The hit on Dobson !!

[Ring 6]

It looked to me like he gave a little extra "oomph" with his shoulder - that was my problem with it.

Of course he did, why wouldn't he? If he saw the fc sign and knows it will be a flag, he might as well get a hit in for his 10 yards. If not, he is tackling.
I'm not sure when the NFL changed to where people think permission should be asked to hit someone.

 

[Bhelmet]

Of course he did, why wouldn't he? If he saw the fc sign and knows it will be a flag, he might as well get a hit in for his 10 yards. If not, he is tackling.
I'm not sure when the NFL changed to where people think permission should be asked to hit someone.

We are not the ones who made or changed the rules. When a rule is obviously violated, I expect a flag - for or against my team.

 

[patchick]

It looked to me like he gave a little extra "oomph" with his shoulder - that was my problem with it.

Of course he did, why wouldn't he? If he saw the fc sign and knows it will be a flag, he might as well get a hit in for his 10 yards. If not, he is tackling.
I'm not sure when the NFL changed to where people think permission should be asked to hit someone.

Andy, this was a case where it was up to the refs' discretion to determine whether being engaged with a blocker led the coverage man incidentally into the PR, or whether it was deliberate interference. Turning to the PR, lowering a shoulder and launching into him is pretty much the definition of deliberate interference. So in this case, I believe the "extra oomph" does matter to the rules.

 

[unoriginal]

It is football.
And it is very possible that while being blocked he did not see the fair catch signal too.

Of course he did, why wouldn't he? If he saw the fc sign and knows it will be a flag, he might as well get a hit in for his 10 yards. If not, he is tackling.
I'm not sure when the NFL changed to where people think permission should be asked to hit someone.

People are often confused on this point so I'll mention it.

Fair catch interference does not apply only to punts where the returner signals for a fair catch. The returner is not allowed to be hit at any time before receiving the ball, unless the contact is deemed unavoidable. The fair catch signal simply protects the returner from being hit AFTER he makes the catch. The returner has the right to catch the ball unimpeded and it is in fact a penalty (illegal touching) for the kicking team to touch the ball before a returner, just as it is for them to disrupt the returner from making that first touch (fair catch interference).

Therefore, whether the gunner saw Edelman's signal is irrelevant when considering whether the hit was illegal or dirty. The gunner knows he can't hit a returner until the returner has touched the ball.

The extenuating circumstances that may have entered into the ref's decision here were that (a) Edelman was on the move, and (b) the gunner was being blocked. If the returner makes a sudden move to catch the ball sometimes the gunner is allowed to make contact (contact is unavoidable; the gunner does not have eyes in the back of his head to track the ball) and obviously if the gunner is shoved directly into the returner (such as in an attempt to draw a foul) contact is again unavoidable.

Given that both Edelman was moving rapidly and the gunner was being blocked up to the moment of contact, and the ref was watching it all in real time and not slo-mo from the best camera angle available, perhaps the ref though the contact was unavoidable. Personally I feel the gunner was in complete control of himself and made no attempt whatsoever to avoid illegal contact but that would be why the penalty wasn't called on the field.

I wouldn't be surprised if the gunner was fined.

 

[Kontradiction]

Any new word on how he's doing?

He should be alright. That looked like your standard stinger.

 

[Ring 6]

We are not the ones who made or changed the rules. When a rule is obviously violated, I expect a flag - for or against my team.

The discussion wasn't about whether a flag was warranted, because it was, it was that you distinguished it as bad because he put something behind the hit.

 

[Ring 6]

People are often confused on this point so I'll mention it.

Fair catch interference does not apply only to punts where the returner signals for a fair catch. The returner is not allowed to be hit at any time before receiving the ball, unless the contact is deemed unavoidable. The fair catch signal simply protects the returner from being hit AFTER he makes the catch. The returner has the right to catch the ball unimpeded and it is in fact a penalty (illegal touching) for the kicking team to touch the ball before a returner, just as it is for them to disrupt the returner from making that first touch (fair catch interference).

Therefore, whether the gunner saw Edelman's signal is irrelevant when considering whether the hit was illegal or dirty. The gunner knows he can't hit a returner until the returner has touched the ball.

The extenuating circumstances that may have entered into the ref's decision here were that (a) Edelman was on the move, and (b) the gunner was being blocked. If the returner makes a sudden move to catch the ball sometimes the gunner is allowed to make contact (contact is unavoidable; the gunner does not have eyes in the back of his head to track the ball) and obviously if the gunner is shoved directly into the returner (such as in an attempt to draw a foul) contact is again unavoidable.

Given that both Edelman was moving rapidly and the gunner was being blocked up to the moment of contact, and the ref was watching it all in real time and not slo-mo from the best camera angle available, perhaps the ref though the contact was unavoidable. Personally I feel the gunner was in complete control of himself and made no attempt whatsoever to avoid illegal contact but that would be why the penalty wasn't called on the field.

I wouldn't be surprised if the gunner was fined.

Of course it should be a penalty, I was referring to the assertion it was dirty.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, this was a case where it was up to the refs' discretion to determine whether being engaged with a blocker led the coverage man incidentally into the PR, or whether it was deliberate interference. Turning to the PR, lowering a shoulder and launching into him is pretty much the definition of deliberate interference. So in this case, I believe the "extra oomph" does matter to the rules.

I'd have to look at it again, but I'm pretty sure the contact would have happened any way. Again, I was speaking to the 'dirtiness' of the hit, which I found it not to be. He clearly interfered with the right to field the punt.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Of course he did, why wouldn't he? If he saw the fc sign and knows it will be a flag, he might as well get a hit in for his 10 yards. If not, he is tackling.
I'm not sure when the NFL changed to where people think permission should be asked to hit someone.

Ok, suppose you make contact with the facemask and see the flag thrown, should you then give it a good yank to really mess up the opposing players neck and get something for your penalty?

The violation of the rules coupled with the deliberate intent to injure is kinda the definition of what makes something dirty.

 

[Ring 6]

Ok, suppose you make contact with the facemask and see the flag thrown, should you then give it a good yank to really mess up the opposing players neck and get something for your penalty?

The violation of the rules coupled with the deliberate intent to injure is kinda the definition of what makes something dirty.

Yup thats exactly what I meant and a player throwing his shoulder into a guy he is hitting is the same as grabbing his facemask and trying to rip his head off and injure him.

Next we should penalize players for hitting hard.

 

[WhoaDirty]

Of course he did, why wouldn't he? If he saw the fc sign and knows it will be a flag, he might as well get a hit in for his 10 yards. If not, he is tackling.
I'm not sure when the NFL changed to where people think permission should be asked to hit someone.

I'd have to look at it again, but I'm pretty sure the contact would have happened any way. Again, I was speaking to the 'dirtiness' of the hit, which I found it not to be. He clearly interfered with the right to field the punt.

The way I'm reading this is that you believe he had too options: a) try to minimize the hit or b) get a good hit in? Why would someone "get a hit in" if not to try and injure the other player? And if he is trying to injure the other player, wouldn't that be the definition of dirty?

 

[Bella*chick]

He should be alright. That looked like your standard stinger.

Looks like he had an MRI? No word on results.

 

[Ring 6]

The way I'm reading this is that you believe he had too options: a) try to minimize the hit or b) get a good hit in? Why would someone "get a hit in" if not to try and injure the other player? And if he is trying to injure the other player, wouldn't that be the definition of dirty?

You are kidding right? Are you saying players are supposed to minimize their hits or it is dirty?

 

[WhoaDirty]

You are kidding right? Are you saying players are supposed to minimize their hits or it is dirty?

No, of course not.

Of course he did, why wouldn't he? If he saw the fc sign and knows it will be a flag, he might as well get a hit in for his 10 yards. If not, he is tackling.
I'm not sure when the NFL changed to where people think permission should be asked to hit someone.

If he two options are to tackle him or "get a hit in" and he takes the option that has a higher chance of injuring the other player, doesn't that make it dirty?

 

[BradyBranch39]

The spot was actually right. The ref's foot was right on the hash where the ball touched ground.

The spot wasn't the problem.

It was the other idiot referee with the ball in his hand setting the ball down 6 inches back from the foot of the spot.

Oh, good. I thought I was the only person who noticed this.

 

[Joker]

Oh, good. I thought I was the only person who noticed this.

you missed ME going beserk over it last night...at least ten posts...jeezus what a rip job

 

[Ring 6]

No, of course not.



If he two options are to tackle him or "get a hit in" and he takes the option that has a higher chance of injuring the other player, doesn't that make it dirty?

I see where you misunderstood my post. (Probably my fault for sloppy wording)
If not he was tackling meant if he didn't see the fc sign he was trying to tackle a ball carrier.
Not that he was choosing between a hit and a tackle
Nonetheless there is nothing wrong with inflicting the hardest hit you are capable of. That's part of the game.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

He should be alright. That looked like your standard stinger.

No, that looked more like an NFL-special stinger, where you feel clear from your eardrum to the soles of your feet.

The way I'm reading this is that you believe he had too options: a) try to minimize the hit or b) get a good hit in? Why would someone "get a hit in" if not to try and injure the other player? And if he is trying to injure the other player, wouldn't that be the definition of dirty?

Lowering the shoulder to brace for impact is a pretty normal move, so I can't fault the ref too much for not dropping a flag. However, in super slow motion, it is clear that he acted with intent and should be fined. He won't be, of course, but that's because Goodell can't get it right.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Yup thats exactly what I meant and a player throwing his shoulder into a guy he is hitting is the same as grabbing his facemask and trying to rip his head off and injure him.

Next we should penalize players for hitting hard.

Simply hitting hard isn't against the rules, hitting when you're not supposed to IS against the rules. Sorry but your argument is simply a fail.

 

[signbabybrady]

Of course it should be a penalty, I was referring to the assertion it was dirty.

Andy,

I was the one who called this specific play dirty so let me explain.

I have no problem with someone lowering their shoulder the way the cover man did if the player is not defenseless. Had he been the ball carrier or even a WR going over the middle for a catch (there was no helmet to helmet so this would be fine),

Where the problem occurs is that this was a defenseless punt returner looking up for the ball in which he is protected by both a fair catch called and a halo of space in which he is granted to catch the ball.

I also understand that if you are being blocked you want always be able to control yourself from not making contact but this is not the dirty part. The dirty part is that the player either new he was being blocked and thought he could get away with it or just ignored the halo and fair catch rules either way to me it is extremely dirty.

Had he just bumped into the player because he was being blocked nothing wrong but to lower shoulder on someone who is not only protected by the rules but also who is not even looking is dirty.