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?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DfNHjW_ObxE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks for the video.

I agree with Pereira.

?????

Why the shot?

He saw helmet contact where helmet contact didn't exist. Watch the video and come back and explain what you mean. What do you think I don't understand?

PS - I'm not saying any of this as a fanboy --- I'm a Cowboy fan if anything, and the call went in their favor.

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?

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.

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.

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.

What I don't think you understand, Mike, is exactly what the covering official believed he saw, that prompted him to throw that flag. On the field, at that very moment, there's really not a whole lot of difference between what he may have seen and what he truly believed he saw, as least as far as reaching for the flag is concerned.

Considering the speed of play, the skill of the players and the nature of this particular contact, I would think most officials, who may have walked in somewhat similar footsteps, would be inclined to give the covering official the benefit of the doubt. Thankfully, that circumstance doesn't seem to fall under the reviewable situations, so often the final judgment is determined by what the covering official believes he sees, which hopefully matches what he actually sees, and prompts an appropriate reaction.

That official made the call, presumably based on what he believed he saw, without the benefit or the hindsight of replay that slowed the action down to that of a gnat winking as viewed from multiple angles and positions.

Whether from a "fan" perspective or not, there's a point where even constructive criticism, especially when it cannot change or make any difference to anything, can become hyper critical and lose any value it might otherwise offer.

I see the reason for your misunderstanding now.

I am NOT blaming the officials. The officials are not at fault - they are told to err on the side of safety, and there have been numerous examples of a hit on a not-yet-downed receiver being flagged AT THE DIRECTION OF THE LEAGUE. They are TOLD to call this. And I believe it's step one in the direction of the demise of the league.

I'm blaming the league and/or Roger Goodell. The direction was fine, and somewhat needed ... but we've gone too far. Far too far, yet we keep going further in that direction.

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.

Not disagreeing with you.

It was a blown call by a good official.

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