Reiss on the McCourty personal foul

[Sfpat]

Exactly this takes away the need to look at the jumbotron.


What I am suggestion is: Ref doesn't get a good look at play. Doesn't look at jumbotron, instead goes under hood where a neutral party provides the video for him.

No. If he didn't get a good look at the play, he doesn't call anything. An official should only call what he saw, not what he thinks he saw.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

15 pages?

 

[PatriotsReign]

15 pages?

This is potentially a HUGE issue moving forward. Not a minor or even "important"...it goes WAY beyond that.

So 15 pages is nothing based upon some of the non-issues that have received far more than 15 pages.

get with the program mountain man.

 

[upstater1]

15 pages?

You don't think it's a big deal that a referee broke the rules and practically spotted Green Bay 7 points?

 

[SEA_Pat]

I'd rather have the refs using every resource available to them. The instant replay system is only available when coaches ask for it. This has nothing to do with instant replay.

I disagree. What happens, happens; it is what it is. If what happens in real time with a hit like that is clearly helmet to helmet and a guy throws a flag, then it's a penalty and potentially subject to a fine. If it's not, then it isn't.

Sometimes I can imagine if a guy missed the call in real-time, then replays it in his head and realizes it was a penalty so throws a late flag. But you can't stand around, then watch the replay and THEN throw the flag, nothing in the rules says you can do that.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Again, you ignore reality. That specifically states how ANY reveiw of the play is supposed to be handled. Looking at the Jumbotron and then throwing your flag cause you saw something is NOT ALLOWED. Why can't you get that through your head?

There is a real problem with the way the rules are being applied. There are certain physics issues with the idea of controlling most of these hits. For example, McCourty did not lead with his helmet and did not make contact with the crown of his helmet. The player he hit was moving and the fact that he was in the position he was perfectly normal within the context of the live action. The fact is Quarless was in possession of the ball and the hit was the result of a perfectly legal hit, and physics states that when an an object hits another object at an angle it will continue to. That fact is not negotiable in this universe and applying penalties against players who obey the laws of physics seems a little rediculous. In other words, regardless of how powerful the commish thinks he is, he cannot change the laws of physics.

Goodell has to go!

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

This is potentially a HUGE issue moving forward.

I think it's an interesting discussion, but I disagree that it's a big issue going forward.

I think the crew did a bit of jumbotron watching because (1) Goddell was there, and (2) the helmet stuff is a point of emphasis and they didn't want to get caught after the fact with replay possibly showing a bad hit that they missed on the field.

I think it's a relatively unique situation. They made a human mistake, which affected the game but not the outcome. They will likely get "punished" in the sense that the crew will get a bad grade that affects their postseason chances. A private memo may even go out from the head of officiating, given some of the press. But, at the end of the day, I suspect this incident will do more to prevent jumbotron watching than to promote it.

 

[bresna]

15 pages?

15 pages?? I got 4.

(You can change how many posts appear per page in your User CP)

 

[PatriotsReign]

I think it's an interesting discussion, but I disagree that it's a big issue going forward.

I think the crew did a bit of jumbotron watching because (1) Goddell was there, and (2) the helmet stuff is a point of emphasis and they didn't want to get caught after the fact with replay possibly showing a bad hit that they missed on the field.

I think it's a relatively unique situation. They made a human mistake, which affected the game but not the outcome. They will likely get "punished" in the sense that the crew will get a bad grade that affects their postseason chances. A private memo may even go out from the head of officiating, given some of the press. But, at the end of the day, I suspect this incident will do more to prevent jumbotron watching than to promote it.

By "Huge issue moving forward", I am only referring to tron-watching regarding the "helmut to helmut/defenseless receiver" calls. If these ref's get scolded as you say, it prolly won't be an issue. But if they don't, it could be...

It all hinges upon whether or not this team is "talked-to by the NFL". If they did continue to do it, it would be inexcuseable.

 

[ivanvamp]

I saw some ballcarriers leading with the helmet last night.

How does one tackle a guy that's only two feet off the ground?

Or how about tackling Kuhn as he launches himself in the air?

Can you launch yourself to tackle him or is the rule that anyone who jumps in the air is off limits?

These are great questions and are at the heart of the problem with the helmet-to-helmet rule. Nobody has a problem with trying to improve player safety. But the H2H rule really favors the offense. When a RB dives over the pile (like on a goal-line leap) and leads with his helmet, the only way the defense can stop him is by meeting him head on (no pun intended). That will involve a blow to the RB's helmet. This rule essentially makes it impossible to defend that play.

If a RB lowers his head to deliver a blow to the defense, why isn't that illegal? See (YouTube - Earl Campbell Headbutt) for a textbook case (granted, it was from several decades ago with the great Earl Campbell, but some guys still do this today).

This is a very inconsistent rule (or, application of the rule).

 

[buile]

But the H2H rule really favors the offense. When a RB dives over the pile (like on a goal-line leap) and leads with his helmet, ...
If a RB lowers his head to deliver a blow to the defense, why isn't that illegal?

My understanding is the rules say runners aren't defenseless, so helmet-to-helmet isn't called. For your second point, I assume defenders aren't considered defenseless either, so it's not called.

 

[buile]

BTW, not that it needs more beating, but replay rules came into effect because refs were *never* allowed to use stadium replays to make or change calls. It was frustrating for years for fans/players to have the evidence played right in front for everyone to see, and the refs were simply disallowed from using it. They still aren't allowed. They can only use the replays in the hood under challenge circumstances.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

You don't think it's a big deal that a referee broke the rules and practically spotted Green Bay 7 points?

Did they really break a rule? Would they do that in front of the commissioner? Has there been a peep by anyone in the media, even Pats homer media? Is there really an issue, or is there 15 pages worth of an attempt at manufacturing one?

 

[sebman2112]

You are. There was definite helmet to helmet contact. That being said, it was after the helmet hit the chest.

He hit him with his elbow, and shoulder first, directly to the chest, then their helmets made contact, as a side effect of the initial impact's force. It should not have been called as it was a text book hit, and one of the better hits I've seen a CB make of late. If anything, McCourty should have been praised for such a hit, but in this current climate, he's penalized.

Oh, and on a related note, I really like this McCourty kid.