Another HUGE ref blunder: punter suffers broken jaw, may have broken neck

Ring 6 · Dec 17, 2013

groganbootleg said:
Fact: The Steelers player's helmet hit the chin of the Bengals punter.

OPINION: You look at that and think it did. I look at that and think it didnt.
You are confusing facts and opinion.

You claim it didn't happen and his broken jaw is the result of some freak accident when he hit the ground (which would make it the first documented case ever of someone's jaw breaking when the back of his head hit the ground). The case you are making is absurd and if I didn't know better I would accuse you of trolling this thread.

Please show where I said that.
I said I do not see that in the clip.
I was asked how did he break his jaw, and I said I do not know I am not a doctor, I am a guy describing what I see in a clip, perhaps it happened when he hit the ground, because I can't see that impact.
Note I didn't say the back of his head hit the ground because in the clip he is turning as he falls.

I am not making any case. I am describimg what I see but it appears that you and others feel threatened by that.
I'm not sure why this became more than I see something and you see something else.

If you are posting competitively go ahead and claim a victory if that makes you happy.

Ring 6 · Dec 17, 2013

Tunescribe said:
You can lead with the crown of the helmet on a high hit. This happens all the time.

That isn't the point.
The point was he put his head down to deliver a high blow. If he were head hunting he wouldhave kept his head up and aimed at the head not the shoulder/neck/jaw area.

Observer · Dec 17, 2013

AndyJohnson said:
Why would he put his head DOWN to make a high hit?

You put your head down for a high hit so that you hit them with the top of your head instead of your face. Does anyone ever make a helmet hit while keeping the head up? The fact that the head is down should tell you everything about what he was trying to do there.
You know, they are promoting "heads up football" and all that for a reason… but what do I know?

But why am I even beating this dead horse… too much time on my hands I guess.

Ring 6 · Dec 17, 2013

Observer said:
You put your head down for a high hit so that you hit them with the top of your head instead of your face. Does anyone ever make a helmet hit while keeping the head up? The fact that the head is down should tell you everything about what he was trying to do there.
You know, they are promoting "heads up football" and all that for a reason… but what do I know?

But why am I even beating this dead horse… too much time on my hands I guess.

Proper form is to move your head to the side and deliver the blow with your shoulder pad.
To deliver a blow with your shoulder pads your head must go down, its impossible to do so otherwise.
57 delivered a blow with the top of shoulder pads, do you dispute that?

groganbootleg · Dec 17, 2013

AndyJohnson said:
OPINION: You look at that and think it did. I look at that and think it didnt.
You are confusing facts and opinion.

Please show where I said that.
I said I do not see that in the clip.
I was asked how did he break his jaw, and I said I do not know I am not a doctor, I am a guy describing what I see in a clip, perhaps it happened when he hit the ground, because I can't see that impact.
Note I didn't say the back of his head hit the ground because in the clip he is turning as he falls.

I am not making any case. I am describimg what I see but it appears that you and others feel threatened by that.
I'm not sure why this became more than I see something and you see something else.

If you are posting competitively go ahead and claim a victory if that makes you happy.

Comical......
How you can look at a video and still pic of the guy's helmet hitting someone under his chin and claim you can't see it is beyond me (and pretty much everyone else here).

When you see THIS pic can you not see the helmet hitting the chin? DOn't look at the shoulder pads, look at the crown of the helmet and chin of the punter. They are meeting in this pic.

AndyJohnson said:
The jaw could have been broken when he hit the ground. I don't know for sure that the force of the hit could not have cause it either even if it was direct.

your words, not mine....... if jaws break when you hit the back of your head then it would happen in nearly every car accident.

Ring 6 · Dec 17, 2013

groganbootleg said:
Comical......
How you can look at a video and still pic of the guy's helmet hitting someone under his chin and claim you can't see it is beyond me (and pretty much everyone else here).

your words, not mine....... if jaws break when you hit the back of your head then it would happen in nearly every car accident.

OK pal. You now have stopped even reading my posts and susbstituting what you want, so lets just move on.

There is no reason for you to get so worked up.
If you are confident in what you see, why would you care what I see.
This entire thread has been derailed by this.
Its really a shame.

Once again, I see a clean hit (that will be fined because there was an injury). I don't see contact with the jaw, but if there is (it certainly is close and not certain either way) it was incidental to throwing a block with his shoulder.

You have every right to disagree with that. But I have stated the same thing over and over and not changed it so I don't know why you insist on continuing this.

groganbootleg · Dec 17, 2013

So just to be clear, on the pic above you don't the helmet making contact with the head of the punter?

and ummm, I read your post. You said, "show me where I said that" which is what I did. No substitution was made.

AndyJohnson said:
OK pal. You now have stopped even reading my posts and susbstituting what you want, so lets just move on.

There is no reason for you to get so worked up.
If you are confident in what you see, why would you care what I see.
This entire thread has been derailed by this.
Its really a shame.

Once again, I see a clean hit (that will be fined because there was an injury). I don't see contact with the jaw, but if there is (it certainly is close and not certain either way) it was incidental to throwing a block with his shoulder.

You have every right to disagree with that. But I have stated the same thing over and over and not changed it so I don't know why you insist on continuing this.

ThatllMoveTheChains!!! · Dec 17, 2013

AndyJohnson said:
My point is if the helmet contacted the jaw, that was incidental to the block with the shoulder.
I don't see how you can look at that and see anything other than an attempt to make a block. If you see helmet to jaw contact, you can't really think that was the aim from looking at the play as a whole.

Yep, and if my car consumes gasoline it's incidental to it running on unicorn farts and leprechaun tears.

Just because you want something to be true and others are unable to prove it false doesn't make it a fact. Likewise wanting something to be false despite it being proven true doesn't make it in doubt. The helmet made contact with the jaw and that contact was far more than incidental. We have no clue what the player's intent was no matter how sure you are.

RelocatedPatFan · Dec 17, 2013

AndyJohnson said:
Whether the helmet made contact or not, he surely didn't 'lead with the helmet'. His intent is obviously to block with his shoulder.

So now he's a turtle and can pull his head into his shell?

Sorry, just having some fun, i think (we long ago) reached that agree to disagree point. I understand that it goes that way with hearing that if you at first didn't hear something correctly you tend to keep hearing the same thing, but sight...guess it goes there too (and that can work both ways for my case or yours)

PatsFaninAZ · Dec 17, 2013

I don't really give a crap about either team, or the hit, or anything else. What's most interesting to me about this thread are:

1) That punters and kickers are defenseless players for the whole play. It's interesting. Did not know that.

2) The internet phenomenon where cognitive dissonance is so strong that sometimes posters cannot seemingly even entertain the idea that perhaps they are wrong.

The second one is far more interesting. I mean, not to pick on a guy that's getting pretty good and picked on already, but I consider myself reasonably objective, with no horse in this race. Sometimes the silly locked in debates we get into on this board are things over which reasonable people can disagree, and you see some posters lock in to their side of the debate seemingly unreasonably, but whatever. But I've just never seen a "debate" as one sided as this -- to paraphrase the Untouchables, one guy is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The point in the thread where people started saying, "well, not only do we not see what you say you see, but the guy's jaw got busted" I thought was checkmate. But, nope.

Internet messageboarding -- if one wants to take it seriously and have it be a place where ideas are truly exchanged -- at some point depends on credibility. Posters -- all of us -- really need to have the capacity to say, "maybe I was wrong," or we do each other no good, IMHO.

Ring 6 · Dec 17, 2013

ThatllMoveTheChains!!! said:
Yep, and if my car consumes gasoline it's incidental to it running on unicorn farts and leprechaun tears.

Just because you want something to be true and others are unable to prove it false doesn't make it a fact. Likewise wanting something to be false despite it being proven true doesn't make it in doubt. The helmet made contact with the jaw and that contact was far more than incidental. We have no clue what the player's intent was no matter how sure you are.

Not sure where you are coming from here.
I only mentioned intent in response to someone else bringing it up.

I don't 'want' anything 'to be true'.
To me it is perfectly clear that the player was trying to throw a block with his shoulder.
You seem to think his goal was to come in just high enough the the top of his helmet hit the jaw, in order to injure a punter, rather than throw a block.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and there is certainly no reason to get angry about it.
I have never said anywhere in this thread that anyone is crazy, has an agenda, or even is wrong, I have simply discussed my opinion of what I see.
Some people appear threatened that there is an opinion that a player was injured and it was not intentional.
If you see something different than I do, I'm not sure I understand why you have to keep repeating yourself or why it is so important that you want me to see what you think you do.
Bizarre thread to say the least.

Ring 6 · Dec 17, 2013

PatsFaninAZ said:
I don't really give a crap about either team, or the hit, or anything else. What's most interesting to me about this thread are:

1) That punters and kickers are defenseless players for the whole play. It's interesting. Did not know that.

2) The internet phenomenon where cognitive dissonance is so strong that sometimes posters cannot seemingly even entertain the idea that perhaps they are wrong.

The second one is far more interesting. I mean, not to pick on a guy that's getting pretty good and picked on already, but I consider myself reasonably objective, with no horse in this race. Sometimes the silly locked in debates we get into on this board are things over which reasonable people can disagree, and you see some posters lock in to their side of the debate seemingly unreasonably, but whatever. But I've just never seen a "debate" as one sided as this -- to paraphrase the Untouchables, one guy is bringing a knife to a gun fight. The point in the thread where people started saying, "well, not only do we not see what you say you see, but the guy's jaw got busted" I thought was checkmate. But, nope.

Internet messageboarding -- if one wants to take it seriously and have it be a place where ideas are truly exchanged -- at some point depends on credibility. Posters -- all of us -- really need to have the capacity to say, "maybe I was wrong," or we do each other no good, IMHO.

Well, if you are referring to me, I am not stuck on any position, or debating anything.
I described my opinion of what I saw. Some people appeared obsessed with it. I can't help that.

Ring 6 · Dec 17, 2013

groganbootleg said:
So just to be clear, on the pic above you don't the helmet making contact with the head of the punter?

and ummm, I read your post. You said, "show me where I said that" which is what I did. No substitution was made.

Of course you ignored 'could' and you added by the back of his head hitting the ground. So yes, some of the words you said are what I said but not all and certainly your version and mine are not close to the same.

Tunescribe · Dec 17, 2013

This discussion once again confirms that reality is in the eye of the beholder. Andy and other "naysayers": are you willing to accept the league's ruling (fine or no fine/referee discipline or none) as ultimate authority on this matter? I am.

Sciz · Dec 17, 2013

Whether there's helmet to helmet contact is irrelevant. Helmet to neck area still should have been a penalty and will be a fine.

ausbacker · Dec 17, 2013

PatsWickedPissah said:
Not calling PI in the EZ against the Ravens last night was a 4 Pt swing that affected the outcome of the game. The NFL with it's "rule explicitly says X vs we call !X half the time" is making the NFL like the NBA. I gave up watching the NBA.

It's funny PatsWickedPissah as I had this very thought the other day. The NFL is becoming (well, become) the NBA regarding officiating.

BradyFTW! · Dec 17, 2013

PatsWickedPissah said:
Not calling PI in the EZ against the Ravens last night was a 4 Pt swing that affected the outcome of the game. The NFL with it's "rule explicitly says X vs we call !X half the time" is making the NFL like the NBA. I gave up watching the NBA.

This is absolutely the issue. I don't trust referees to be given discretion on when to call and when not to call penalties. If a given penalty is committed on every play, then rewrite the rule so that's no longer the case, or flag it until it's no longer the case. Or both.

If the end result is that it takes more to get penalized, then so be it. As long as flags are consistently thrown when penalties are committed.

Bhelmet · Dec 17, 2013

Nothing the refs call/miss surprises me anymore. I hope the league addresses it and all the rule change implications (knees) because they are quickly destroying their product and losing credibility all at the same time.

Patsfanin Philly · Dec 17, 2013

Tunescribe said:
You can lead with the crown of the helmet on a high hit. This happens all the time.

Seems like the head of NFL refereeing ( not that he knows anything about it) might disagree with you. From PFT and Florio,as well as ESPN (link below)

>>>>
Mike Florio explained earlier on Tuesday that Steelers linebacker Terence Garvin should have been penalized for the helmet-to-helmet block that ended Bengals punter Kevin Huber’s season even though Huber was trying to make a tackle on the play.
Now NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino has confirmed it. During an appearance on NFL Network on Tuesday, Blandino said that Huber was considered a defenseless player on the play under the league’s rules and that the NFL wants to “flag hits like that” with 15-yard personal fouls.
“Huber, he’s a punter. And the key is he’s defenseless throughout the down,” Blandino said. “So even though he’s pursing the play, he still gets defenseless-player protection. You can’t hit him in the head or neck, and you can’t use the crown or forehead parts of the helmet to the body.”<<<<

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10155375/dean-blandino-head-nfl-officials-says-hit-kevin-huber-was-illegal

Tunescribe · Dec 17, 2013

Patsfanin Philly said:
Seems like the head of NFL refereeing ( not that he knows anything about it) might disagree with you. From PFT and Florio,as well as ESPN (link below)

>>>>
Mike Florio explained earlier on Tuesday that Steelers linebacker Terence Garvin should have been penalized for the helmet-to-helmet block that ended Bengals punter Kevin Huber’s season even though Huber was trying to make a tackle on the play.
Now NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino has confirmed it. During an appearance on NFL Network on Tuesday, Blandino said that Huber was considered a defenseless player on the play under the league’s rules and that the NFL wants to “flag hits like that” with 15-yard personal fouls.
“Huber, he’s a punter. And the key is he’s defenseless throughout the down,” Blandino said. “So even though he’s pursing the play, he still gets defenseless-player protection. You can’t hit him in the head or neck, and you can’t use the crown or forehead parts of the helmet to the body.”<<<<

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10155375/dean-blandino-head-nfl-officials-says-hit-kevin-huber-was-illegal

You misinterpreted my post out of context: I was responding specifically to Andy, who asked how could the hit be high of he lowered his head. I told him it is possible to lower your head and still hit high, because players lower their head to lead with the crown on high hits all the time (which is illegal). It is neither justified nor is it legal, which is the point I was trying to make. The way I worded it probably seemed misleading taken on its own.

Another HUGE ref blunder: punter suffers broken jaw, may have broken neck

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Practice Squad Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Practice Squad Player

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

TB12

Goodell sucks

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads