Amendola's Hit on Fleming

SalemPats said:

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.

Click to expand...

It was not a penalty, he did not hit with his head. I have no idea if you haven't looked at the play or just don't understand the rule.

So has the NFL even commented on the Amendola hit? I know usually when there's hits everyone is whining about we hear that same day NFL is reviewing and usually day or 2 they either fine them or say no fine, but I haven't seen any official nfl comment yet.

upstater1 said:

But he's a runner there. I think that's legal. Only illegal against defenseless receivers.

Click to expand...

I should have added that James White took a helmet hit on the ball that went through his fingers.

I think Dan Fouts has taken too many blows to the head and is reciting past hits during the broadcast.......

upstater1 said:

I should have added that James White took a helmet hit on the ball that went through his fingers.

Click to expand...

his helmet does make contact, but he looks like he's trying to wrap him up rather than drive into him with his helmet. i think it was a good no-call (i.e., if a patriots defender had been called for that, i would have thought it was ticky-tack):

Just so people can see this play over and over and over again in an endless loop and come to the correct conclusion...





This is basically a carbon copy of the Browner hit from 2014.

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...

Were Packers fans also calling for Larry Fitzgerald to be suspended?



It was a clear helmet-to-helmet hit on a blindside block and flagged as a PF on the field. I haven't heard or read about anyone clamoring for additional punishment for Fitzgerald.

by rule, Amendola should have been flagged.....he came in high

but it wasn't overt "helmet to helmet", it wasn't leading with the crown of the head.....he lowered his shoulder, led with the shoulder......to protect HIM i'd like to see him keep his head up, facemask into the chest.....but he's an offensive player, i'll cut him a little slack......looks like he led with the shoulder and then "cowered" a little at the end and ducked his head lol

he came in high.....he got his 15......but suspension? meh.....not even close

yukon cornelius said:

by rule, Amendola should have been flagged.....he came in high

but it wasn't overt "helmet to helmet", it wasn't leading with the crown of the head.....he lowered his shoulder, led with the shoulder......to protect HIM i'd like to see him keep his head up, facemask into the chest.....but he's an offensive player, i'll cut him a little slack......looks like he led with the shoulder and then "cowered" a little at the end and ducked his head lol

he came in high.....he got his 15......but suspension? meh.....not even close

Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. I loved the hit, no suspension, i'm ok with the 2.5 yard penalty in that spot

Koma said:

Were Packers fans also calling for Larry Fitzgerald to be suspended?



It was a clear helmet-to-helmet hit on a blindside block and flagged as a PF on the field. I haven't heard or read about anyone clamoring for additional punishment for Fitzgerald.

Click to expand...

There's a significant difference between the Fitzgerald block and the Amendola block. Amendola did not approach from the back or side. Amendola's approach was nearly straight on.

The only reason people want Amendola to get a suspension is because of the hatred they have for all things Pats.

KontradictioN said:

Just so people can see this play over and over and over again in an endless loop and come to the correct conclusion...

This is basically a carbon copy of the Browner hit from 2014.

Click to expand...

Head on a swivel. He should have been aware that DA was coming in for the block.

Apparently Amenola's been fined. If this was for hitting a defenseless player, the only possible explanation was that he approached Fleming from the side.

Looking at the Fitzgerald play, he approaches from the side but is blocking away from his end zone which means the defensive player is not defenseless. I can understand that call since he blocks away from his endzone really at the last second and at full speed it would be tough. Amendola is clearly not approaching from the side so his direction of blocking is irrelevant according to the NFL's rules.

The other rule that's been mentioned is:

unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (1) is out of the play or (2) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead

That's a dumb argument to me. He's not out of the play and he's a gunner. He should expect to be blocked until the whistle.

Isn't it a penalty anyway because he was blocking back toward his goal line? I thought there was a rule about that.

Triumph said:

Why did Dola hit him?

Click to expand...

He saw the player planed to try to down it inside the 5 so he hit him to try to take him out of the play and hoped the ball would bounce into the end zone and put them at the 20 instead.

50-yard-line said:

Isn't it a penalty anyway because he was blocking back toward his goal line? I thought there was a rule about that.

Click to expand...

There is I think but people make mistakes in the heat of the moment and even the players can't recall all the rules instantly. If that is a rule he broken i certainly don't think it was malicious which really is what would warrant a suspension.

lurker1965 said:

Comparisons to Burfict are stupid. Burfict had a history of head hunting. Amendola's reputation involves being injury prone.

Yes, he tried to lead with his shoulder, but intent doesn't matter. Helmet to helmet, even if it is just accidental, is a penalty and probably a fine.

And, Yes, it was the definition of "Unnecessary" in unnecessary roughness. The guy did not see him and even a hit in the chest would've done the same.

Click to expand...

Good, reasonable post. I'll admit that the brouhaha and kerfuffle about the hit sorta bugged me, because it's football and just gimme a break. But yeah, probably an unnecessary shot.

50-yard-line said:

Isn't it a penalty anyway because he was blocking back toward his goal line? I thought there was a rule about that.

Click to expand...

Only when the blocking player approaches from behind or the side. To me this a straight on approach as both are moving to their own respective goal lines.

There should be a Dumdum dan blandino video here: Media Officiating Videos | NFL Football Operations today explaining the rule. I'd very interested in the rule explanation which they've used to fine him. Consider the Lockette play against the cowboys wasn't fined, see week 9 video.

h0c2000 said:

Only when the blocking player approaches from behind or the side. To me this a straight on approach as both are moving to their own respective goal lines.

Click to expand...

If someone can find a rule that says differently, I'd be interested. But my quick glance at the NFL rule book makes me think you're right.

The thing that makes it deserving of a penalty is that he launches himself.

That being said, the old launching and spearing rules seem to be out the window these days as referees focus so intently on helmet-to-helmet hits and forget about the old rules against spearing and launching.

Here, Amendola leaves his feet.

What I mean about refs forgetting the old rules is that, after a receiver becomes a runner and is no longer defenseless, refs aren't calling hits that are spearing and launching anymore. Anything goes. Those penalties used to be called in the past.