Welcome to PatsFans.com

Golic on ESPNR-Caldwell hit not illegal

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by CTPatsFan, Oct 2, 2006.

  1. CTPatsFan

    CTPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Mike Golic said that the hit on Reche shouldn't have been ruled illegal, it was a shoulder to helmet hit, the Cincy defender clearly turned himself away to make the hit.

    Is it just my Pats colored glasses that lead me to clearly see an obvious helmet to helmet hit? I just haven't seen a clip of that hit that showed it to be anything but.
  2. PatsFaninAZ

    PatsFaninAZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I wear pats colored glasses too, but my immediate reaction after a couple of replays was, "either that was a bad call or I don't understand the rule."

    None of the replays were that good though -- even in HD it was hard to see.
  3. Amnorix

    Amnorix Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I did NOT see helmet to helmet, and my first reaction was -- although a devastating hit -- why the foul?

    On replay, it appeared to a blow aimed for the head, against a defenseless receiver, and usually they will call that as a penalty.

    My only problem with that is -- the way Caldwell's body was positioned relative to the defender's, I'm not sure how the defender could have delivered a good blow on Caldwell without hitting him in the head.
  4. Brownfan80

    Brownfan80 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,305
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I thought it was obviously a blow to the head. Helmet to helmet or not, you can't hit a defenseless reciever in the head.
  5. Brownfan80

    Brownfan80 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,305
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:


    A good point. But I guess it's like the horsecollar rule. Sometimes the only way a defender can get a guy down is to horsecollar him. But it's illegal. So there's the choice: miss the tackle or take the penalty. Same for this situation, I guess.
  6. mtbykr

    mtbykr Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,999
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    When i first saw the hit i didn't think anything was wrong with it. I saw one replay andn still didn't see anything wrong with it. However last night on Sportscenter (ya ya i know, but i'm not local) they showed the hit and he def went helmet to helmet---it was only from this one angle, but it was pretty clear! However the ref didn't say helmet to helmet when he made the call, he said it was for a head shot on the receiver! None the less that didn't give the pats the game.
  7. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #75 Jersey
    At first look, I thought that it was a bad call.

    But, after looking at the replays, he launched himself at Caldwell and there was a helmet to helmet hit as well as an arm to the head.

    regardless if we like it or not, the ref has to call that- no option. If they let it go we could have another Stingley incident and no one wants that.
  8. Amnorix

    Amnorix Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Yeah, exactly. Not much choice really -- if a receiver gets laid out like that you gotta call something, pretty much.

    I'm thinking that defender gets a fine too, of like 5 grand or something. It's sort of automatic with those kinds of kill shots on defenseless receivers, seems like.
  9. borg

    borg Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,711
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Regardless if it was helmet to helmet or shoulder to helmet, I don't believe you can can tackle the head
  10. dhamz

    dhamz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    It was a penalty.

    Now if you want to argue with the way the rules are enforced that is different.

    BB has been vocal in the past about this exact rule - if a WR can leap to catch a ball but it is a penalty for the DB to leap and hit him, how do you defend it? Launching yourself into a WR in this manner is always going to be called a penalty - helmet to helmet or not.
  11. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Is Golic a former defensive player? I think on the one hand defenders admire the ferocity and timing of that hit and don't see the obvious intention to do harm. But on replay the side angle clearly showed helmet to helmet contact and unintentional or otherwise the league wants that called. And whether he turned his body or not he went in high which meant there was a better than even chance that contact would result. DeOssie said on the post game that he was sitting in the booth near where the officials do the reviews and the league official in attendance immediately said "throw the flag". DeOssie also felt it was a great hit whether it resulted in a flag or not, and should have been a game changing impact hit for the Bengals rather than the Pats. But he also felt that Caldwell walking off and gesturing to his teamates that he would be back in helped turned the tables on the impact factor.
  12. CTPatsFan

    CTPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Maybe my bad was that I was thinking he was flagged for helmet-to-helmet instead of a blow to the head. I was too busy flying around the room yelling at the tv to hear the call.
  13. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Hit the nail on the head....absolutely!!! No more of what happend to DS...
  14. Trocadile

    Trocadile Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    It's amazing how many commentators don't seem to know the rules. Helmet-to-helmet is not the only reason for calling unnecessary roughness. Launching yourself and delivering a blow to the head is supposed to be a penalty regardless of whether the defender's helmet is involved.
  15. primetime

    primetime Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,853
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 2 / -3

    My Jersey:

    Helmet-to-helmet, arm-to-helmet, and he left his feet to deliver the hit. That's a Jack Tatum on Stingley hit and the unnecessary roughness call was made with justification. He could've caused an incompletion by hitting him hard and wrapping his arms around the body or legs, too.
  16. Bargod

    Bargod Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:


    That's right. When the back judge called the penalty he wasn't throwing the flag for the helmet to helmet contact. I think that came out of the discussion with the other offials. They added the helmet to helmet.

    I saw helmet to helmet but I also saw contact with his forearms and a guy who just threw his body into the receiver. If it was Rodney Harrison doing the same thing we'd be debating the other way. He crushed Caldwell. If I were a Cincinatti fan I'd feel pretty good about the hit. But you're right, the receiver was defenseless and they will call that every time.
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2006
  17. Murphys95

    Murphys95 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    It's your rose colored glasses. :) Envision Rodney as the hitter and then go from there.

    It's the saftey's job to separate the ball from the receiver - he did just that with the hit on Reche. I don't think the helmet to helmet was intentional, just a result of a split second play.

    That being said the penalty flag was fair, and I expect Kaeshviharn to be fined.
  18. Oswlek

    Oswlek Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    4,171
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I am seconding (or thirding) the sentament that it looked legal at first glance, and even on the replay, but on a third viewing with a replay from a different angle is was clear as day that it was a helmet to helmet hit.

    It was so clear that I have to assume that anyone who thinks otherwise must not have seen that replay.
  19. Brownfan80

    Brownfan80 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,305
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Anyone that thinks otherwise must not understand that it'd have been illegal regardless of the helmet-to-helmet as well. :)
  20. Patti37

    Patti37 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:


    Zolak reiterated what DeOssie said. They both kept saying, "It's football." DeOssie also said any safety would love to make that hit...John Lynch, Rodney...

    Still, it looked helmet to helmet to me and should be called.
  21. Pats_AZ

    Pats_AZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I'm a big fan fan of hard hitting "let em play" football....so being in AZ couldn't watch the game but heard about the hit....went home and saw it on SC....So with that said, to me it looked helmet to helmet, or at least a blow to the head and i think it was a consistant call in terms of what the league has been calling illegal.
  22. Gumby

    Gumby Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I think that it was not launched by the defender as a shot to the head.

    It ended up either looking very much like one or was in fact one.

    But it was a result of Caldwell slumping down or sliding and his head and shoulders were lower than what the DB expected if he were running in an upright position.

    I think it was an unfortunate call for the DB; nice freebie extra yards for us and I am just glad that everybody walked away.
  23. Cicero

    Cicero Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    To me it looked like a good solid hit but of course I am biased. The thing that gets me about it though is that our recievers have taken worse but similar hits in the past two games vs. the Steelers and Browns and no flag was thrown. If the NFL wants that type of hit to be flagged so be it, but enforce it in all games.
  24. Bargod

    Bargod Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I was glad to see him walk away as well. It's the first time I'd seen that guy where his eyes weren't bugging out of his head.
  25. zippo59

    zippo59 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,072
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Yeah I gained a lot of respect for Caldwell after coming back form that hit.
  26. TruthSeeker

    TruthSeeker PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,787
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I was a little surprised that was a flag, but definately feel that one was justified. One of the replays does indeed show a helmet to helmet collision, but it was very clear from all views that the receiver's head took the main part of the blow and that is a penalty in the NFL. The launching by the DB only underscored it.
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2006
  27. pkb

    pkb Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Whether or not it was a blow to the head, it was clearly unneccessary roughness, and that's what was called.

    The safety lined up the receiver and hit high with the shoulder while the receiver was extended---that's against the rules and will be called 80% of the time or more. And should be.

    There was no reason for that hit as it was---there was an easy angle to hit lower or not launch up and in with the location of the hit. The rules are designed to penalize exactly what occurred there, so I don't really see the issue....it's a rules committee complaint if anything.

    They didn't call blow to the head, and I didn't see one on the replay, though there was some incidental arm-to-head contact
  28. Cicero

    Cicero Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I didn't see helemt to helmet but I did see the arm. Either way they need to call those kind of hits consistently. Bodden hit Chad Johnson in the chin with his helmet a few weeks ago with no call and last week Henry got hit in that exact manner with no call vs. the Steelers. The league really needs to clarify the rules on this.
  29. CTPatsFan

    CTPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Hey but Murph, if it was vice versa it would be ok :)
  30. betterthanthealternative

    betterthanthealternative Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Plain and simple - you can't launch into a reciever who is off the ground or otherwise unable to defend themselves. It doesn't have to be helmet to helmet.

Share This Page