Dean Blandino says helmet to helmet hits may be reviewable in the future
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
They miss at least a few legit helmet to helmet hits a game. So if they are serious about player safety, then yes.
it's a good point. that wasn't a penalty on Browner (it was PI, not a personal foul) but it sure as hell hurt Green and maybe it should become a penalty. I saw the same thing last week on a shoulder hit that gave a guy a concussion (can't remember who/what -- some sort of redzone game).
First, on replay, I don't think that hit should be have been flagged. But in today's NFL, that hit is going to be called every time, because of the violence with which his head snapped back.
However, unpopular opinion: that hit probably would not have been overturned even if there was replay. He obviously doesn't go helmet-to-helmet, but he does catch under the chin. It wasn't the kind of obviously-not-an-illegal hit that would be likely to be overturned.
However, unpopular opinion: that hit probably would not have been overturned even if there was replay. He obviously doesn't go helmet-to-helmet, but he does catch under the chin. It wasn't the kind of obviously-not-an-illegal hit that would be likely to be overturned.
Disagree about not being overturned, as long as the refs are actually trying to enforce the rule as written. It's not illegal to catch the player under the chin. Browner clearly didn't hit him with his helmet, which is the key issue.Jnai said:
It was announced as 'personal foul: helmet-to-helmet' which explains why I was perplexed by your post. I think we're all in agreement though.Tony C said:
What no one was saying when it happened was when the NFL put these rules in place, they told refs flag anything close. When in doubt, call the penalty, defenses will adjust. And they were right, defenses did adjust. So this year, the NFL told refs the new policy is ONLY throw the flag if you are SURE it was a penalty. When in doubt, it's not a flag. If that's the standard now, then the refs failed.
riboflav said:
The game you grew up with isn't coming back. I'd settle for greater consistency using the parameters I suggested.
Actually I think you're right. The rule book says "head or neck area," which I didn't realize. And since he was a defenseless player, you can't hit that area with your shoulder.Jnai said:
I'm not even sure it was the wrong call at this point.
But was he a defenseless player? He took about 3 steps after the ball touched his hands before he got hit. Plenty of time to prepare yourself if you catch the ball cleanly. If you don't catch it cleanly, it should be treated like the D tipped the ball and everything is fair game. Not the D's fault he was bobbling it. What is the D player supposed to do?
edit: don't want them to go really low and take out the knees like pollard, is that agreed?
edit: don't want them to go really low and take out the knees like pollard, is that agreed?
nomarshaus said:
He was looking at the ball when he got violently hit under the chin and more or less knocked out. There were plenty of things Browner could do in that situation that didn't involve decleating the guy. Plenty of players get run into all the time without being destroyed.
I understand why Browner made the hit he made. And I understand why it's a ridiculously annoying flag, because he didn't go helmet to helmet and got flagged for helmet to helmet. But acting like Browner couldn't have done anything else in that situation is silly.
A player making a catch or who has made a catch but hasn't set himself yet is considered defenseless. I would assume that a bobble simply prolongs the catch process but who knows.nomarshaus said:
"Neck area" is super vague.
The way I understand the college rule, there are three options when they review the hit:
1- Eject the player for targeting with the helmet
2- Determine that there was a penalty, but not ejection worthy
3- determine that there was no penalty
I like that idea. The penalty of the ejection will eliminate headhunting, and the review will eliminate incorrect penalties like what we saw with Browner tonight. I feel like Browner's hit should be the example of what the limit is for acceptable, but legal violence over the middle and no penalty was warranted.
1- Eject the player for targeting with the helmet
2- Determine that there was a penalty, but not ejection worthy
3- determine that there was no penalty
I like that idea. The penalty of the ejection will eliminate headhunting, and the review will eliminate incorrect penalties like what we saw with Browner tonight. I feel like Browner's hit should be the example of what the limit is for acceptable, but legal violence over the middle and no penalty was warranted.
Reluctantly agree. If the goal is to stop concussions, allowing hits to the upper shoulder area won't cut it as the area is too close to the chin and jaw which are vulnerable. Making a lower target gets the helmet further away and should stop most concussions. If they get this happening now and start influencing high school and college programs, maybe those programs will survive.Harry Hooper said:
It might make sense to incorporate a design on the jerseys that incorporates a line above which hits are illegal and go for maximum clarity.
In my 20s I would have been out of my seat, fist pumping yelling about what an awesome hit that was. Now being closer to 40 than I am to 30 I sat in my chair silent, hand over my mouth. I think the penalty was bogus, there was no helmet to helmet, he went upper body because that's where the ball was being bobbled, but that was some scary shit.
There really needs to be some wiggle room for the defense on the bobble. You obviously never want to see someone get, to use the old ESPN terminology, "jacked up", but there are a lot of instinctual variables that go into a bobble like that that make it very, very difficult for defenders. A corner who sees a ball loose like that might come up as he's approaching the hit in case he's able to get to the ball and make a pick. A wide receiver might go low to try and secure the ball and take out any reasonable avenue a defender had to not make contact with his head. It's difficult for me to put into words, but usually I think defenders go into a play with some semblance of a plan of how they're going to defend, but the second that ball goes vertical, "TIP DRILL" instincts just take over. I don't think Browner did anything wrong there, and as someone who strongly advocated for the crackdown on hits on defenseless receivers and helmet to helmet, I think we're just at the point where they accelerated past where they should be, and might just toss it in reverse and back up a couple yards soon.
WRs going low is what makes me hesitant to endorse a straight up mid-sternum and down rule. although there's a little dude with wings on one of my shoulders who says i should be erring more on the side of player safety and that this isn't a purely academic issue.
It was not a helmet to helmet hit, but more importantly, the receiver was defenseless and the hit was in the neck and chin area. The end result of the play was that Green suffered a probable concussion, which is why the NFL is penalizing and in some cases fining defenders for hits to defenseless receivers. If you go by the letter of the rule below, it is a penalty.
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:
...
(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 receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
...
(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 of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the passer’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;
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:
...
(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 receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
...
(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 of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the passer’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;
defenseless player? He already took 3 full steps before being hit, he wasn't in the air or just turning upfield after a catch. Also, hitting a player with a chance to catch a tipped or juggled ball hardly seems unnecessary. Are defensive players supposed to allow a catch, let the receiver run a few yards and then attempt a tackle? Do we want knees blown out instead?
Thisnisnsorta where I'm at. I think it got called because it was so violent that it seemed like it must have been illegal, when in reality it was just a legal violent hit and the reality is,myths game really is that violent.GeorgeCostanza said:
I get that he bobbled the ball and was defenseless in that regard, but I don't see how you can hold a defensive player responsible for the offensive player bobbling the ball; there's no way of knowing he's going to bobble it ahead of time--I think slow-mo replay sorta warps ours minds about this in that respect.
I agree on the letter.genoasalami said:
But on the letter, I think well over 60% of pass plays broken up by a hit during the act of catching the ball would qualify as penalties under a serious enforcement of this rule. But only visibly super-violent hits get penalized, which makes this a crappy rule; the application is basically bs.
Rules uneven in application are bad rules, or, at least, badly done rules.
This sums it up perfectly.There is no Rev said:
I think it was actually the right call. But the rule still sucks as it's pretty hard to avoid contacting the head/neck when hitting a guy, especially if the receiver ducks. Honestly, though, this was a case where Browner probably could have done so.
Oppo said:
"Defenseless player" has a very specific meaning, so yeah, we get your point, but the NFL has defined the position the receiver was in last night as defenseless: http://nflcommunications.com/2011/12/27/definition-of-a-defenseless-player/
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
I don't know. Browner doesn't know the guy is going to continue to bobble the ball. Browner sees the ball go to Green, moves to make a play--if Green had caught it cleanly, he likely lowers he shoulder and Browner and Green collide and that's that. Green bobbled the ball, which means his head is still up and looking for it. Browner can't know that's going to happen and certainly can't (in my mind) react to that.
The hit on Emmanuel Sanders was flagged and it wasn't even close to the head. It was a clear shoulder to shoulder hit. So, yes, the NFL should review these plays.
Meh. He's lining the guy up for a while and is clearly trying to decleat him. It's not like he's going for the ball and he's not trying to wrap his arms and make a tackle either.DrewDawg said:
Ok fair enough. If he had caught it clean and established himself as a runner, it's definitely legal.DrewDawg said:
E5 Yaz said:
ding ding ding
in the game thread, people were screaming that the hit shouldn't have been called.
Emotions were running high, and I didn't want to troll, but the first thing I thought of was the thread last year where people were very upset and wanted to enact extremely strict rules against knee hits - because of what happened to Gronk.
If I could have $1 for every poster who wanted stricter enforcement last year when Gronk was hit, but thought last night's enforcement was too strict when it cost the Pats a TD, I could probably take my wife out for steak at Peter Luger.
There are two things that you have to accept about football:
1. It's really fucking violent and guys are going to get maimed.
2. It moves very fast and it's difficult to enforce rules with exactitude.
Improving safety should always be a goal, but anything that requires hairsplitting is a non-starter. A "do not hit above here" line on the uniform? Really?
Absolutely. I'm in the BB camp: everything should be reviewable, but keep the challenge system as is. These are potentially game altering plays. Get them right if possible. Specific to head hits/targeting, I also think the rule works very well in CFB. I would also have no problem if the NFL increased the penalty to ejection, per the college rule. Under that system, I think the call on Browner would have almost certainly been over turned.
cornwalls@6 said:
I doubt it would have been overturned. The guy was bobbling the ball so by the rule you can't spring yourself into him, even with a shoulder, like Browner did. The problem here is Browner can't really stop and check if the guy bobbles the ball and still make the big hit, which would have been perfectly legal on a clean catch. If the rule is put in place for player safety though they're not going to care about that.
To clarify, I would favor adapting the college targeting rule in its entirety. Under that standard, I don't think that hit be would be grounds for a penalty, as Browner clearly made the effort to lead with his shoulder, and was not, in my view, targeting the head. But you may be very well be right, under the current NFL defenseless players standard, the call would be harder to overturn. Will be interesting to see if/how much Browner is fined.TheMoralBully said:
I don't know what the different rules are, but to me that's a hit that should be eliminated. Browner was coming in too high, defenseless receiver or not, and that is still way too common in the NFL today. In the NHL, that's probably a suspension.
cornwalls@6 said:
I think even in the college game intent only matters on the ejection part. There are three outcomes in the college game's review:
1. no flag
2. Flag and no ejection from the game
3. Flag and ejection ejection from the game
Intent matters on the ejection decision but only the outcome matters on the flag. Browner making the effort to use his shoulder would likely be enough to avoid the ejection from the game, but the outcome was that he still hit a guy who was (under the league definition) a defenseless receiver in the chin (which the league counts as the "neck area").
There is enough to quibble with about how the rule is written, but by the letter of the rule I do not think this would have been over turned even if the college rules were in place. Though if those were also the NFL rules, i would doubt Browner gets tossed from the game for that hit.
Fair enough. But what you are really talking about is proposing a new rule, or at least further revision of the existing rule. As it stands now, defenseless player is the key element in determining if a penalty is called. If the receiver had clear possession of the ball, and was making his football move to advance the ball, Browner would not, and should not, be flagged for the hit. I understand the player safety concerns, but flagging all hard contact north of the numbers would an enforcement shit-storm.behindthepen said:
It should be eliminated.behindthepen said:
There's a fundamental tension between high and low hits in the NFL that doesn't exist in hockey. DBs are trying to knock the ball out first and bring the guy down second. To knock the ball out you have to aim at the chest, and sometimes you end up near the neck area.
Almost all of the force of that hit was shoulder applied to chest. The receiver took two full steps juggling the ball before contact. Whether their helmets grazed a little is not relevant, nor is whether Browner was trying to "decleat" the receiver. It's obvious that Browner was trying to avoid the head when he hit him, for God's sake.