Amendola's Hit on Fleming

[Ring 6]

here's the amendola hit on fleming.

angle 1:

angle 2:

angle 3:

Someone please explain what is illegal about that.

 

[Galeb]

Someone please explain what is illegal about that.

Copyright infringement.

 

[bbobbo]

Thanks for putting up that video. I take back what I said about not dragging him down. He did. While he may have left the ground while still in-bounds, he made first contact while the runner was well out of bounds, hung on, and dragged him to the ground. It is clear to me now why I thought at the time, and still do, that it should have been called a penalty. As for changing direction, no, he couldn't. However, he could easily have (a) not grabbed him or (b) let go.

first contact: both players well inbounds.

 

[Ring 6]

first contact: both players well inbounds.

Some people think that playing football is now about stopping and making a decision about whether your action could possibly injure an opponent rather than tackling the guy with the football.

 

[Deus Irae]

first contact: both players well inbounds.

It was clearly a legal play.

 

[h0c2000]

here's the amendola hit on fleming.

angle 1:

angle 2:

angle 3:

After watching these videos, I've come to the conclusion that Amendola was incorrectly penalized for a foul. Here's the video that is mentioned as precedence: Media Officiating Videos | NFL Football Operations

Dummy Blandino mentions 2 elements to consider:

1. Blocker moving parallel or towards the goal line.
   
2. Forcible contact to head or neck area.

Point 1 is how the defenseless player is defined which makes it a foul. Except for point 1, dummy is missing a huge part which is that the defenseless player is approached from behind or the side:

(9) A player who receives a “blindside” block when the path of the blocker is toward or parallel to his own end line, and he approaches the opponent from behind or from the side​

The only way I can see him being guilty is with a very loose definition of approaching from the side. The two players are basically approaching each other from the front.

 

[SalemPats]

Do i think it was a penalty? Yes (he led with his helmet).

Do I think it was a great play? Yes, 100%

 

[bbobbo]

Thanks for putting up that video. I take back what I said about not dragging him down. He did. While he may have left the ground while still in-bounds, he made first contact while the runner was well out of bounds, hung on, and dragged him to the ground. It is clear to me now why I thought at the time, and still do, that it should have been called a penalty. As for changing direction, no, he couldn't. However, he could easily have (a) not grabbed him or (b) let go.

he actually doesn't hang on. look at this sequence:



9 frames, or 0.333 0.300 seconds later, he pulls his right hand away from smith's waist, before smith is even completely down:



edit: fixed frame-rate calculation (9 / 29.97 fps)

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The tackle clearly started in-bounds, Dante then clearly released Smith after going OOB.

Not even remotely close to a penalty
Not even remotely close to being dirty
Not even remotely close to deserving to be discussed as a questionable call

Fouts (or was it Eagle?) was clearly wrong in suggesting that a penalty was deserved. Understandable, since the game was not going "their way"

 

[Wheelman]

I'm saving those GIF's! I loved that legal hit by Amendola!

 

[bresna]

first contact: both players well inbounds.

And let's face facts - if Hightower didn't make this contact with Smith, he would have gotten a lot more yards. Smith does not run out of bounds like most quarterbacks being pursued by an LB. He runs for as many yards as he can. If Hightower didn't hit Smith here and drive him out of bounds, he would've had another 10 yards easy.

 

[denverpatsfan]

Packer fans now calling for DA's suspension. Unbelievable. Heard it on a national radio show this AM. I've really had enough.

 

[Ring 6]

Packer fans now calling for DA's suspension. Unbelievable. Heard it on a national radio show this AM. I've really had enough.

Packer fans? Why?

 

[Deus Irae]

Belichick's still defending the hit, FWIW.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Packer fans now calling for DA's suspension. Unbelievable. Heard it on a national radio show this AM. I've really had enough.

Fans of the Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys, and Packers simply don't want the Patriots winning more Championships, just as Montana, Rice, and Aikman didn't want Brady winning any more rings. It makes them insecure, so they will grasp at anything in the hopes it will keep the Patriots from winning more Championships.

 

[Ring 6]

Do i think it was a penalty? Yes (he led with his helmet).

Do I think it was a great play? Yes, 100%

He led with his shoulder

 

[pencilneckgeek]

The tackle clearly started in-bounds, Dante then clearly released Smith after going OOB.

Not even remotely close to a penalty
Not even remotely close to being dirty
Not even remotely close to deserving to be discussed as a questionable call

Fouts (or was it Eagle?) was clearly wrong in suggesting that a penalty was deserved. Understandable, since the game was not going "their way"

It was Fouts. He loses it just about anytime a quarterback is hit. It's probably just a form of PTSD from playing the position back in the day when it was legal to hit a quarterback within a few seconds of having thrown the ball.

 

[SalemPats]

He led with his shoulder

That's fine, but the first point of contact was his helmet.

I think it was a great move in the 5 yard line to try and lay out the guy, i'm not arguing the call.

 

[Ring 6]

That's fine, but the first point of contact was his helmet.

I think it was a great move in the 5 yard line to try and lay out the guy, i'm not arguing the call.

No it was not. The helmet was to the side. If you are saying his head reached point A before his shoulder, well duh. That IS NOT leading with your head, and what he did is not by any means a penalty, with the possible exception of a poor interpretation of the crackback rule.
The hit itself was 100% legal, and its not even arguable.

 

[SalemPats]

No it was not. The helmet was to the side. If you are saying his head reached point A before his shoulder, well duh. That IS NOT leading with your head, and what he did is not by any means a penalty, with the possible exception of a poor interpretation of the crackback rule.
The hit itself was 100% legal, and its not even arguable.

I loved the hit, but if your first point of contact is your own helmet than it's a penalty.

But honestly, it was a great aggressive penalty.