Amendola's Hit on Fleming

[neuronet]

OK I found another part of the rules here that may settle this maybe we are wrong. It also discusses launching.
http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf

Article 8 There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but will not be limited to:
(a) striking an opponent anywhere with the foot or any part of the leg with a whipping motion;
(b) contacting a runner out of bounds;
Note: Defensive players must make an effort to avoid contact. Players on defense are responsible for knowing when a runner has crossed the boundary line, except in doubtful cases where he might step on a boundary line and continue parallel with it.
[...]
(e) unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (i) is out of the play or (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead; or throwing the runner to the ground after the ball is dead;
[...]
(j) if a player illegally launches into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (1) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (2) uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body.

So on kickoffs (punts too?) it might be the standard is that if you can say the person didn't reasonably expect contact, then it is unnecessary roughness.

That must be the criterion they used, and should have used, and if so, it is actually reasonable. [maybe?]

Thoughts?

Note also the quote also defines "launch" so maybe AndyJohnson can stop fighting, he is right.

 

[neuronet]

 

[Sciz]

OK I found another part of the rules here that may settle this maybe we are wrong. It also discusses launching.
http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf


So on kickoffs (punts too?) it might be the standard is that if you can say the person didn't reasonably expect contact, then it is unnecessary roughness.

That must be the criterion they used, and should have used, and if so, it is actually reasonable.

Thoughts?
Note also the quote also defines "launch" so maybe AndyJohnson can stop fighting, he is right.

The NFL has specifically cited that he was fined for a "blindside block." Considering what has happened over the last year, I would expected them to immediately change that argument once they realize that it's a losing one. They already defined "blindside" such that a player looking up doesn't qualify, but they could definitely stretch "reasonably anticipated" as far as they want.

 

[neuronet]

The NFL has specifically cited that he was fined for a "blindside block." Considering what has happened over the last year, I would expected them to immediately change that argument once they realize that it's a losing one. They already defined "blindside" such that a player looking up doesn't qualify, but they could definitely stretch "reasonably anticipated" as far as they want.

Well then that seems weird...

It's a weird play as he clearly wasn't expecting to be hit, but not b/c he couldn't see Amendola, more b/c it was sort of just a weird context to hit him....It was actually risky as the ball could have bounced and hit Amendola from behind and been a fumble. Definitely a head-scratcher.

 

[n6249c]

While I was "WTF was that?", a suspension would be complete, overblown punishment. Plays like that happen in every game, by some of the "cleanest" players. I think he deserved the penalty flag and a fine should be expected. DA is not a repeat offender, and should tone it down a bit so he doesn't become one. A suspension would piss me off a bit. I do like his toughness tho. Gotta have a little bit of fear from the opponents. I bet that guy calls a fair catch next time.

Was going to disagree, but that was just too much to resist tagging it "funny". You do know the guy was from the kicking team?

 

[h0c2000]

NFL definition of blindside is any side.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

Was going to disagree, but that was just too much to resist tagging it "funny". You do know the guy was from the kicking team?

Yea, I'm not gonna lie, I was pretty buzzed. .

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

An old man almost hit me head on today making a left hand turn across my lane. By NFL logic I was in his blind spot...

 

[Sciz]

Oh, this is fun. Darren Sproles did the same thing earlier this year, except that it wasn't toward his own end zone. Neither player approached from behind or the side, so the direction of the block is moot anyway. No penalty or fine, so obviously the NFL decided earlier that a defender in that situation should have "reasonably anticipated" it.

Darren Sproles Levels Michael Jenkins on Punt Block

 

[Ring 6]

OK I found another part of the rules here that may settle this maybe we are wrong. It also discusses launching.
http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf


So on kickoffs (punts too?) it might be the standard is that if you can say the person didn't reasonably expect contact, then it is unnecessary roughness.

That must be the criterion they used, and should have used, and if so, it is actually reasonable. [maybe?]

Thoughts?

Note also the quote also defines "launch" so maybe AndyJohnson can stop fighting, he is right.

I think it's well established that a punt returner can not fair catch and therefore block to prevent the ball being downed. I've seen it happen many times. I don't think you can penalize a blocker because the guy it was his job to block was day dreaming.

I wasn't arguing, it is pretty clear what launching is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Galeb]

You misunderstand what launching is.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

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

(Bolded Part) I'd say that's the culture of the NFL* and it starts with Goodell.

 

[AGCSBill]

Well, he got fined. So now we know what the NFL thought of that hit.