Dallas - Cincy Hit
 

Surprised to not see a thread... so I'll start one.

Late 3rd Q, Cincy up by 9, Dallas 3rd and 20. Pass to the sideline (I think to Bryant), who has the ball in both hands and is coming down as he's leveled by a hit in his back by the defender's shoulders. No head contact at all. Bryant drops the ball, ref on the spot (SJ) rules incomplete, no flag. Suddenly, here comes a flag from the hinterlands --- probably BJ, but they never show for sure.

Anyone see this hit? Any word from the NFL if that is really the kind of hit they want outlawed? Seemed to me to be a completely clean hit that did it's job of separating the receiver from the ball. And I'm a Cowboy fan. Billick's comment was, "I guess they just want you to let him catch it."

There was one in the Green Bay/Detroit game last night also. Pretty sure it was a GB defensive back that was penalized. His head never hit the receiver, it was only his arm/shoulder and the hit wasn't all that rough to begin with. It was pretty weak.

That call was correct...it was a shoulder to the helmet which is an action prohibited against a player in a defenseless posture. A player is prohibited from forcibly contacting a player in a defenseless posture with the helmet, including the crown of the helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm.

Mike Pereira says bad call.

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/stat...71708675907584

I'm looking for video...

Hitting a defenseless player in the head is a foul regardless of what is used. Same in the NCAA.

I watched it live and for several replays and it was shoulder to chest with neither player's helmet involved.

I wish I could find a video of it, because I don't think the receiver's head was even hit.

Sounds like some people, who should know a lot better, are forgetting that it's no secret that slow motion replay on a big screen can actually reveal minute details that are not as readily available to the naked eye at live action speed.

Don't forget, the main difference between what the game official sees on the field and what can be seen on replay, is that what the game official sees during live action, matters. If anyone has earned the benefit of the doubt, it's these guys, considering exactly who and what they're looking at.

Is slow motion likely to reveal that a certain hit that seemed to be there at full speed wasn't actually there? The reverse, sure.

The problem in this case is that the official that's 20-someodd yards away didn't give the benefit of the doubt to the official that was right on the play who didn't flag the perfectly legal hit.

As it's described here, we've got a sideline catch/no-catch situation. In that case, the sideline officials (SJ, HL) are going to be primarily watching the receiver's actions relative towards possession and in/out of bounds. The "off" officials (BJ primarily, possibly U depending on where he's aligned at the snap) will be looking at the defenders and how they initiate contact.

If the SJ or HL has a chance to see what the defender does, fair enough. But they've got other considerations that take priority.

Was the hit legal? I don't know, I haven't seen the video. But given what I've been hearing from a few NFL and high-level NCAA officials, flags thrown on questionable contact such as was described here will almost certainly be supported.

Exactly.

A reasonable "rule of thumb" has always been that an official who actually sees something, should trump a fellow official who may not have seen that same something.

At any level it's important that officials who share a sideline have discussed, in some detail, how they will interact on collaborative calls, and I would suspect at the NFL level such discussion is an integral part of pre-game review. There's really no doubt involved when one official sees something his fellow official was not in position to see, nor may have been looking for (as discussed in the pre-game responsibility review).

If there was some dispute between officials, they were obviously skilled enough to understand any such discussion would be held in private.

I see your point. Unfortunately, I guess, in this case... the off-official "saw" something that didn't exist.

Didn't exist, or saw something that you didn't see, or don't understand?