Amendola's Hit on Fleming

bbobbo said:

here's the amendola hit on fleming.

angle 1:

angle 2:

angle 3:

Click to expand...

Someone please explain what is illegal about that.

AndyJohnson said:

Someone please explain what is illegal about that.

Click to expand...

Copyright infringement.

SLGDEV said:

Thanks for putting up that video. I take back what I said about not dragging him down. He did. While he may have left the ground while still in-bounds, he made first contact while the runner was well out of bounds, hung on, and dragged him to the ground. It is clear to me now why I thought at the time, and still do, that it should have been called a penalty. As for changing direction, no, he couldn't. However, he could easily have (a) not grabbed him or (b) let go.

Click to expand...

first contact: both players well inbounds.

bbobbo said:

first contact: both players well inbounds.

Click to expand...

Some people think that playing football is now about stopping and making a decision about whether your action could possibly injure an opponent rather than tackling the guy with the football.

bbobbo said:

first contact: both players well inbounds.

Click to expand...

It was clearly a legal play.

bbobbo said:

here's the amendola hit on fleming.

angle 1:

angle 2:

angle 3:

Click to expand...

After watching these videos, I've come to the conclusion that Amendola was incorrectly penalized for a foul. Here's the video that is mentioned as precedence: Media Officiating Videos | NFL Football Operations

Dummy Blandino mentions 2 elements to consider:

1. Blocker moving parallel or towards the goal line.
   
2. Forcible contact to head or neck area.

Point 1 is how the defenseless player is defined which makes it a foul. Except for point 1, dummy is missing a huge part which is that the defenseless player is approached from behind or the side:

The only way I can see him being guilty is with a very loose definition of approaching from the side. The two players are basically approaching each other from the front.

Do i think it was a penalty? Yes (he led with his helmet).

Do I think it was a great play? Yes, 100%

SLGDEV said:

Thanks for putting up that video. I take back what I said about not dragging him down. He did. While he may have left the ground while still in-bounds, he made first contact while the runner was well out of bounds, hung on, and dragged him to the ground. It is clear to me now why I thought at the time, and still do, that it should have been called a penalty. As for changing direction, no, he couldn't. However, he could easily have (a) not grabbed him or (b) let go.

Click to expand...

he actually doesn't hang on. look at this sequence:



9 frames, or 0.333 0.300 seconds later, he pulls his right hand away from smith's waist, before smith is even completely down:



edit: fixed frame-rate calculation (9 / 29.97 fps)

The tackle clearly started in-bounds, Dante then clearly released Smith after going OOB.

Not even remotely close to a penalty
Not even remotely close to being dirty
Not even remotely close to deserving to be discussed as a questionable call

Fouts (or was it Eagle?) was clearly wrong in suggesting that a penalty was deserved. Understandable, since the game was not going "their way"

I'm saving those GIF's! I loved that legal hit by Amendola!

bbobbo said:

first contact: both players well inbounds.

Click to expand...

And let's face facts - if Hightower didn't make this contact with Smith, he would have gotten a lot more yards. Smith does not run out of bounds like most quarterbacks being pursued by an LB. He runs for as many yards as he can. If Hightower didn't hit Smith here and drive him out of bounds, he would've had another 10 yards easy.

Packer fans now calling for DA's suspension. Unbelievable. Heard it on a national radio show this AM. I've really had enough.

denverpatsfan said:

Packer fans now calling for DA's suspension. Unbelievable. Heard it on a national radio show this AM. I've really had enough.

Click to expand...

Packer fans? Why?

Belichick's still defending the hit, FWIW.

denverpatsfan said:

Packer fans now calling for DA's suspension. Unbelievable. Heard it on a national radio show this AM. I've really had enough.

Click to expand...

Fans of the Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys, and Packers simply don't want the Patriots winning more Championships, just as Montana, Rice, and Aikman didn't want Brady winning any more rings. It makes them insecure, so they will grasp at anything in the hopes it will keep the Patriots from winning more Championships.

SalemPats said:

Do i think it was a penalty? Yes (he led with his helmet).

Do I think it was a great play? Yes, 100%

Click to expand...

He led with his shoulder

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

The tackle clearly started in-bounds, Dante then clearly released Smith after going OOB.

Not even remotely close to a penalty
Not even remotely close to being dirty
Not even remotely close to deserving to be discussed as a questionable call

Fouts (or was it Eagle?) was clearly wrong in suggesting that a penalty was deserved. Understandable, since the game was not going "their way"

Click to expand...

It was Fouts. He loses it just about anytime a quarterback is hit. It's probably just a form of PTSD from playing the position back in the day when it was legal to hit a quarterback within a few seconds of having thrown the ball.

AndyJohnson said:

He led with his shoulder

Click to expand...

That's fine, but the first point of contact was his helmet.

I think it was a great move in the 5 yard line to try and lay out the guy, i'm not arguing the call.

SalemPats said:

That's fine, but the first point of contact was his helmet.

I think it was a great move in the 5 yard line to try and lay out the guy, i'm not arguing the call.

Click to expand...

No it was not. The helmet was to the side. If you are saying his head reached point A before his shoulder, well duh. That IS NOT leading with your head, and what he did is not by any means a penalty, with the possible exception of a poor interpretation of the crackback rule.
The hit itself was 100% legal, and its not even arguable.

AndyJohnson said:

No it was not. The helmet was to the side. If you are saying his head reached point A before his shoulder, well duh. That IS NOT leading with your head, and what he did is not by any means a penalty, with the possible exception of a poor interpretation of the crackback rule.
The hit itself was 100% legal, and its not even arguable.

Click to expand...

I loved the hit, but if your first point of contact is your own helmet than it's a penalty.

But honestly, it was a great aggressive penalty.