PDA

View Full Version : Helmet to helmet penalty


BattleRedToro
08-21-2011, 12:22 PM
I believe it was Glover Quin that was called for the penalty. The replays I saw seemed to show the hit to be a legal shoulder tackle. Did anyone see any other replays that showed it was an actual helmet to helmet hit?

Texas T
08-21-2011, 12:24 PM
I believe it was Glover Quin that was called for the penalty. The replays I saw seemed to show the hit to be a legal shoulder tackle. Did anyone see any other replays that showed it was an actual helmet to helmet hit?

All the replays I saw showed that he leveled his shoulder into the Back. It was a bad call.

The Pencil Neck
08-21-2011, 12:25 PM
I believe it was Glover Quin that was called for the penalty. The replays I saw seemed to show the hit to be a legal shoulder tackle. Did anyone see any other replays that showed it was an actual helmet to helmet hit?

Periera (sp) the ex head of referees said that the call was good because Glover hit the guy's head with his shoulder pad. To me, it looked like a bogus call and the hit looked good. Even the Solomon Wilcots calling the game on the Saints broadcast said it was a bad call.

I really, really hate the new rules about when you can and cannot hit a receiver. I've already seen some refs calling things differently.

Jackie Chiles
08-21-2011, 12:25 PM
NFL is going to fine the ref that blew this call $20K.

Corrosion
08-21-2011, 12:29 PM
NFL is going to fine the ref that blew this call $20K.

They should , it was a legal hit. He hit with the shoulder pad .... nice play by Quin. I like him at S , really looking forward to seeing the Texans secondary with J Jo back there next week against the 49ers.

BattleRedToro
08-21-2011, 12:39 PM
Periera (sp) the ex head of referees said that the call was good because Glover hit the guy's head with his shoulder pad. To me, it looked like a bogus call and the hit looked good. Even the Solomon Wilcots calling the game on the Saints broadcast said it was a bad call.

I really, really hate the new rules about when you can and cannot hit a receiver. I've already seen some refs calling things differently.

His name is spelled Pereira, if you wanted to know. I don't know how he pronounces it, but in Spanish it is pronounced like this: pay-ray-e-rah. Knowing that might help you to remember the spelling.

Rey
08-21-2011, 12:41 PM
The receiver lowered his head like a battering ram. Very dumb in his part. He could have been seriously injured.

CloakNNNdagger
08-21-2011, 01:06 PM
The new rule:

Defenseless players cannot be hit in the head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm or shoulder, and the definition of such players now includes those throwing a pass; attempting or completing a catch without having time to ward off or avoid contact; a runner whose forward progress has been stopped by a tackler; kickoff or punt returners while the ball is in the air; kickers or punters during a kick or a return; a quarterback during a change of possession; a player who receives a blindside block from a blocker moving toward his own end zone.

When this first was announced, I said their would be too much open for interpretation by the zebras........this is a fine example. And, even if his shoulder ticked the helmet, as Rey pointed out, the receiver definitely lowered his head into Quinn. The rules as written don't allow for taking into account such manipulation of the protective rules. Too much open for interpretation.........misinterpretation.

Marcus
08-21-2011, 01:10 PM
NFL is going to fine the ref that blew this call $20K.

I don't know where you get that from, but just for the sake of argument, who cares. The damage from the bad call is already done. What if it's a real game, and not a preseason game, and that happens.

If you are going to have these kinds of penalties, then they should fall under the instant replay rules, and verified that helmet to helmet contact had actually taken place. As a matter of fact, all helmet to helmet penalties should all automatically be reviewed. This is definitely an area where instant replay wouldn't have any "inconclusive" issues.

Lucky
08-21-2011, 01:30 PM
The receiver lowered his head like a battering ram. Very dumb in his part.
But, instinctive. It's only natural to lower your center of gravity before a collision. It was a bang-bang play in which clearly Quin had no intention of fouling Sproles. The NFL can't legislate this play from occurring. They can only penalize and fine it. This game is too fast for the officials to determine intent, so the NFL decides to fine everything and let God (I mean Goodell) sort it out.

Jackie Chiles
08-21-2011, 01:33 PM
I don't know where you get that from, but just for the sake of argument, who cares. The damage from the bad call is already done. What if it's a real game, and not a preseason game, and that happens.

Lol, it was a joke in reference to all the 20K fines players get for helmet to helmet, lighten up dude.

prostock101
08-21-2011, 01:49 PM
So basically, all a receiver needs to do is drop his head into an oncoming DB and presto, 15 yard penalty.

The Pencil Neck
08-21-2011, 03:08 PM
So basically, all a receiver needs to do is drop his head into an oncoming DB and presto, 15 yard penalty.

According to the rules (and I posted a thread a week or so ago to a video from the NFL that explained the rules changes), if you HIT the guy while he's in the process of catching the ball, they can pretty much throw the flag for hitting a defenseless receiver.

It's insane.

Rey
08-21-2011, 03:50 PM
But, instinctive. It's only natural to lower your center of gravity before a collision. It was a bang-bang play in which clearly Quin had no intention of fouling Sproles. The NFL can't legislate this play from occurring. They can only penalize and fine it. This game is too fast for the officials to determine intent, so the NFL decides to fine everything and let God (I mean Goodell) sort it out.

I agree.

And the funny thing about it is that i saw a similar play from another game and no flag was thrown.

Biggest difference between the two plays is what the receiver did. one ducked his head and the other wasn't expecting the hit so he was more straight up and down.

Looks like offensive players can lower their heads but defensive guys can't. Vonta lowered his head and ran through Siler and I can't help but think that if the roles were reversed a flag would have been thrown.

Lucky
08-22-2011, 01:02 AM
Here's a hit by Broncos rookie safety Rahim Moore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A3-LfFzHxM) on Bills WR Donald Jones that drew the defenseless receiver flag. In this instance, I think the refs got it right. Moore was leading with his helmet and aiming high, for Jones' head. I could tell on the replay, but watching live it was difficult to say. That's why this will be such a tough rule to get right.

ObsiWan
08-22-2011, 04:00 AM
According to the rules (and I posted a thread a week or so ago to a video from the NFL that explained the rules changes), if you HIT the guy while he's in the process of catching the ball, they can pretty much throw the flag for hitting a defenseless receiver.

It's insane.
Agreed. With these new rules, DBs no longer have the option to bust up a completion with a perfectly timed hit.

I think it's time the NFL put little tutus on the WRs just like the ones they've given the QBs.

beerlover
08-22-2011, 07:29 AM
Quin looked like a strong safety that's the good news. Bad news is playing a new position where this type of hit use to be legal/common he must evolve with new rules too.

Blake
08-22-2011, 07:33 AM
This call was BS. I was screaming at the ref's from my couch. WR's are being coddled and the rules bent to allow it. I hate it. If a defender hits a WR to try and separate him from the ball during a catch, it could possibly be flagged as hitting a defenseless receiver according to the ref Saturday night.

TimeKiller
08-22-2011, 08:12 AM
Yeah, we boo-ed the call pretty loudly. I couldn't even hear Hack-uli's explanation. GQ didn't lead with his helmet and wasn't aiming high. He gave his man time to catch and turn and that. was. it. Didn't launch himself, had no intention and DIDN'T cause injury. Frankly, he could've knocked Sproles onto IR and he didn't.

Blake
08-22-2011, 08:38 AM
Yeah, we boo-ed the call pretty loudly. I couldn't even hear Hack-uli's explanation. GQ didn't lead with his helmet and wasn't aiming high. He gave his man time to catch and turn and that. was. it. Didn't launch himself, had no intention and DIDN'T cause injury. Frankly, he could've knocked Sproles onto IR and he didn't.

They say low man wins, but the NFL wants the hitter to keep his head straight up while being low man? Sounds like a good way to get your own head knocked off.

dinkatoid
08-22-2011, 09:25 AM
The receiver lowered his head like a battering ram. Very dumb in his part. He could have been seriously injured.

I watched the replay on this, and it is a weird situation to me. Normally, I agree with you, if he lowers his head, its his own fault, legal hit.

However, Sproles did not lower his head for the hit, he actually dropped the ball, and it seems like he looks down to locate the ball so he doesn't completely drop it. I think this is why the call was made, as he was "defenseless" and still trying to locate the ball. At least according to the rules, I can see why the call was made.

however, this does not mean I agree with the rule. I think once the receiver has a hand on the ball, as long as they do not spear him or go right for the face, its all fair game trying to separate the receiver from the ball. Sproles had a hand on it, turned a bit before it slipped. At this point I do not believe they should care why he lowered his head, it should be a legal hit.

I wonder if this also creates an unfair advantage for short people. If a shorter guy lowers his head, you would have to go to his knees to avoid the helmet to helmet penalty. I am just waiting for someone to put in a 3 foot tall guy on third down so he can lower his head and get a free 15 yards. Like the baseball team that put in a 3'6" guy to get the easy walk. :clown:

badboy
08-22-2011, 12:21 PM
So basically, all a receiver needs to do is drop his head into an oncoming DB and presto, 15 yard penalty.Yep and possibly a career ending injury. This WR instinctively lowered his head. Doubt any will do that to draw a penalty. I am okay with tightening up dangerous tackles. Quin could have aimed lower.

eriadoc
08-22-2011, 12:27 PM
In the game vs. the Jets, the defender put his helmet right into Derrick Ward's earhole and knocked him out. No penalty was called. I don't think the defender did so deliberately, but Quin's hit was less egregious, IMO.

Rey
08-22-2011, 12:30 PM
Yep and possibly a career ending injury. This WR instinctively lowered his head. Doubt any will do that to draw a penalty. I am okay with tightening up dangerous tackles. Quin could have aimed lower.

Lower on darren sproles?

Not only is he shifty, but he's short and strong. I think you're asking too much of a defender to pick and aim for exact spots on ball carriers. Certain guys you're just happy to take down anyway you can.

Plus, most players I've heard talk about it say they'd rather be bit up top on a bang bang play because that much torque on their lower extremities can quickly end their career.

gary
08-22-2011, 12:35 PM
Is it the refs or the rules? I'll take the latter I understand the no leading with the helmet but the rest is ridiculous.

TimeKiller
08-22-2011, 12:45 PM
They say low man wins, but the NFL wants the hitter to keep his head straight up while being low man? Sounds like a good way to get your own head knocked off.

I don't see how you maintain proper tackling technique trying to lead with your.....stomach?


It's very, very obvious that Quin was just making the play (maybe with a LITTLE extra stank on it) and had no intention of "blowing up" the receiver or making any ESPN highlights. And yet? It's a foul because something touched the man's helmet. This, to me, is just another foul-that-can-be-called-every-single-play and it will just get used to shape games/situations/outcomes...

Like a 3 seconds call in the NBA.