Golic on ESPNR-Caldwell hit not illegal - New England Patriots Forums

CTPatsFan · 10-02-2006, 08:55 AM

Mike Golic said that the hit on Reche shouldn't have been ruled illegal, it was a shoulder to helmet hit, the Cincy defender clearly turned himself away to make the hit.

Is it just my Pats colored glasses that lead me to clearly see an obvious helmet to helmet hit? I just haven't seen a clip of that hit that showed it to be anything but.

PatsFaninAZ · 10-02-2006, 08:58 AM

I wear pats colored glasses too, but my immediate reaction after a couple of replays was, "either that was a bad call or I don't understand the rule."

None of the replays were that good though -- even in HD it was hard to see.

Amnorix · 10-02-2006, 08:58 AM

I did NOT see helmet to helmet, and my first reaction was -- although a devastating hit -- why the foul?

On replay, it appeared to a blow aimed for the head, against a defenseless receiver, and usually they will call that as a penalty.

My only problem with that is -- the way Caldwell's body was positioned relative to the defender's, I'm not sure how the defender could have delivered a good blow on Caldwell without hitting him in the head.

Brownfan80 · 10-02-2006, 08:59 AM

I thought it was obviously a blow to the head. Helmet to helmet or not, you can't hit a defenseless reciever in the head.

Brownfan80 · 10-02-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

My only problem with that is -- the way Caldwell's body was positioned relative to the defender's, I'm not sure how the defender could have delivered a good blow on Caldwell without hitting him in the head.

A good point. But I guess it's like the horsecollar rule. Sometimes the only way a defender can get a guy down is to horsecollar him. But it's illegal. So there's the choice: miss the tackle or take the penalty. Same for this situation, I guess.

***mtbykr*** · 10-02-2006, 09:06 AM

When i first saw the hit i didn't think anything was wrong with it. I saw one replay andn still didn't see anything wrong with it. However last night on Sportscenter (ya ya i know, but i'm not local) they showed the hit and he def went helmet to helmet---it was only from this one angle, but it was pretty clear! However the ref didn't say helmet to helmet when he made the call, he said it was for a head shot on the receiver! None the less that didn't give the pats the game.

***PATSNUTme*** · 10-02-2006, 09:07 AM

At first look, I thought that it was a bad call.

But, after looking at the replays, he launched himself at Caldwell and there was a helmet to helmet hit as well as an arm to the head.

regardless if we like it or not, the ref has to call that- no option. If they let it go we could have another Stingley incident and no one wants that.

Amnorix · 10-02-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PATSNUTme

regardless if we like it or not, the ref has to call that- no option. If they let it go we could have another Stingley incident and no one wants that.

Yeah, exactly. Not much choice really -- if a receiver gets laid out like that you gotta call something, pretty much.

I'm thinking that defender gets a fine too, of like 5 grand or something. It's sort of automatic with those kinds of kill shots on defenseless receivers, seems like.

borg · 10-02-2006, 09:13 AM

Regardless if it was helmet to helmet or shoulder to helmet, I don't believe you can can tackle the head

dhamz · 10-02-2006, 09:14 AM

It was a penalty.

Now if you want to argue with the way the rules are enforced that is different.

BB has been vocal in the past about this exact rule - if a WR can leap to catch a ball but it is a penalty for the DB to leap and hit him, how do you defend it? Launching yourself into a WR in this manner is always going to be called a penalty - helmet to helmet or not.