italian pat patriot
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
2021 Weekly Picks Winner
2023 Weekly Picks Winner
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 9,116
- Reaction score
- 6,656
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
MAYBE TELL YOUR F***KING STUPID QB TO GO DOWN INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FIGHT FOR EXTRA YARDS
Tell your QB not to engage defenders by lowering his helmet into them in the future, maybe?
The 2018 change on helmet contact:Please cite the rule that you claim was violated.
Allen lowered his head and leads with the crown of his helmet into the side of Jones head. Allen is a RB here and this is a routine play. No infraction occurred.The 2018 change on helmet contact:
Here are the basics of the NFL’s new helmet rule
He lowered his helmet and hit him in the head. They will always, and should always, call this. No brainer. The tackler has to adjust. If this had been done to Brady I would be out for blood.
People saying Allen should be the one getting penalized are being silly. That's not how they call this rule.
That said, Allen should be penalized for showing poor judgment. But you gotta admire his grit.
Fact Sheet - Use of the HelmetThe Rule: As approved by NFL clubs in March, it is a foul if a player lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent. Contact does not have to be to an opponent's head or neck area – lowering the head and initiating contact to an opponent's torso, hips, and lower body, is also a foul. Violations of the rule will be easier to see and officiate when they occur in open space – as opposed to close line play – but this rule applies anywhere on the field at any time.
Penalties for Violation: Loss of 15 yards. If the foul is by the defense, it is also an automatic first down. The player may also be ejected. Ejection standards:
- Player lowers his helmet to establish a linear body posture prior to initiating and making contact with the helmet
- Unobstructed path to his opponent
- Contact clearly avoidable and player delivering the blow had other options
I'd settle for fired
Allen lowered his head and leads with the crown of his helmet into the side of Jones head. Allen is a RB here and this is a routine play. No infraction occurred.
Here is the NFL rule:
Fact Sheet - Use of the Helmet
Belichick has it right:
Allen lowered his head and leads with the crown of his helmet into the side of Jones head. Allen is a RB here and this is a routine play. No infraction occurred.
Here is the NFL rule:
Fact Sheet - Use of the Helmet
Belichick has it right:
MAYBE TELL YOUR F***KING STUPID QB TO GO DOWN INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FIGHT FOR EXTRA YARDS
Reminds me of Harbaugh.Allen has every right to fight for the first down on 3rd down, and I feel bad he got concussed.
That said, Jones had every right to prevent Allen from gaining those yards.
Jones never left his feet and Allen was leaning forward at the time of the hit. Both players initiated the contact.
By the letter of the law it was not a penalty (let alone an ejection) because Allen was not a defenseless player.
Had a lot of respect for McDermott coming into today’s game and he managed to throw away all that respect by showing his ignorance of the rules and behaving in a classless manner in the process.
He was just building in an excuse in case they lost. The narrative could be all about Pats spying before the game.LOL.
Yea, watching the Bills stretch and warm up.
Like the 50,000 other fans in the house.
LOL
.. and, they weren't coaches, I believe.
I disagree, because to my eyes, the defender stopped before the contact.This ignores how they call it in practice is what I'm saying. It is 99% of the time applied to defenders making tackles, not RBs putting their head down and running. The rule isn't written well but this is exactly the kind of situation the rule is meant for! It couldn't be much more clear. The video shows a clear helmet-t0-helmet hit by a tackler who lowered his helmet (intent doesn't matter: I agree it seemed he was trying to avoid it so it wasn't flagrant, but he didn't actually succeed in avoiding it -- hence he gets the penalty, but not ejected: they made the right call).
If you said they should make the rule more clear, or apply it more consistently, you'd have no objections from me. But this was a clear-cut case. If they did not call this penalty they would be negligent as hell.