"Scattered" thoughts...

[SpiderFox53]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

put up a reference.

Find it yourself.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Why the hell do people try to argue what a player's intent was? It's pretty clear that, unless you're a psychic, you're NOT going to know what the intent was in any case. All we know is that it was a blatent roughing the passer penalty that deserved the 15 yard penalty that it got. Whether or not there was intent is just a pointless argument.

Except that the penalty was on Burgess, not Chung

 

[BradyManny]

I'm going to check the DVR, but I thought it was pretty clear Chung hit Henne square in the CHEST and that the force of it caused Henne to bend his head back, giving the ILLUSION of a helmet to helmet hit. I'm 99% sure Chung did not make any contact w Henne's helmet or chin. The fact that Dierdorf thought he did just supports what I saw.

 

[patfanken]

Except that the penalty was on Burgess, not Chung

I guess that this is were Rosanne Rosanadana arrives to say "NEVERMIND" to about 6 pages of this thread.

Since I wrote the original post let me add my 2 cents, (which assumes the penalty was on Chung. ). I can see both sides of the argument, especially my side. Those who call it a 'blatant' penalty are REALLY overstating it. I can actually see them calling the flag....IF... the ref thought his helmet "touched" Henne's face mask, because evidently, TOUCHING the QB's helmet is apparently a penalty even if the contact is incidental.

Now that is my "b!tch". The league is protecting QBs to the point that it penalizes what every coach in the land would call a perfect tackle. In otherwords, putting your FACE (NOT top of your head) into the chest of the opponent, wrapping your arms, and driving THROUGH him. THAT is what Chung did.... and the league penalized it JUST BECAUSE he helmet might have had contact, however incidental" with the QB's facemask.....and THAT is just plain ridiculous.

I can't help but be reminded of an unnecessary roughness call against a Jet LB, who looked like he kicked a Pats player when he was down. The side judge saw it and immediately threw the flag. On TV we saw the SAME angle the side judge did. A replay of the same angle confirmed the "kick, HOWEVER when they showed the opposite angle of the play, it was CLEAR the player was guilty only of being a JET! Based on what he saw from that angle, THAT ref would throw the flag every time...and be right, even while being wrong. Perhaps this call, (if it really was on Chung) is one of THOSE plays.

I'm OK with the league "protecting" the QB, but I think (again, IF the flag was on Chung), that he got flagged merely because it was such a violent hit.

At any rate I think we have exhausted this argument, and absolutely NO opinions will change. I suggest we move on to another of the points I made.....unless you want to post how much you agree with me on this one.

 

[Frezo]

I guess that this is were Rosanne Rosanadana arrives to say "NEVERMIND" to about 6 pages of this thread.

"Well Jane, it just goes to show you, it's always something."

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

Could you please point out where someone said he did?

I don't think anyone in the NFL goes in with the intent to "rough the passer"

You did.

It was blatant roughing. He put the crown of his helmet up into henne's face. It SHOULD have been 15, and hes SHOULD get a fine.

By saying that the roughing was blatant, you are accusing Chung of having a clear intent to commit that penalty.

 

[PatsFaninME]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

It doesn't matter where he was aiming. He put the crown of his helmet into the QB's face.

He was leading with the helmet, and hit a QB in the head. Both are penalties.

Synovia, you are wrong. I DVR'd the play and watched it over a dozen times. Chung has his head up and never used the crown of his helmet. Chung put his own facemask directly into the chest of Henne. It's just that it was such a strong hit and Henne's head snapped back that officials thought he hit him in the head. No way is there a fine for that hit.

 

[patchick]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

By saying that the roughing was blatant, you are accusing Chung of having a clear intent to commit that penalty.

At risk of taking us even further afield, it sounds like you're mistaking "blatant" for "flagrant." Blatant just means obvious/impossible to ignore, it doesn't imply anything about intent.

But I'm on board with the 2nd gunman theory regardless. Penalty on #53.

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

At risk of taking us even further afield, it sounds like you're mistaking "blatant" for "flagrant." Blatant just means obvious/impossible to ignore, it doesn't imply anything about intent.

But I'm on board with the 2nd gunman theory regardless. Penalty on #53.

It was blatant roughing. He put the crown of his helmet up into henne's face. It SHOULD have been 15, and hes SHOULD get a fine.

That, to me, in addition to his calling it "blatant roughing" suggests to me that he was led to believe that the RTP was premeditated.

Also interesting enough, blatant and flagrant come from the same Latin root word; only blatant is a Scottish derivative, whereas flagrant is from the French verb: flagrare

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

Synovia, you are wrong. I DVR'd the play and watched it over a dozen times. Chung has his head up and never used the crown of his helmet. Chung put his own facemask directly into the chest of Henne. It's just that it was such a strong hit and Henne's head snapped back that officials thought he hit him in the head. No way is there a fine for that hit.

So Chung's helmet never touched Henne's facemask? I could have sworn that it did.

 

[Metaphors]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

Synovia, you are wrong. I DVR'd the play and watched it over a dozen times. Chung has his head up and never used the crown of his helmet. Chung put his own facemask directly into the chest of Henne. It's just that it was such a strong hit and Henne's head snapped back that officials thought he hit him in the head. No way is there a fine for that hit.

Totally agree. I don't know if Chung hit his helmet or not, but it appeared that he did so the officials threw the flag. Tough call but not one overly difficult to understand.

As for Chung, anyone criticizing his technique just doesn't know football. Saying he should have "aimed lower" is especially nutty. The only way to do that (without duck-walking) is to lower your head which is a sure penalty and completely dangerous. About the other thing he could/should have done different is to keep his helmet slightly to the side of the QB's numbers...and that is nit-picking.

Chung is an absolute blur on the middle blitz and that is going to be crucial a week from today. I'm sure Belichick gave him an "attaboy" despite the penalty.

 

[patchick]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

Also interesting enough, blatant and flagrant come from the same Latin root word; only blatant is a Scottish derivative, whereas flagrant is from the French verb: flagrare

A perfect illustration of the limits of linguistic derivation. The NBA introduced a specific sports meaning of "flagrant" which "blatant" doesn't carry.

The funny thing about this whole argument is that you're accusing a player of inferring intent from ambiguous evidence...and you're inferring the poster's intent from ambiguous evidence, since he never actually said anything about intent. It's all a little mirrored funhouse of inference, intentions and implications! Good semantic fun for a Sunday night.

Anyway...

It was #53 in the conservatory, with the lead pipe to the back of the helmet.

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

A perfect illustration of the limits of linguistic derivation. The NBA introduced a specific sports meaning of "flagrant" which "blatant" doesn't carry.

The funny thing about this whole argument is that you're accusing a player of inferring intent from ambiguous evidence...and you're inferring the poster's intent from ambiguous evidence, since he never actually said anything about intent. It's all a little mirrored funhouse of inference, intentions and implications! Good semantic fun for a Sunday night.

Again, I am not accusing Chung of being premeditated or having any intent. How would I know what's going on in his head?

I am questioning Synovia's belief that the RTP was "blatant" and "SHOULD get a fine." Because that to me, those statements suggests that Synovia believes that the RTP was premeditated.

If you wish to characterize that as inference on my part, then isn't that also inference on your part as well. Like you said, a house of mirrors.

It was #53 in the conservatory, with the lead pipe to the back of the helmet.

Miss Scartlet, or Colonel Mustard?

 

[Metaphors]

Couple of thoughts on the Fins:

They are flushing their season with their offensive scheme. Actually I guess it is flushed at this point. Henne is a capable QB but he isn't allowed to get into any sort of rhythm. They have a solid rushing attack and a good defense (when healthy). Seems like the coaches are more interested in being innovators than actually winning games.

By the way, I'm going to go postal if I hear anyone else call Dan Henning a genius. He instituted the single-wing offense. Today he rolled out the option. And not the cool triple-option that Tebow runs. Sure it looks pretty every once in a while, but eventually you are going to have to be able to run a pro-style offense. The Fins won last year because Pennington was able to control the game with accurate passing. Henne actually did this very well in the first Jets game but the coaches have made that a distant memory.

Belichick goes to watch college football in Florida for ideas on offense. Henning goes to watch high school football in Nebraska. Different? Sure. Just different enough to give your coaches an early jump on those college all-star games. Gotta do something until the high school season starts.

 

[SidelineSid]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

Totally agree. I don't know if Chung hit his helmet or not, but it appeared that he did so the officials threw the flag. Tough call but not one overly difficult to understand.

As for Chung, anyone criticizing his technique just doesn't know football. Saying he should have "aimed lower" is especially nutty. The only way to do that (without duck-walking) is to lower your head which is a sure penalty and completely dangerous. About the other thing he could/should have done different is to keep his helmet slightly to the side of the QB's numbers...and that is nit-picking.

Chung is an absolute blur on the middle blitz and that is going to be crucial a week from today. I'm sure Belichick gave him an "attaboy" despite the penalty.

You said it. Watching the play in real time, it looked like Chung hit Henne. During the replay, it didn't seem that Chung actually contacted with Henne's helmet. As someone else posted, the hit was so strong, Henne's head whipped backwards.

The call could go either way. Let's hope that Chung doesn't change his game, stays aggressive, but plays smarter next time. Good game Chung.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

Absolutely not.

It was blatant roughing. He put the crown of his helmet up into henne's face. It SHOULD have been 15, and hes SHOULD get a fine.

And yes, I'm a patriots fan. That was a clear blatant penalty.

Sorry, Synovia. You're wrong. Chung hit Henne in the chest with his facemask. Chung did NOT lower his head in an attempt to hit Henne with the crown of his helmet. And yes, I DVRed it and replayed it to make sure I know what I am talking about. That was a textbook tackle and should not have been called. And it has nothing to do with being a Pats fan. It has to do with knowing what the crown of the helmet is and whether or not Chung led with it. Which he did not.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

It doesn't matter where he was aiming. He put the crown of his helmet into the QB's face.

He was leading with the helmet, and hit a QB in the head. Both are penalties.

Yes, it DOES matter where he's aiming. Leading with the CROWN of your helmet (which would have meant that Chung's upper body would have been nearly horizontal) is a penalty. However, Chung's upper boddy wasn't horizontal. Far from it.

Sorry, but PatsPsycho is correct and you aren't.

 

[Joker]

Yeah....I DVR'ed it too.That was a "looks like" penalty. Happens. Remember, this is in real time that they're making calls. Now the spot by Mike "The Fixer" on Maroney's run in the 4th quarter...check THAT out. Look at the side judge spot the ball and then here comes "The Fixer" from behind the play to "correct the spot". THAT should be looked at by the league, not the "looks like" Chung hit.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

yeah he "touched" it with the back of his helmet.

Patspsycho - in this case, it doesn't matter. The O-lineman, unless reporting otherwise, is an ineligible receiver and cannot touch the ball unless it was tipped.

But, I agree with you regarding the hit by Chung.. though I'm not sure I agree with the whole poor technique idea.

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: "scattered" thoughts....

Patspsycho - in this case, it doesn't matter. The O-lineman, unless reporting otherwise, is an ineligible receiver and cannot touch the ball unless it was tipped.
.

I could be wrong, but I believe that used to be the rule, but now is no longer the rule when the attempt is ruled not to be intentional.

This per the officiating forum that I quoted earlier.