Defense rewarded for helmet to helmet shots

[Armchair Quarterback]

The Blount fumble was caused be a HTH shot. The Steelers had a TD called back when LeVeon Bell's helmet went flying off because he was drilled in the head by a HTH shot by the Raven's Smith. In each play the outcome was decided by an illegal hit, yet the play stands and the defense is rewarded. Is the penalty part of the play non reviewable? Or is it just being overlooked?

 

[neuronet]

My understanding is if they are in the tackle box and have control of the ball, it is not a penalty to do HTH. See more recent posts in 'stupid football questions' thread pinned at top, jmt explained it to me. Therein, he wrote:

The new NFL rule prohibits runners (anyone carrying the ball, not just running backs) and defenders from lowering their heads and striking a forcible blow with the crown (top) of their helmets when they are outside the tackle box.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

My understanding is if they are in the tackle box and have control of the ball, it is not a penalty to do HTH. See more recent posts in 'stupid football questions' thread pinned at top, jmt explained it to me. Therein, he wrote:

Thanks, I'll check that out, that partly explains it but I doubt if Blount was in the tackle box and I'm not entirely sure if Bell was.

 

[Nikolai]

Unless I'm missing something, what the defense did on both plays was completely legal. Both were ball carriers at that point. That new NFL rule posted above denotes a penalty on the runner for lowering his head, not the defense.

Which is fine with me...at some point, you've got to let the guys on defense play.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Unless I'm missing something, what the defense did on both plays was completely legal. Both were ball carriers at that point. That new NFL rule posted above denotes a penalty on the runner for lowering his head, not the defense.

Which is fine with me...at some point, you've got to let the guys on defense play.

The first rule change prohibits a runner or tackler from initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet outside the tackle box,

NFL officiating video stresses new ?crown of the helmet? rule | ProFootballTalk

I love great defense, but I'm all for this rule; using your head as a weapon is dangerous not defense. The lack of enforcement is disappointing.

 

[Ring 6]

NFL officiating video stresses new ?crown of the helmet? rule | ProFootballTalk

I love great defense, but I'm all for this rule; using your head as a weapon is dangerous not defense. The lack of enforcement is disappointing.

Understand that this is initiating contact with the crown of the helmet. In other words spearing.
Contact that includes helmet to helmet contact that is not initiated with the crown of the helmet is still legal, unless on a QB or a defenseless receiver.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

Just another example of the refs calling any play the way they see fit.

 

[Gumby]

RBs are not considered defenseless; so I think the HTH rule gets an exception because it considers that both the D and the RB have the opportunity to move to avoid the HTH; so it therefore doesnt penalize either team. Unfortunately (from your perspective) that gives the D an advantage to whack a guy.

From my perspective, I think any defender who is out there looking to give a HTH shot on purpose; is going to have a short career.

So I prefer the non-call in that situation. we have enough times where the refs are making **** up as they go. After all, Bear-hugs are just a friendly expression of brotherly-love; not PI.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

The Blount fumble was caused be a HTH shot. The Steelers had a TD called back when LeVeon Bell's helmet went flying off because he was drilled in the head by a HTH shot by the Raven's Smith. In each play the outcome was decided by an illegal hit, yet the play stands and the defense is rewarded. Is the penalty part of the play non reviewable? Or is it just being overlooked?

Yeah, I felt the same way - what a joke that the refs were looking where to stop the play because a helmet flew off but were unable to assess a penalty for either one of the TWO shots to the head that Bell received.

Anyone paying attention (Collinsworth and Micheals swallowed their mikes when it came to spitting out the obvious that a penalty should have been called) had to watch the replay and say - "what difference does it make where the helmet came off? The dude was blasted in the head, and one of the hits was straight up leading w/ the crown of the helmet."

Give the coaches the right to challenge ANY play, call or penalty. Who cares about the refs and whether this will undermine them - it ain't about the refs!

 

[Joker]

well...it iS about the refs ...when the crew is headed by Goody's catspaw, Jerome Boger...

Super Bowl officials 2013: Referee, crew named for Sunday - Niners Nation

Earlier this week, the New York Times had an article in which a previous official claimed the best officials are not in fact working the best games. Former official Jim Daopoulos believes the league altered the grading of some officials, including referee Jerome Boger because they had a predetermined assignment in mind.

Ben Austro, founder of FootballZebras.com, provided some specific examples of why there seemed to be discrepancies. Apparently Boger had numerous "dings" for calls that were later overturned. I'm not really sure why the league would be overturning grades in these instances, but it certainly raises some question marks about the officials.

Last year's laughable "non-refereed" Super Bowl...this year's preposterous Jets/Pats game in NJ....follow Boger around the league and see how much you thiunk THIS mutt is on the up and up....it's all a joke now. Goody's little doggy listening to his master's voice...

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Yeah, I felt the same way - what a joke that the refs were looking where to stop the play because a helmet flew off but were unable to assess a penalty for either one of the TWO shots to the head that Bell received.

Anyone paying attention (Collinsworth and Micheals swallowed their mikes when it came to spitting out the obvious that a penalty should have been called) had to watch the replay and say - "what difference does it make where the helmet came off? The dude was blasted in the head, and one of the hits was straight up leading w/ the crown of the helmet."

Give the coaches the right to challenge ANY play, call or penalty. Who cares about the refs and whether this will undermine them - it ain't about the refs!

Yep, speared in the side of the head with the crown of the helmet as one of the two hits to the head.

 

[Froob]

As much as the ruling on the bell play sucked, you really can't have a runner without a helmet taking shots from guys with helmets. Just far too dangerous of a play. I agree with the ruling. Head injuries are too severe with helmets let alone without one.

 

[fourhour]

it ain't about the refs!

Somebody needs to remind the NFL of this!

 

[Ivan]

The Blount fumble was caused be a HTH shot. The Steelers had a TD called back when LeVeon Bell's helmet went flying off because he was drilled in the head by a HTH shot by the Raven's Smith. In each play the outcome was decided by an illegal hit, yet the play stands and the defense is rewarded. Is the penalty part of the play non reviewable? Or is it just being overlooked?

Just taking the Bell example I think that they followed the rule but that the rule is really flawed.. I understand the basis for it in that they do not want players to keep going when their helmet is off, however in the case of Bell he was already in his final motion when the helmet was knocked off by an illegal hit to the head, so his natural forward progress should have been awarded as what amounts to "play on," instead of taking away the TD. Players should not be allowed to continue to advance the ball but their forward progress should count. They can't keep running but they should get credit for where they land, it shouldn't be moved back to where they were in mid air.

 

[NSPF]

well...it iS about the refs ...when the crew is headed by Goody's catspaw, Jerome Boger...

Super Bowl officials 2013: Referee, crew named for Sunday - Niners Nation

Earlier this week, the New York Times had an article in which a previous official claimed the best officials are not in fact working the best games. Former official Jim Daopoulos believes the league altered the grading of some officials, including referee Jerome Boger because they had a predetermined assignment in mind.

Ben Austro, founder of FootballZebras.com, provided some specific examples of why there seemed to be discrepancies. Apparently Boger had numerous "dings" for calls that were later overturned. I'm not really sure why the league would be overturning grades in these instances, but it certainly raises some question marks about the officials.

Last year's laughable "non-refereed" Super Bowl...this year's preposterous Jets/Pats game in NJ....follow Boger around the league and see how much you thiunk THIS mutt is on the up and up....it's all a joke now. Goody's little doggy listening to his master's voice...

I really do think Boger is in SOMEBODY'S pocket. Too many horrible calls, especially at the end of the game, for it to be coincidence. And if he's not in Roger's pocket, I don't understand how he still has a job.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Not an official response but I'm not sure I buy this reasoning, Smith torpedoed him but didn't line him up? What exactly constitutes "line up"? All the ticky tack penalties that get called in the name of safety and this one's OK? Seems inconsistent.

Smith's hit on Bell wasn't a violation of new helmet rule | ProFootballTalk

"Per a league source with knowledge of the manner in which rules are interpreted and applied, Smith’s hit did not violate the new “crown of the helmet” rule. While the hit occurred outside the tackle box and with the top of Smith’s helmet, he didn’t “line up” Bell.

As the source explained it, the rule is intended to prevent players from taking a direct line at an opponent to deliver a battering-ram blow with the crown. Here, Smith didn’t."

 

[neuronet]

Just taking the Bell example I think that they followed the rule but that the rule is really flawed.. I understand the basis for it in that they do not want players to keep going when their helmet is off, however in the case of Bell he was already in his final motion when the helmet was knocked off by an illegal hit to the head, so his natural forward progress should have been awarded as what amounts to "play on," instead of taking away the TD. Players should not be allowed to continue to advance the ball but their forward progress should count. They can't keep running but they should get credit for where they land, it shouldn't be moved back to where they were in mid air.

Good point in theory, but in practice, not so much. We do not want defensive players trying to impede the "natural" progress of a guy without a helmet. Recipe for disaster....

Take home lesson: check your helmet fit so this doesn't happen again.

 

[neuronet]

Wasn't he inside the tackle box, or by definition is the tackle box behind the LOS? E.g., once you move past the LOS, are you outside the tackle box?

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Good point in theory, but in practice, not so much. We do not want defensive players trying to impede the "natural" progress of a guy without a helmet. Recipe for disaster....

Take home lesson: check your helmet fit so this doesn't happen again.

He had his chinstrap on, the bracket to hold the facemask on was broken by the hit from Smith.

 

[Ring 6]

Wasn't he inside the tackle box, or by definition is the tackle box behind the LOS? E.g., once you move past the LOS, are you outside the tackle box?

No tackle box extends beyond los. Essentially it is used to define 'in traffic' as opposed to 'in space'.