Dallas - Cincy Hit

[asdf]

The foul was for a hit on a defenseless receiver, not for illegal helmet contact.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by asdf

The foul was for a hit on a defenseless receiver, not for illegal helmet contact.

Is that what the official said? (I have no audio for these clips here at work, and thought they said helmet contact when I saw this live).

OK, if that's the case, I'm back to my original question... is this REALLY where we want the league to go --- a receiver who has the ball in his hands and has not yet dropped it is considered defenseless?

[sj]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Is that what the official said? (I have no audio for these clips here at work, and thought they said helmet contact when I saw this live).

OK, if that's the case, I'm back to my original question... is this REALLY where we want the league to go --- a receiver who has the ball in his hands and has not yet dropped it is considered defenseless?

Fans see things like this and go right to ballistic by saying that because calls like this are made the NFL is somehow speaking from on-high and making sweeping and game-altering statements about it's future. When in fact they're just mistakes. That's all. Nothing more. And we've all been there many times.

We'll all find out sooner or later exactly how this call was evaluated. And if it's an incorrect then no one would feel worse than the official who made it. But regardless of what we find out one thing is for sure. He was not trying to change the games future when he threw the flag.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Is that what the official said? (I have no audio for these clips here at work, and thought they said helmet contact when I saw this live).

OK, if that's the case, I'm back to my original question... is this REALLY where we want the league to go --- a receiver who has the ball in his hands and has not yet dropped it is considered defenseless?

Yes, that's how the foul was announced.

Apparently the BJ felt he was defenseless. Bryant proved that to be an incorrect judgment when he immediately popped up and pointed to the flag and ran back to the huddle.

[APG]

Originally Posted by asdf

The foul was for a hit on a defenseless receiver, not for illegal helmet contact.

There are legal hits on players in a defenseless posture. It's only illegal to hit a player in the head or neck area with the helmet, shoulder, or forearm, using the crown of the helmet to hit the defenseless players player in any part of his body, or illegally launching into the defenseless player's body.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by APG

There are legal hits on players in a defenseless posture. It's only illegal to hit a player in the head or neck area with the helmet, shoulder, or forearm, using the crown of the helmet to hit the defenseless players player in any part of his body, or illegally launching into the defenseless player's body.

Not saying I agreed with the call, just saying what was announced as the reason for the flag.

[PSU213]

Originally Posted by asdf

The foul was for a hit on a defenseless receiver, not for illegal helmet contact.

How can a receiver, in bounds, still on his feet, with the ball in his hands not be 'fair game' for a hit that is not to his head and/or a hit made by the tackler with his helmet?

There a lots of reasons that the focus on player safety is a really, really good thing. However, this hit is a strong play by the defender preventing a completion.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by PSU213

How can a receiver, in bounds, still on his feet, with the ball in his hands not be 'fair game' for a hit that is not to his head and/or a hit made by the tackler with his helmet?

There a lots of reasons that the focus on player safety is a really, really good thing. However, this hit is a strong play by the defender preventing a completion.

Not disagreeing with you.

It was a blown call by a good official.