Pats1 said:
"As for spearing, it is covered in the NFL rule book under Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8(g). The rule reads as follows: "Using any part of a player’s helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/“hairline†parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures (e.g., a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass, a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass, a runner already in the grasp of a tackler, a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air, or a player on the ground at the end of a play). All players in virtually defenseless postures are protected by the same prohibitions against use of the helmet and facemask that are described in the roughing-the-passer rules."
I just looked at this one more time. There is just no way that it wasn't intentional by Ingram. Just look at it in slo mo. He doesn't even put his arms out to touch Brady !! Not only that, but you see him so clearly tuck his head down and dive down to hit Brady. Absolutely intentional spearing.
Worse yet, intentional is not even a requirement to call it spearing. No one in his right mind can call that anything but a violent hit. And, as you can read in plain English in the quote by Pats1, the rule applies if it is
violent and it doesn't matter whether it was 'unnecessary'. That's an
OR clause in the rule. The fact that the helmut contacts the opponent and the hit is violent is the primary part of the rule.
The other crazy thing about this was in Aiello's comments from the NFL:
"Aiello explained that because Brady was running on the play in question -- and was diving headfirst -- he wasn't in a defenseless position that a receiver catching a pass or a quarterback throwing a pass might find himself in. Had Brady been on the ground and then Ingram hit him, the result could have been different."
That's absolutely crazy. He totally twists the rule around from it's wording. He makes it sound like the rule is that a 'defenseless' position is a criteria for violation of the rule. It is absolutely NOT. That is just an extra emphasis on the primary rule.
I'd like to know which people in the NFL office decided this issue. I had hoped that Mike Pereira's discussion on NFL.com would cover this play but it didn't. I would have been absolutely fascinated to see what he would have said.
Another crazy thing about it is, I wonder if the official(s) were so wrapped up in the fact that Brady as a QB wasn't sliding so he could be tackled that they ignored the evaluation that probably 99% of the time this would be called a foul with this kind of hit on any other runner.
I still think that all of these emphases on the rules over the last couple years have done a job on the referees heads. They are struggling to settle into a new consistent way to call plays and I think are second guessing themselves on almost every call. Perhaps it will sort itself out with a little more time.
