Potential Amendola suspension?

Status
Not open for further replies.

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
11,955
Michigan
The volume of buzz calling for Amendola to be suspended for the (perfectly legal) block of Jamell Fleming during the second quarter punt return is getting louder.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/16/danny-amendola-commits-ugly-cheap-shot/

Nitwits are comparing the hit to Burfict targeting Antionio Brown.

If Goodell issues a suspension, Amendola says he will appeal.

Can the NFL suspend a player during the playoffs or would a suspension be enforced during next year's regular season?
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,167
Can you change the thread title to 'Potential Amendola suspension' or something? I clicked on this assuming it was breaking news, and my spleen starting running around the room outside of my body.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,676
How about a question mark for the thread title? Thought that he was actually suspended when I saw this thread.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
28,298
It wasn't a helmet-to-helmet hit, though the official on the field may have seen it that way. There was a legit reason for the block, not just cheap shot headhunting on a kick or interception return that the league is trying to discourage. But it's the NFL and the Pats, so who knows?
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
3,485
The article is imbecilic, and a product of the 24/7 nature of NFL-related media.
Burfict's hit:

Amendola's hit:

Amendola lowered his head to hit the defender on the right shoulder below his face prior to the defender touching the punt. Burfict used his shoulder to clock Brown near the forehead/side of head after he missed the catch. Amendola's hit may cause head trauma from the whiplash of the hit. Burfict's hit caused head trauma because he hit him where his frontal and temporal lobes are located.

EDIT: Both hits can be argued as dirty hits, but one is far dirtier than the other. There's not much cortex, if any, underneath where amendola hit the defender. There's a ton of cortex where Burfict hit Brown.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,408
Rhode Island
If someone sees a helmet to helmet hit they are looking for something that isn't there. He clearly put his shoulder right in his chest.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
26,830
Here
Amendola's hit was arguably legal and not even close to dirty. Amendola was trying to block a guy actively trying to down a punt, which is legal. He got maybe an inch too high, if that. He never even hit his head. Amendola has no history, Burfict is a perennial scumbag.

This can't really be a thing. Even if they do go full NFL, I have to think any suspension would be overturned. This would be an absolutely unprecedented penalty, and there would be a long history for the NFLPA to draw on.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
26,830
Here
If someone sees a helmet to helmet hit they are looking for something that isn't there. He clearly put his shoulder right in his chest.
I dunno, what I see is Amendola "CLEARLY PUTTING THE CROWN OF HIS HELMET IN FLEMING'S FACEMASK!!11"
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
A suspension would be a huge overreaction; a fine would be questionable. But this was a reasonably called foul... The preamble for Unnecessary Roughness states that, "There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but will not be limited to:".
The "not be limited to" is clearly meant to give the on-field adjudicators latitude to sweep in conduct which borders one or more of the explicitly delineated parameters that follow.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,120
What rule did he even break? He's allowed to block him. Blocking too hard?
You can't block back towards your own end zone.

People heard "personal foul" and think it's because he hit him too hard or something, and it's not the case. The penalty was for the direction of the block.
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
Isn't this hit closer to the Shazier hit.
The Shazier hit should have been flagged as a violation of the stand-alone: "ARTICLE 8. INITIATING CONTACT WITH THE CROWN OF THE HELMET. It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent..."

Amendola's hit was just quintessential, and general, Article 6 Unnecessary Roughness.
 

Carlos Cowart

Land of Enchantment
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2001
5,323
undacheese
To me it looks like he made a clear attempt to get his helmet out of the equation. No way that's a suspension unless conspiracy theorists are right about the league being out to get the Pats.
 

Just a bit outside

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
3,967
Monument, CO
The Shazier hit should have been flagged as a violation of the stand-alone: "ARTICLE 8. INITIATING CONTACT WITH THE CROWN OF THE HELMET. It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent..."

Amendola's hit was just quintessential, and general, Article 6 Unnecessary Roughness.
I think he deserved the flag but he shouldn't be suspended if they didn't do anything to Shazier.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
13,617
Maine
He did deserve it because the foul was blocking back towards his end zone not how he hit him.
What rule are you referring to? Never heard of a directional blocking rule...
The referee announced unnecessary roughness, not an illegal block. The directional block BS was straight out of Dan Fouts' mouth and I'm not sure I trust him to tell me what day it is, let alone an obscure (if it exists) NFL rule.
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
The announcement of "Unnecessary roughness" certainly implies it was the 'how' and not the 'which direction'.
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
The referee announced unnecessary roughness, not an illegal block. The directional block BS was straight out of Dan Fouts' mouth and I'm not sure I trust him to tell me what day it is, let alone an obscure (if it exists) NFL rule.
It doesn't exist.
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
10,960
The Paris of the 80s
No, and stop the paranoid nonsense please.
It's not paranoia when the NFL has a loud and stupid fan base, and the NFL is more than happy to appease their blood-lust when it comes to the Patriots. If you don't think the average NFL fan wants the Patriots hurt in any way possible, and willing to rationalize the basis for it no matter how ridiculous, you're delusional.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,120
What rule are you referring to? Never heard of a directional blocking rule...
Well, first of all I think they blew the call. But what they called is this:

ARTICLE 4. ILLEGAL “PEEL BACK” BLOCK

An offensive player cannot initiate contact on the side and below the waist against an opponent if:

  1. the blocker is moving toward his own end line; and

Because, Amedola hit the guy in the front, and there's this note:

Note: If the near shoulder of the blocker contacts the front of his opponent’s body, the “peel back” block is legal.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,120
It doesn't exist.
Yes it does, it's called an illegal peel-back and it's considered an "unnecessary roughness" penalty.

And the ref missed it, because what Amedola did was legal. But that rule is what he called.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,120
BB disagrees with you
He's disagreeing with what Amendola did fit that definition, and I agree with him. But the official threw the flag because of the direction of the block.

My *only* point is that there is a rule in the books, and it's called as unnecessary roughness. Whether it was correctly applied is another story--kind of like pass interference. It's called a lot when it doesn't happen. Just like this one.
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
Yes it does, it's called an illegal peel-back and it's considered an "unnecessary roughness" penalty.

And the ref missed it, because what Amedola did was legal. But that rule is what he called.
No, a peel-back block is considered a "personal foul", not "unnecessary roughness" (the latter is also a type of personal foul).
I heard the ref say "unnecessary roughness".
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,120
No, a peel-back block is considered a "personal foul", not "unnecessary roughness" (the latter is also a type of personal foul).
I heard the ref say "unnecessary roughness".
Okay, apparently Mike Carey referenced the block towards end zone. Mike Pereira on twitter said that the player attempting to down the ball is considered defenseless if he is trying to catch the kick.

So, there *is* a direction blocking, but it doesn't appear the ref actually said the correct words if that's what he meant to call.

Lesson: Don't listen to Mike Carey.
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
Again, I think the ref said "unnecessary roughness" because they judged it to be unnecessarily rough. Simple as that.
Yes, Mike Carey is almost never entirely correct.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
My sense was that the flag was thrown cause It looked bad. Then the ref said Unnecessary Roughness because, as noted above, that's kind of a catch all. Fouts said two different things that both were wrong. Carey came back after the break to explain about the peel back block rule toward their own end zone.

My sense is that it was the right call made for the wrong reason.

Carey also used words that made it sound like he actually got input directly from the refs which seemed inappropriate
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
It's not paranoia when the NFL has a loud and stupid fan base, and the NFL is more than happy to appease their blood-lust when it comes to the Patriots. If you don't think the average NFL fan wants the Patriots hurt in any way possible, and willing to rationalize the basis for it no matter how ridiculous, you're delusional.
I will give you 100 to 1 odds, to the Jimmy Fund, if he is suspended for Sunday's game. Name your amount.

Fined yes, suspended no.

If people want to worry about something, worry about the home cooking officiating we will see next week. Amendola is not getting suspended.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,790
In practice, if a guy isn't ejected from the game, the hit would have to be so egregiously bad as to be obviously dirty to be suspended.

Remember that to call for a guy's suspension on a non-ejection call is to be calling out the refs for fucking up. That's not happening in the playoffs.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
67,851
Oregon
The PFT back-bencher who wrote the piece that started this thread also called the refs out for not reviewing the spot on the Edelman reception of the deflected pass.

In other words, he was writing from a position of bias. And yet, this thread didn't die the quick death it deserved
 
Status
Not open for further replies.