Amendola's Hit on Fleming

patman12 · Jan 22, 2016

So, a $23,000 fine for a guy with no history? The way the NYFL goes, I guess he's lucky they didn't suspend him

Concussion Protocol · Jan 22, 2016

patman12 said:
So, a $23,000 fine for a guy with no history? The way the NYFL goes, I guess he's lucky they didn't suspend him

The media/fans demanded it, so the media/fans got it. That's the way the league works these days. Punishment is determined by the level of outrage.

Deus Irae · Jan 22, 2016

patman12 said:
So, a $23,000 fine for a guy with no history? The way the NYFL goes, I guess he's lucky they didn't suspend him

That's the normal fine ($23,152) for that penalty.

Froob · Jan 22, 2016

Still a dangerous play, looked like he went right for the neck. Should try to hit lower next time. But by rule I don't think it's illegal.

Sciz · Jan 22, 2016

Mike the Brit said:
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.

I looked through the rule book and couldn't find that "from the side or behind" wording. My best guess about this scenario is that "blindside" in the penalty name was meant to be interpreted as "from the side or behind," but Blandino and company are now choosing to ignore that word altogether and instead focus on the "toward his own end zone" aspect that is better defined in the rule book. As the rule has been described in the past, Amendola's hit was absolutely legal since Fleming wasn't defenseless because Amendola didn't approach from the side or behind. According to what I could actually find in the rule book, you only have to be willing to ignore a single word in the heading ("blindside") to rationalize the flag and the fine. I don't know how in depth then appeals process is for a fine like this, but I'd assume that wording will come into play, because it'a absurd for them to fine him for a blindside block that wasn't blindside.

archstanton543 · Jan 22, 2016

Froob said:
Still a dangerous play, looked like he went right for the neck. Should try to hit lower next time. But by rule I don't think it's illegal.

He did try to hit him lower but the guy he was hitting lowered himself down too.

Ring 6 · Jan 22, 2016

upstater1 said:
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.

You misunderstand what launching is.

neuronet · Jan 22, 2016

Froob said:
Still a dangerous play, looked like he went right for the neck. Should try to hit lower next time. But by rule I don't think it's illegal.

It's illegal to hit in the head / neck area. Not just head.

Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the passer’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;

The question is was the guy in a defenseless posture? Rules on that:

Article 7: Players in a Defenseless Posture. It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:
(1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass;
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
(3) A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped;
(4) A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air;
(5) A player on the ground;
(6) A kicker/punter during the kick or during the return (Also see Article 6(g) for additional restrictions against a kicker/punter);
(7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession (Also see Article 8(f) for additional restrictions against a quarterback after a change of possession);
(8) A player who receives a ―blindside block when the offensive blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side, and
(9) A player who is protected from an illegal crackback block (see Article 2);
(10) The offensive player who attempts a snap during a Field Goal attempt or a Try Kick.

I'm frankly not sure if he satisfied any of these criteria...Any thoughts? Perhaps I'm not citing the correct rule here?

That said, to the people who say things like "He lowered his head" or whatever, that is absolutely never a justification as it is 100% the responsibility of the tackler to avoid the illegal hit:

Note 2: A player who initiates contact against a defenseless opponent is responsible for avoiding an illegal act. This includes illegal contact that may occur during the process of attempting to dislodge the ball from an opponent. A standard of strict liability applies for any contact against a defenseless opponent, even if the opponent is an airborne player who is returning to the ground or whose body position is otherwise in motion, and irrespective of any acts by the defenseless opponent, such as ducking his head or curling up his body in anticipation of contact.

Hat tip to @QuantumMechanic from last year's thread on similar topic:
Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD | New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard

Sciz · Jan 22, 2016

neuronet said:
The question is was the guy in a defenseless posture? Rules on that:

I must have been looking at one of the old rule books, because I didn't see that wording. That "approaches the opponent from behind or from the side" part is definitely there. So what's the problem here? Amendola didn't do that. This whole thing doesn't make any sense.

Concussion Protocol · Jan 22, 2016

Ya, I don't think he was "defenseless" based on the rulebook criteria, just a guy not paying attention

JMC00 · Jan 22, 2016

So are they are going to start fining guys that make ST blocks/hits because the guy they hit wasn't looking?

Ring 6 · Jan 22, 2016

JMC00 said:
So are they are going to start fining guys that make ST blocks/hits because the guy they hit wasn't looking?

No, they fine guys for hard hits that are on camera, and find a way to justify it.
Fans now don't want players to hit each other hard, so the league will take that out of the game, even if unofficially.

h0c2000 · Jan 22, 2016

JMC00 said:
So are they are going to start fining guys that make ST blocks/hits because the guy they hit wasn't looking?

This is Blandino's dream. One rulebook for some, another rulebook for others. Make it up as you go.

upstater1 · Jan 22, 2016

AndyJohnson said:
You misunderstand what launching is.

No, I dont

patman12 · Jan 22, 2016

Deus Irae said:
That's the normal fine ($23,152) for that penalty.

Thanks, didn't know the fine was that high for that penalty.

SalemPats · Jan 22, 2016

I'm fine with the penalty, the fine is ridiculous

BobDigital · Jan 22, 2016

I don't think he should have been fined.

He hit a guy from the front if he was not paying attention that is not his fault. He should have clearly been in his line of sight.

I was not a fan of the placement of the hit which i think though legal (but on the borderline) was a little high but it should not cause a fine. You are in the playoffs and trying to win the game and hit the guy to prevent him from downing a ball inside the 5 in hopes that you get a touch back. It was a borderline clean play with no malicious intent and not done merely for the sack that he had the chance to deliver it in all likelihood.

h0c2000 · Jan 22, 2016

Seems like they're making rules up as they go:

Media Officiating Videos | NFL Football Operations

Rules say it does matter which direction the two players are approaching each other. dummy blandino says otherwise.

Deus Irae · Jan 22, 2016

Fitzgerald got the same fine:

Fitzgerald has the right to appeal the fine, and he probably should. Although there was contact to Burnett’s head, it didn’t look nearly as egregious as the illegal hit applied by Patriots receiver Danny Amendola, for which he also was fined $23,152.

Larry Fitzgerald fined $23,152 for illegal blindside block

Ring 6 · Jan 22, 2016

upstater1 said:
No, I dont

If you think amendola launched you certainly do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amendola's Hit on Fleming

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Independent Investigator & pliable af

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

Homer Little

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Hall of Fame Poster

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Pro Bowl Player

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads