LaRon Landry helmet to helmet hit on Julian Edelman

[1960Pats]

Waaaaay back in my day, we were taught to tackle with the shoulder and never the head. Yes, you kept the head up, but you drove the shoulder through on the tackle.

The face first method is how Nick Bouniconti's son became a paraplegic.

The use of the top of the helmet is the biggest cheap shot play in football.

 

[Ring 6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I think intent IS a part of a spearing penalty. In most cases spearing was called when you would lead with the top of your helmet, for example, into a QB or WRs back from behind. As far as I know making a tackle where your helmet happens to make first contact where it is not obvious you are attempting to spear, has never been a penalty. The changing of level of the runner is a factor here, unlike the defenseless player defintion the league is floating where is say it is the defenders responsibility to contact below the head, even if the ball carrier ducks.

Good points but, Landry never attempted to make a tackle, so whatever his intent was, he ended up leading with his helmet.

I'm not saying it's definitely a penalty, though it could be called according to the rule I posted. It could be called and it would have nothing to do with whether it was a runner. the "defensless player sections cover contact that wouldn't be a penalty except on a defenseless player.

My orginal point...


Quote:

It has been proposed here that it's OK to hit a runner with your helmet, as Landry did to Edelman, because he was running and therefore not defenseless.

Of course he was making a tackle. So you understand what making a tackle is? That was not an illegal hit.


Posted from Patsfans.com App for Android

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I think part of the confusion is that we're discussing two different rules at times.

The defenseless receiver rule is the one that has come into focus recently due to the NFL and officials emphasizing it over the past few seasons. By definition, Edelman was not a defenseless receiver, so the helmet to helmet contact, whether Edelman dipped his head or not, is all irrelevant when discussing this play.

The second rule is spearing, and that one is a bit trickier. Basically, is the defender using the helmet as a weapon? In spearing, it doesn't even require helmet to helmet contact. If the defender uses the helmet as a weapon to hit any part of the other player, it is spearing. So again, the helmet to helmet is irrelevant, whether Edelman dips his head or not doesn't matter. What matters is if Landry was using his helmet as a weapon in the hit.

Upon first viewing, I thought it wasn't a penalty because of the focus on the helmet to helmet contact on defenseless receiver, and in this case, Edelman is not a defenseless receiver. But upon further review, it's clear that Landry is leading with the helmet down. He does launch himself helmet first. Textbook tackling tells you to look at what you're hitting, and in this case, he not only hurt Edelman, but could have hurt himself too.

Edelman does dip his head as well but again, the helmet to helmet portion of the hit is irrelevant when defining spearing. Landry is looking down throughout the hit. That should have been a flag, and Landry is lucky he wasn't injured as well.

 

[Deus Irae]

Those of you still trying to claim this was a player leading with his head and going for the spear really need to take a close look at that video. The video clearly shows Landry rolling his shoulder forward and turning his head down and away. The helmet contact occured because Edelman lowered his head into the hit.

 

[Ring 6]

I think part of the confusion is that we're discussing two different rules at times.

The defenseless receiver rule is the one that has come into focus recently due to the NFL and officials emphasizing it over the past few seasons. By definition, Edelman was not a defenseless receiver, so the helmet to helmet contact, whether Edelman dipped his head or not, is all irrelevant when discussing this play.

The second rule is spearing, and that one is a bit trickier. Basically, is the defender using the helmet as a weapon? In spearing, it doesn't even require helmet to helmet contact. If the defender uses the helmet as a weapon to hit any part of the other player, it is spearing. So again, the helmet to helmet is irrelevant, whether Edelman dips his head or not doesn't matter. What matters is if Landry was using his helmet as a weapon in the hit.

Upon first viewing, I thought it wasn't a penalty because of the focus on the helmet to helmet contact on defenseless receiver, and in this case, Edelman is not a defenseless receiver. But upon further review, it's clear that Landry is leading with the helmet down. He does launch himself helmet first. Textbook tackling tells you to look at what you're hitting, and in this case, he not only hurt Edelman, but could have hurt himself too.

Edelman does dip his head as well but again, the helmet to helmet portion of the hit is irrelevant when defining spearing. Landry is looking down throughout the hit. That should have been a flag, and Landry is lucky he wasn't injured as well.

It is not a penalty to execute a tackle that is not textbook. There is no way that it is a penalty to have your head down when you tackle. Poor fundamentals but not a penalty in any way.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

There's no guess needed about any motive. It's on the tape. There's a clear look of Edelman ducking into it at the 9-10 second mark, and the 12-13 second mark is even more clear.

If anything 13 shows Edelman leading with the crown... Landry basically was setting himself sideways for impact against a guy who had aready run through a couple of tackles.

Matt Chatham had a good take on this play on the radio the other day and Edelman's play in general. Edelman plays at times with reckless abandon which is always exciting and even encouraged - until it costs you. But from a purely selfish standpoint he and the team have to decide if he's capable of being the next Wes Welker or the second coming of Wayne Chrebet. Needs to learn the subtle tricks of the trade or craft that help you get open in situations where you avoid being blowed up. Has to learn the fine art of living to fight another down or day or season, especially when you've already accomplished the base goal. Concussion inducing fumbles are double negative plays... There are times when you almost have to throw caution to the wind. At the point he did, Thursday already wasn't one of them.

 

[Urgent]

"Intent" is very challenging to penalize during the game. That's why the rules focus on behavior. The league later reflects upon intent, and can get very unhappy when they determine intent. Check in with New Orleans on that one. But who moved whose head when is not part of the rule - it's what happened upon impact.

The league will review it, and we'll presumably hear about any fine next Thursday.

Beyond the question of whether this hit technically was or was not legal, this type of hit is causing long-term problems. Players are ending up with knee and hip replacements due to the damage to their joint cartilage. They are ending up with dementia and other brain damage due to hits like this. Whether this type of hit is currently legal will be reviewed by the league officers in a couple days. Whether this hit will continue to be accepted is being considered currently.

I love football. The physical aspect is part of the reason so many of us are greater football fans than baseball fans. But the damage to player's brains is becoming unacceptable. This is an example of the type of brain abuse players face in a game - abuse that might currently be within the rules.

Those rules will change.

 

[Ring 6]

"Intent" is very challenging to penalize during the game. That's why the rules focus on behavior. The league later reflects upon intent, and can get very unhappy when they determine intent. Check in with New Orleans on that one. But who moved whose head when is not part of the rule - it's what happened upon impact.

The league will review it, and we'll presumably hear about any fine next Thursday.

Beyond the question of whether this hit technically was or was not legal, this type of hit is causing long-term problems. Players are ending up with knee and hip replacements due to the damage to their joint cartilage. They are ending up with dementia and other brain damage due to hits like this. Whether this type of hit is currently legal will be reviewed by the league officers in a couple days. Whether this hit will continue to be accepted is being considered currently.

I love football. The physical aspect is part of the reason so many of us are greater football fans than baseball fans. But the damage to player's brains is becoming unacceptable. This is an example of the type of brain abuse players face in a game - abuse that might currently be within the rules.

Those rules will change.

How can you have football if a player cannot lower his shoulder and make a tackle?
It is a violent game, I don't know how we can pretend that is could be something else and not be ruined. The only way to legislate away how Landry hit Edelman is to change the game to 2 hand touch or exposed defensive players to worse injuries because all they could do is catch the runner with thier body.

 

[Julius]

I thought it was a clean hit. IMO if Landry appears to have driven a shoulder through Julian's head and upper torso. It only looked so bad because Julian had thrown his body forward to take on the tackle.

Bravo to Edleman for his bravery, but like Hernandez, I prefer they stop fighting for every inch and learn to protect their bodies.

Hernandez needs to be banned from cutting back across the field. I thought Wilkerson had killed him. I'll give up the extra 5-7 yac for 0 turnovers and a healthy Hernandez.

 

[Batman]

The only penalty that could be enforced here is spearing that is well established as Edelman is a runner and not a receiver. If Edelman had not lowered his helmet Landry would have made contact with Edelman's waist with the shoulder Edelman could have broke that tackle as there was no wrap up. the crown of Edelman's helmet strikes the side of Landy's lid therefore it is a penalty for spearing against Edelman he used his helmet as a weapon to get extra yards.

 

[jays52]

In real time it looked like a spear to me. After looking over the video it's pretty clear that we has just trying to lay the lumber on his blind side. I'm surprised he didn't involve his forearm, though. That's prolly what made me think it was a spear. Warching it now, I'm surprised he didnt get a brutal stinger on that. His head dropped so far from his shoulder it looked liked intent to give self a stinger, not intent to injure. Amazing how freaking fast the game is at that level. The refs don't get nearly enough credit.

What's amazing to me is for a guy as fast and as yoked as he is, he really doesn't have as much pop as you'd think. Prolly need to do a few less curls and a few more cleans.

 

[RayClay]

Of course he was making a tackle. So you understand what making a tackle is? That was not an illegal hit.


Posted from Patsfans.com App for Android

I'm not going to argue about semantics, feel free, if you want to.. He went for a hit with his arms by his side.

 

[Ring 6]

The only penalty that could be enforced here is spearing that is well established as Edelman is a runner and not a receiver. If Edelman had not lowered his helmet Landry would have made contact with Edelman's waist with the shoulder Edelman could have broke that tackle as there was no wrap up. the crown of Edelman's helmet strikes the side of Landy's lid therefore it is a penalty for spearing against Edelman he used his helmet as a weapon to get extra yards.

Spearing does not apply in a case of incidental contact. I would suggest that spearing has never been called in an NFL game in head on contact on a tackle.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not going to argue about semantics, feel free, if you want to.. He went for a hit with his arms by his side.

That is completely irrelevant to anything. There is nothing under any set of rules that requires a player to wrap up. It isn't semantics, you are completely wrong.

 

[RayClay]

In real time it looked like a spear to me. After looking over the video it's pretty clear that we has just trying to lay the lumber on his blind side. I'm surprised he didn't involve his forearm, though. That's prolly what made me think it was a spear. Amazing how freaking fast the game is at that level. The refs don't get nearly enough credit.

What's amazing to me is for a guy as fast and as yoked as he is, he really doesn't have as much pop as you'd think. Prolly need to do a few less curls and a few more cleans.

Besides Collinsworth's silliness of "it doesn't matter what you do because he was running", my argument is it could have been called according to the rule of unnecessary roughness.

Whether you call it or not is a judgment call, but if they are trying to crack down on hits that cause concussions, it might be more appropriate than those silly incidental contact plays where somebody inadvertently grazes the bottom of a helmet while making a tackle on a QB or WR.

 

[RayClay]

That is completely irrelevant to anything. There is nothing under any set of rules that requires a player to wrap up. It isn't semantics, you are completely wrong.

Nor did I say there was.

 

[jays52]

Besides Collinsworth's silliness of "it doesn't matter what you do because he was running", my argument is it could have been called according to the rule of unnecessary roughness.

Whether you call it or not is a judgment call, but if they are trying to crack down on hits that cause concussions, it might be more appropriate than those silly incidental contact plays where somebody inadvertently grazes the bottom of a helmet while making a tackle on a QB or WR.

Yeah, I see your point on the interpretation of the call. I would classify that as a poorly executed attempt at good, clean, physical football. You get a lane like that and a shot like that you always go for as brutal a blow as you can give.

 

[Ring 6]

Nor did I say there was.

Of course you did

Good points but, Landry never attempted to make a tackle, so whatever his intent was, he ended up leading with his helmet.

He went for a hit with his arms by his side

Again, perhaps you do not understand what a tackle is.

 

[RayClay]

Yeah, I see your point on the interpretation of the call. I would classify that as a poorly executed attempt at good, clean, physical football. You get a lane like that and a shot like that you always go for as brutal a blow as you can give.

Never said it was dirty, or that he intended to hit with his helmet. Given the desire to cut down on concussions though, maybe call what the rules give you lots of latitude too.

If there's no helmet contact, no penalty. Probably won't change the defensive approach, but it might. Sure wouldn't prevent a defender from laying on a brutal hit on that play.

 

[RayClay]

Of course you did





Again, perhaps you do not understand what a tackle is.

There is nothing under any set of rules that requires a player to wrap up.

I said this? You forgot the quote where i said it was a rule.