately suspended after cheap shot.

Amendola - White player on established power, public sentiment is a team of cheaters, but also for rating/TV/money purposes, the league darling. Action is yet to come...but I better see a suspension of at least a game. That hit was every bit as dirty as Burfict's. Of course as of now, all I'm hearing about is a fine.
:lmao:
Which do you not believe in?

-White privilege

-Revenue darling

-It was a cheap shot

 
I wish the nfl would just eject players for these types of plays. Other sports and leagues would for much less

 
I don't wanna bring up what I'm about to bring up, but the league sure is seeming fishy...

Vontaze - Black player on new contender, public sentiment that team is usually made up of "thugs". Immediately suspended after cheap shot.

Amendola - White player on established power, public sentiment is a team of cheaters, but also for rating/TV/money purposes, the league darling. Action is yet to come...but I better see a suspension of at least a game. That hit was every bit as dirty as Burfict's. Of course as of now, all I'm hearing about is a fine.
:lmao:
Which do you not believe in?-White privilege

-Revenue darling

-It was a cheap shot
:lmao:
 
Yep, OP has it right.

Its all about race.

Look for the NFL to be shut down and closed prior to next season.

One nasty hit by a known dirty player (who just happens to be black) compared to a hit by a player (who just happens to be white) who is known as one of the "good guys" in the league, and has virtually no track record of dirty play whatsoever.

Is this the thread where I can loudly proclaim "I am finished with Fantasy Football forever"...???

At least if you blame it on some twisted non-existant race issue???? in regards to the two plays, you can have a reason to quit in your mind.

TZM

 
As a Pats fan I will say this. That hit was bush league and has no place in sports. I'm sure he will be fined. Suspended maybe. I could be talked into that. I do think amendola is not a trouble maker. I'm guessing he was amped up and made an error that really could have hurt someone. So there should be some consistent consequences by the NFL. What are the chances of that happening???

 
I thought it's never legal to spear a guy with the crown of your helmet? That's a different question than the legality of hitting someone at all on kick coverage.

 
Meh. I wouldnt flip out if he got a one game suspension, but i find it hilarious there is already a google link to some pathetic NJ media outlet linking this play to continued patriots cheating. Simply pathetic.

 
I dont understand his comment at all. I basically thought if you ever went with the crown of your helmet like a battering ram it was a penalty regardless if you actually hit the player with your helmet. I mean once you lead that way it is pretty much a matter of luck how you hit him since you aren't looking anymore.

I understand his point about it not being one of the defenseless situations, which is why this is different than the burfict hit.

 
I don't wanna bring up what I'm about to bring up, but the league sure is seeming fishy...

Vontaze - Black player on new contender, public sentiment that team is usually made up of "thugs". Immediately suspended after cheap shot.

Amendola - White player on established power, public sentiment is a team of cheaters, but also for rating/TV/money purposes, the league darling. Action is yet to come...but I better see a suspension of at least a game. That hit was every bit as dirty as Burfict's. Of course as of now, all I'm hearing about is a fine.
:lmao:
Which do you not believe in?

-White privilege

-Revenue darling

-It was a cheap shot
Repeat offender? Body of work? Burfict got several fines before earning a suspension. I am not aware of Amendola previously having multiple fines for violating player safety rules. I am sure that if Amendola continues to purposefully injure opposing players he will earn a suspension as well.

 
To those who are having trouble telling the difference between spearing with the crown of helmet, and lowering your pads and placing a shoulder into your opponent.

this is a shoulder
Hitting the head or neck area of a player in a defenseless posture with a shoulder (or just about anything else) is just as illegal as hitting such a player with the crown. Including even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck.

For the punishment of the Burfict situation versus this one, it will likely come down to history of past transgressions as others have stated.

 
Filthy ####### play. Considering Danny has been concussed numerous times, you'd like to think he would understans why a play like that is so awful.

 
Burfict, a player with 14 personal fouls. I would be shocked if Dola had two other personal fouls in his career.

He should be fined. Deposit your tears on the way out, thanks.
Offensive players are way less likely to be penalized for unnecessary roughness because most of those penalties come about on rough tackles. Amendola's most egregious penalties-

2015- illegal crackback

2014- face mask

2010- taunting

2009- tripping

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How many violations of league safety measures does Amendola have compared to Burfict?
So it's ok putting another player's safety at risk a couple times intentionally, but not a lot of times? Sounds like the typical NFL double standard.
 
As a Pats fan I will say this. That hit was bush league and has no place in sports. I'm sure he will be fined. Suspended maybe. I could be talked into that. I do think amendola is not a trouble maker. I'm guessing he was amped up and made an error that really could have hurt someone. So there should be some consistent consequences by the NFL. What are the chances of that happening???
low
 
No way does Amendola get suspended. Has nothing to do with race either. Cheap shot at worst. I don't even think it warrants a fine. And full disclosure, I despise everything even remotely connected to Patriots football so no homerism here.
What does cheap shot at worst mean? Is there something worse?
 
It was a cheap shot and I believe they explained last night--a legit flag. You cannot go back towards your end zone to hit a covering teams player, If you look at one of the angles of the hit, he clearly launched himself and led with his helmet and he will probably draw a large fine.

Now if the league was serious about player safety, they would toss him for one game. However, I can tell you I hate the college "targeting" rule where they toss players for hits like this. I can see a fine and nothing else. BUT and I throw this out as a BUT, DA could find himself a victim of the P/C police and the league wanting to appear color blind as to punishments. So one game is not so crazy to suggest.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know if I'd call the hit dirty, but it was certainly illegal. I think a penalty and fine is sufficient, but he should have been ejected after swinging on a Chiefs player after the play.

There's a reason these types of hits are illegal. When the initial contact is made it causes the players head to snap forward, usually into the helmet of the tackler/blocker which then causes it to snap back. Often times the player hits their head on the ground as well. This causes a lot of concussions, and because of the multiple changes of force, they can be very serious.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amendola said after the game that he would appeal any fine, as he thought it was a clean hit. He also pointed out that it is a play the Patriots are coached to execute.

Patriots coach Bill Belichick, in his Sunday morning conference call, was asked what he saw on the play.

"I saw him block the guy trying to down the ball," Belichick answered. "It’s hard to tell from the coaching film where the hit occurred, but it was a legal play. We’re allowed to block him. He didn’t give a fair catch signal, so he’s allowed to block, and then after the play when [Dezman] Moses came over and snatched his facemask and started shaking him, I’m not really sure what all happened on that. There were a lot of bodies around there, a lot of pushing and shoving and all that. I don’t know, I think you’d have to ask the officials exactly what they called on that."

As Belichick noted, it was hard for him to tell where the hit occurred when watching the coaching film, and that will likely be what the NFL is looking at when determining if a fine is warranted. If the league determines it is a blindside block or that Amendola was leading with the crown of his helmet, it could fine Amendola.

There is also the possibility that the NFL could interpret its rule on defenseless kickoff returners/punt returners as also applying to those on the coverage team like Fleming. If that is the case, the league might consider rewriting the rule to make that more clear.

 
Also, shoulder to shoulder since people keep bringing up how it was helmet to head/neck area.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
if the gunner was going down the field and gets leveled, it is a legal hit. However if the gunner is beyond you, you cannot turn and go back to hit him. I think this rule was enacted to address all the players who were getting hurt by the return team players coming back and destroying players who were chasing the returner.

 
Devastating shoulder hit. Totally clean unlike Burfict. The league is getting sissyfied enough without some nitwits complaining in here. Maybe if the nfl adopted the nhl's charging rule it would make the hayseeds happy.

 
Devastating shoulder hit. Totally clean unlike Burfict. The league is getting sissyfied enough without some nitwits complaining in here. Maybe if the nfl adopted the nhl's charging rule it would make the hayseeds happy.
Agreed, to compare it to the Burfict hit(s) is nonsense.

It was a nasty vicious hit but he lead with his shoulder not his helmet and the only real problem with it was it may have been a hair to high. If u reversed the play and Flemming laid out the exact same hit on Amendola a split second after he caught the ball I don't think there is even a flag.

 
I don't wanna bring up what I'm about to bring up, but the league sure is seeming fishy...

Vontaze - Black player on new contender, public sentiment that team is usually made up of "thugs". Immediately suspended after cheap shot.

Amendola - White player on established power, public sentiment is a team of cheaters, but also for rating/TV/money purposes, the league darling. Action is yet to come...but I better see a suspension of at least a game. That hit was every bit as dirty as Burfict's. Of course as of now, all I'm hearing about is a fine.
:lmao:
Which do you not believe in?-White privilege

-Revenue darling

-It was a cheap shot
White privilege??!!! Are you ####### kidding me. I hate the Patriots but this is one of the dumbest comments I have seen on here. Is everything race-related nowadays??

 
Devastating shoulder hit. Totally clean unlike Burfict. The league is getting sissyfied enough without some nitwits complaining in here. Maybe if the nfl adopted the nhl's charging rule it would make the hayseeds happy.
Agreed, to compare it to the Burfict hit(s) is nonsense.It was a nasty vicious hit but he lead with his shoulder not his helmet and the only real problem with it was it may have been a hair to high. If u reversed the play and Flemming laid out the exact same hit on Amendola a split second after he caught the ball I don't think there is even a flag.
It is fair to debate the type of hit shoulder vs head, but it was a legit Flag. The gunner can hit the receiver as long as he gave him his 3 foot circle and chance at the catch. But the receiving team cannot go backwards and make a hit like DA did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Devastating shoulder hit. Totally clean unlike Burfict. The league is getting sissyfied enough without some nitwits complaining in here. Maybe if the nfl adopted the nhl's charging rule it would make the hayseeds happy.
Agreed, to compare it to the Burfict hit(s) is nonsense.It was a nasty vicious hit but he lead with his shoulder not his helmet and the only real problem with it was it may have been a hair to high. If u reversed the play and Flemming laid out the exact same hit on Amendola a split second after he caught the ball I don't think there is even a flag.
It is fair to debate the type of hit shoulder vs head, but it was a legit Flag. The gunner can hit the receiver as long as he gave him his 3 foot circle and chance at the catch. But the receiving team cannot go backwards and make a hit like DA did.
Id be interesting in this rule if you know what it is id like to look it up. In the Pats postgame, Belichick called it a legal play. Said that since he didn't call for a catch hes allowed to block a kicking team player from downing the ball.

Obviously there are other things in play here, was it blind side (close enough imo), was it a helmet lead hit or a hit to the head neck area (I don't think so no.) I'm not sure if hitting him in the side is actually a penalty on that play but watching it I thought it was a dumb cheap hit and I expect him to be fined, but I also trust that Belichick knows what hes talking about.

I'm more curious why there wasn't a penalty against KC after that hit when another player from the kicking team ran over to Dola after the play, grabbed him by the face mask and jerked and then threw him around.

 
Devastating shoulder hit. Totally clean unlike Burfict. The league is getting sissyfied enough without some nitwits complaining in here. Maybe if the nfl adopted the nhl's charging rule it would make the hayseeds happy.
Agreed, to compare it to the Burfict hit(s) is nonsense.It was a nasty vicious hit but he lead with his shoulder not his helmet and the only real problem with it was it may have been a hair to high. If u reversed the play and Flemming laid out the exact same hit on Amendola a split second after he caught the ball I don't think there is even a flag.
It is fair to debate the type of hit shoulder vs head, but it was a legit Flag. The gunner can hit the receiver as long as he gave him his 3 foot circle and chance at the catch. But the receiving team cannot go backwards and make a hit like DA did.
U may be right, I have heard others say similar, but it doesn't seem to make sense that kick receiving teams can't block players once they are behind them. It would seem to me that if he is chasing the guy with the ball or trying to catch the ball they ought to be able to block him. If the flag was for a blindside\defenseless receiver type hit I guess I understand that it was nasty and the current climate in the nfl pretty much dictates a flag. However, I think that act of blocking him was probably legal.

FWIW, it was a very risky play by amendola that could have easily blown up in his face if the ball had hit him.

 
Courtjester said:
NE_REVIVAL said:
HellToupee said:
Devastating shoulder hit. Totally clean unlike Burfict. The league is getting sissyfied enough without some nitwits complaining in here. Maybe if the nfl adopted the nhl's charging rule it would make the hayseeds happy.
Agreed, to compare it to the Burfict hit(s) is nonsense.It was a nasty vicious hit but he lead with his shoulder not his helmet and the only real problem with it was it may have been a hair to high. If u reversed the play and Flemming laid out the exact same hit on Amendola a split second after he caught the ball I don't think there is even a flag.
It is fair to debate the type of hit shoulder vs head, but it was a legit Flag. The gunner can hit the receiver as long as he gave him his 3 foot circle and chance at the catch. But the receiving team cannot go backwards and make a hit like DA did.
I'd be interested in seeing this rule cited too - I just went looking into the rule book and was unable to find something similar to what you described. I'm not saying it isn't there, but simply wanted to mention I made an attempt to find the source of this and could not.I think the hit was without a doubt a penalty - after looking at what particular rule under unnecessary roughness the refs justified using, I thought this was most applicable:

unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (1) is out of the play or (2) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead
 
Courtjester said:
NE_REVIVAL said:
HellToupee said:
Devastating shoulder hit. Totally clean unlike Burfict. The league is getting sissyfied enough without some nitwits complaining in here. Maybe if the nfl adopted the nhl's charging rule it would make the hayseeds happy.
Agreed, to compare it to the Burfict hit(s) is nonsense.It was a nasty vicious hit but he lead with his shoulder not his helmet and the only real problem with it was it may have been a hair to high. If u reversed the play and Flemming laid out the exact same hit on Amendola a split second after he caught the ball I don't think there is even a flag.
It is fair to debate the type of hit shoulder vs head, but it was a legit Flag. The gunner can hit the receiver as long as he gave him his 3 foot circle and chance at the catch. But the receiving team cannot go backwards and make a hit like DA did.
I'd be interested in seeing this rule cited too - I just went looking into the rule book and was unable to find something similar to what you described. I'm not saying it isn't there, but simply wanted to mention I made an attempt to find the source of this and could not.I think the hit was without a doubt a penalty - after looking at what particular rule under unnecessary roughness the refs justified using, I thought this was most applicable:

unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (1) is out of the play or (2) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead
I'm still not sure it's a penalty. The guy was definitely not out of the play and should have reasonably anticipated contact.

 
Courtjester said:
NE_REVIVAL said:
HellToupee said:
Devastating shoulder hit. Totally clean unlike Burfict. The league is getting sissyfied enough without some nitwits complaining in here. Maybe if the nfl adopted the nhl's charging rule it would make the hayseeds happy.
Agreed, to compare it to the Burfict hit(s) is nonsense.It was a nasty vicious hit but he lead with his shoulder not his helmet and the only real problem with it was it may have been a hair to high. If u reversed the play and Flemming laid out the exact same hit on Amendola a split second after he caught the ball I don't think there is even a flag.
It is fair to debate the type of hit shoulder vs head, but it was a legit Flag. The gunner can hit the receiver as long as he gave him his 3 foot circle and chance at the catch. But the receiving team cannot go backwards and make a hit like DA did.
I'd be interested in seeing this rule cited too - I just went looking into the rule book and was unable to find something similar to what you described. I'm not saying it isn't there, but simply wanted to mention I made an attempt to find the source of this and could not.I think the hit was without a doubt a penalty - after looking at what particular rule under unnecessary roughness the refs justified using, I thought this was most applicable:

unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (1) is out of the play or (2) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead
I'm still not sure it's a penalty. The guy was definitely not out of the play and should have reasonably anticipated contact.
I'm probably interrupting it incorrectly, but I read it as "reasonably anticipated the roughness of the contact."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Courtjester said:
NE_REVIVAL said:
HellToupee said:
Devastating shoulder hit. Totally clean unlike Burfict. The league is getting sissyfied enough without some nitwits complaining in here. Maybe if the nfl adopted the nhl's charging rule it would make the hayseeds happy.
Agreed, to compare it to the Burfict hit(s) is nonsense.It was a nasty vicious hit but he lead with his shoulder not his helmet and the only real problem with it was it may have been a hair to high. If u reversed the play and Flemming laid out the exact same hit on Amendola a split second after he caught the ball I don't think there is even a flag.
It is fair to debate the type of hit shoulder vs head, but it was a legit Flag. The gunner can hit the receiver as long as he gave him his 3 foot circle and chance at the catch. But the receiving team cannot go backwards and make a hit like DA did.
I'd be interested in seeing this rule cited too - I just went looking into the rule book and was unable to find something similar to what you described. I'm not saying it isn't there, but simply wanted to mention I made an attempt to find the source of this and could not.I think the hit was without a doubt a penalty - after looking at what particular rule under unnecessary roughness the refs justified using, I thought this was most applicable:

unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (1) is out of the play or (2) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead
ARTICLE 7. PLAYERS IN A DEFENSELESS POSTURE. It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player

who is in a defenseless posture.

(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:

(1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass (passing posture)

(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has

not clearly become a runner. If the player is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent,

he is no longer a defenseless player.

(3) The intended receiver of a pass in the action during and immediately following an interception or potential

interception. If the player is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer

a defenseless player.

Note: Violations of this provision will be enforced after the interception, and the intercepting team will maintain

possession.

(4) A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped

(5) A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air

(6) A player on the ground

(7) A kicker/punter during the kick or during the return (Also see Article 6-h) for additional restrictions against a

kicker/punter)

(8) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession (Also see Article 9-f) for additional restrictions against a

quarterback after a change of possession)

(9) A player who receives a “blindside” block when the path of the blocker is toward or parallel to his own end line, and

he approaches the opponent from behind or from the side

(10) A player who is protected from an illegal crackback block (see Article 2)

(11) The offensive player who attempts a snap during a Field Goal attempt or a Try Kick

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:

(1) forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if

the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms

to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him

(2) lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or “hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the

defenseless player’s body

(3) illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to

spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet to initiate forcible contact against

any part of his opponent’s body. (This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered

to be a defenseless player, as defined in Article 7.)
I believe the call was based on the parts I bolded above. Edit to add: Or at least I think that's the part that SHOULD apply.

Just saw Pereira said since he was trying to catch the punt the punt returner part applies to him even though he's part of the kicking team. I personally think the takeaway regardless, is the player was clearly unable to see the hit coming and react to protect himself, so it's on Amendola to make sure he doesn't go that near the guy's head/neck.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top