Yesterday, every concern I raised about the rules/officiating came true

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

How would you go about picking and choosing which prospective penalties are reviewed to the point of possibly lodging a personal foul not called on the field? Or are you saying all plays should automatically be booth-reviewed with prospects of overruling the on-field refs? (I don't think the hit on Brady is a good example for this.)

No. this shouldn’t be a booth review. This should simply be a call that can be challenged like many other calls, since it relies on true or false video evidence, and it isn’t based on intent/flow of game. I covered in the OP that I don’t think every play should be reviewable.

Specifically, see the rule below.

Roughing the Passer | NFL Football Operations

operations.nfl.com

Also, regardless of the replay aspect, this rule debunks what a few of you are saying. It addresses the initial contact made below the neck…it’s still a penalty if contact is made. The chin counts as well as part of the head. This was 100% a penalty.

 

[Tunescribe]

No. this shouldn’t be a booth review. This should simply be a call that can be challenged like many other calls, since it relies on true or false video evidence, and it isn’t based on intent/flow of game. I covered in the OP that I don’t think every play should be reviewable.

Specifically, see the rule below.

Roughing the Passer | NFL Football Operations

operations.nfl.com

View attachment 40361
Also, regardless of the replay aspect, this rule debunks what a few of you are saying. It addresses the initial contact made below the neck…it’s still a penalty if contact is made. The chin counts as well as part of the head. This was 100% a penalty.

Man, I've watched the point of impact on that play a half-dozen times now and it just doesn't look blatant to me. It's close, but Miller turns his head sideways -- the side of his helmet makes contact to Brady's chest/shoulder area and I don't see movement rising to suitably fit the definition of "forcibly hitting the passer's head or neck area with the helmet or facemask." The last sentence is important in this case, per Brady's complaint of a bloody lip: "This rule does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or non-crown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on a passer." Incidental contact, I think, is what occurred here.

So, let's say this non-call is challenged after Brady draws a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct. What do we have if the hit is flagged retrospectively -- offsetting penalties? As I've said, Tom obviously felt he had a valid gripe and maybe he did, but he didn't handle it well and hurt his team.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Man, I've watched the point of impact on that play a half-dozen times now and it just doesn't look blatant to me. It's close, but Miller turns his head sideways -- the side of his helmet makes contact to Brady's chest/shoulder area and I don't see movement rising to suitably fit the definition of "forcibly hitting the passer's head or neck area with the helmet or facemask." The last sentence is important in this case, per Brady's complaint of a bloody lip: "This rule does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or non-crown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on a passer." Incidental contact, I think, is what occurred here.

So, let's say this non-call is challenged after Brady draws a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct. What do we have if the hit is flagged retrospectively -- offsetting penalties? As I've said, Brady obviously felt he had a valid gripe and maybe he did, but he didn't handle it well and hurt his team.

Well sure…Brady shouldn’t have lost his temper. No excusing that.

But yes, you could have offsetting penalties in a situation like that, potentially. Let’s say Patrick Mahomes sees a 12th defender running off the field and then snaps the ball…then he scrambles around and the Chiefs incur a holding penalty. The Chiefs challenge the play and win the challenge. Are the penalties offsetting? I don’t know, but I believe they are.

A conventional tackle isn’t relevant to that play…that wasn’t a conventional tackle in any sense. And incidental doesn’t apply here...that would be like Mller sacking Brady and his hands happen to contact the moving helmet in the process of bringing him to the ground. This is just a textbook penalties the refs missed. Again..it happens. I can see how you could miss that due to the low trajectory. But it should be a play you can challenge.

 

[Tunescribe]

Well sure…Brady shouldn’t have lost his temper. No excusing that.

But yes, you could have offsetting penalties in a situation like that, potentially. Let’s say Patrick Mahomes sees a 12th defender running off the field and then snaps the ball…then he scrambles around and the Chiefs incur a holding penalty. The Chiefs challenge the play and win the challenge. Are the penalties offsetting? I don’t know, but I believe they are.

A conventional tackle isn’t relevant to that play…that wasn’t a conventional tackle in any sense. And incidental doesn’t apply here...that would be like Mller sacking Brady and his hands happen to contact the moving helmet in the process of bringing him to the ground. This is just a textbook penalties the refs missed. Again..it happens. I can see how you could miss that due to the low trajectory. But it should be a play you can challenge.

Just pursuing devil's advocate here: wasn't Miller in the process of attempting to tackle Brady (making a "conventional tackle") before letting up? He didn't launch, he didn't lead with the helmet's crown or facemask, initial contact was not "forcibly" made with the head or neck, the passer's lip got nicked (he didn't seek medical attention, not that it would be required). Seems incidental to me in this case and a close but acceptable non-call. A judgment call nonetheless and I'd seriously question whether a review would show sufficient "indisputable evidence" that a foul occurred, superseding the on-field refs.

Also re. "incidental": the rule passage specifies contact by the defender's helmet/facemask on the passer, I think you've got that part confused.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well sure…Brady shouldn’t have lost his temper. No excusing that.

If I think I've taken a blow to the head that was forceful enough to set me bleeding, and the penalty is an automatic call, and it's not called in a playoff game, I've just gotten screwed out of an automatic first down. I'm losing my temper, too, and I'm sure as hell not going to blame a QB for doing that.

 

[Deus Irae]

But it might be that the only rule issue that will be "dealt with" coming off of this weekend is the OT rule. And that's asinine.



But that's the NFL.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Just pursuing devil's advocate here: wasn't Miller in the process of attempting to tackle Brady (making a "conventional tackle") before letting up? He didn't launch, he didn't lead with the helmet's crown or facemask, initial contact was not "forcibly" made with the head or neck, the passer's lip got nicked (he didn't seek medical attention, not that it would be required). Seems incidental to me in this case and a close but acceptable non-call. A judgment call nonetheless and I'd seriously question whether a review would show sufficient "indisputable evidence" that a foul occurred, superseding the on-field refs.

Also re. "incidental": the rule passage specifies contact by the defender's helmet/facemask on the passer, I think you've got that part confused.

Seems like we’re not watching the same play….lol

 

[Gumby]

Totally agree.

Making everything reviewable does have issues with ticky-tack holding plays. Team A could throw a beautiful TD just before the 2 minute mark, Team B almost certainly will throw a challenge flag hoping to find something on the OL because it does happen on every play, so it seems. It could become a major debbie downer kind of thing. So, so maybe say trench warfare penalties need to be "blatant"? Yet we had the "clear and obvious" standard yet the refs treat every replay as the Zapruder (sp?) film. Maybe say reviews of trench warfare plays need to have two timeouts as a penalty for getting it wrong?

I watched all four games this weekend on my DVR after the games were over. I totally love being able to fast forward through all the bullshyte, but in particular the reviews. They are really a drag on the game. I know having NY do all the calls has a huge risk factor, but jeezus, why do we see a great play on the field and then it seems like there are court proceedings just to determine if we saw what we all just saw? Definitely put a ****ing time limit on replays. If you can't figure it out in fifteen seconds of real-time video, it sure as **** is not "clear and obvious".

Basically, slow replays are the officials doing their best to avoid being blamed and protect their career prospects. It's CYA mostly for their benefit, not ours! They are going to study every bleeping play multiple times frame by frame if you let them. Make them shyte or get off the pot! If they can't cope, find refs that can. If it ain't clear and obvious in fifteen seconds, it ain't clear and obvious! Just say the play stands as called and move the **** on!

If team B has to explicitly name the player being held (and/or the holder) that takes the fishing angle out of it (except for end-of-game type situations ).

i had seen similar things (explicit reqmt) when they made coach decide are you challenging the spot or the possession on out of bounds 1st down calls.

 

[Gumby]

Drawing blood isn’t a penalty though. I don’t see a penalty in the hit.
As far as the flag on Brady my opinion is that kind of response toward a ref consistently would destroy the product. Just look at WR/DB. There are a dozen of cases of those players expecting a flag every game. If they are allowed to get in the refs face and scream at him to try to get them to change the call you have anarchy.
I get that some might say give Brady a pass because he was pissed about the play but my take is on the rule and if you don’t enforce it you get bedlam.
After 22 years Brady knows that, knows better, and thats why he never did it before.

My take is that BB is always right.

TB went on some show days before the game and laughed about how he abuses the refs verbally and that he probably deserved an unsportsmanlike sometime for it.

you think the refs don’t read those stories about the teams they are about to ref?

as someone else said, it could partially have been a Make-up for the opi uncalled. But I think the story extra motivated the ref to call it.

So if tb had shut up on Friday maybe there was no call on the weekend and the opi was just forgotten.

 

[Pats2000]

The bolded part, I'm not sure about. If the QB has thrown the ball away and it's already landed incomplete, I'd also think the roughing would be a dead ball personal foul, after the play.

problem is, if the ball's already landed incomplete, then it is a hit far, far too late to be associated with a rush on the QB, and that would pretty much never happen (other than say a blindside block after an INT)

I dunno, Mac got hit and knocked to the ground about 5 secs after the whistle was blown and everyone was just standing around and the refs did f*ckall.

 

[Pats2000]

Hurt feelings should be + 5 yards and a 1st down.

What kind of militant social justice warrior are you? Hurt feelings means the other team forfeits the game and then the players of the winning team get to chant loud enough to down out the forfeited teams post game press conference

 

[1960Pats]

Yes, I believe it is.
The forcible contact was to the shoulder, the incidental contact was to the chin.

The chin is part of the head.

 

[1960Pats]

Yes taunting penalties are stupid. But the league has bigger priorities than what true football fans prefer, and what’s best for competition. Political correctness comes first and how can you live with a winner celebrating in front of a loser. Next they will take away participation trophies and ban dodgeball.

Not to get too far off track, but I remember my first experience with that faulty thinking. It was a few parents in T-Ball that didn't want the kids' feelings hurt so they didn't want to call any kids out. In their first game a 5 year old hit a ground ball to the 5 year old shortstop, who actually caught and threw it within reach of the 5 year old 1st baseman, who also caught it with his foot on the bag before the runner arrived. When the kid who made the great play found out that the kid who hit it was staying on 1st, he started balling. He knew he made a great play and threw that other kid out.

 

[1960Pats]

But it might be that the only rule issue that will be "dealt with" coming off of this weekend is the OT rule. And that's asinine.



But that's the NFL.

I bet the KC fans and coaches who were whining a few years ago don't have problems with the OT rules now.

 

[Lagaffe_07]

The hit was to his chest/shoulder and after the hit Miller slid up and contacted around the chin.
My understanding is that is not an illegal hit, as initial, forcible, contact must be to the head area.

I don’t know, the point number 3 of the roughing the passer rule is pretty clear to me. Your can’t hit the QB helmet with your helmet even if you try to tackle him and the initial contact is under the neck.

Per NFL roughing the passer rule, point 3

In covering the passer position, Referees will be particularly alert to fouls in which defenders impermissibly use the helmet and/or facemask to hit the passer, or use hands, arms, or other parts of the body to hit the passer forcibly in the head or neck area (see also the other unnecessary roughness rules covering these subjects). A defensive player must not use his helmet against a passer who is in a defenseless posture—for example, (1) forcibly hitting the passer’s head or neck area with the helmet or facemask, even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the passer’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the passer by encircling or grasping him; or (2) lowering the head and making forcible contact with any part of the helmet against any part of the passer’s body. This rule does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or non-crown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on a passer.

 

[fourhour]

Maybe Hochuli could've manned up and ignored Brady...........

Baseball officials listen to a lot of crap from both sides. Most turn their heads and walk away. Persistence gets the player ejected.

 

[BTTA]

Baseball officials listen to a lot of crap from both sides. Most turn their heads and walk away. Persistence gets the player ejected.

This is what I thought when watching it. Clearly Miller was pulling up, rather than using the opportunity to hit the QB. The rule did its job - to reduce serious injuries to players who can't protect themselves when doing their jobs. I don't want penalties called based on some technical requirement. If that becomes the standard, then they'll need to triple the number of officials and both line play (holding) and pass defense (grabbing, little shoves) become entirely different.

But Brady got pissed. OK, so what. The ref should have just wagged his finger at Brady and smiled, and trotted away. If Brady persisted, and/or blocked the refs pathway, the penalty comes in to play.

 

[Tottie]

Officials have no business being offended or being part of the show. Just do your job. Unfortunately it's way too late for all that. Fire almost all of them and bring in 100 younger trainees. Spend the entire summer working with them full time and pay them like lawyers. I bet rookies would do better next year and if not, they would soon after. We've seen it way too many times this year where the ref thinks he's the show. What are 60 year olds doing out there trying to keep up with these guys.

 

[borg]

refs should be able to handle getting blasted by players if they make terrible calls

imagine being a grown man, being on a field full of other grown men, and getting upset because a player sweared at you for making a terrible call/no call. if you get upset over that you’re a ****y who needs to find a new line of work

 

[Tunescribe]

Seems like we’re not watching the same play….lol

I watched the same play everyone else did including the refs, announcers and millions of others not emotionally invested in the game's outcome. The only subsequent complaints I've seen have been from Bucs/Brady fans; even Arians foremost blasted the unsportsmanlike call vs. Miller's hit. You are among this forum's more rational posters and many of your OP observations are well considered, but I'm afraid in this case you're looking through pewter-colored glasses. I doubt the same objection would be raised had this involved Aaron Rodgers instead of Tom.