TJ Ward

[shinoff2183]

How come with all these hits that are getting attention, that ward hit on rashard isnt being talked about. WTF, he lead literally with his helmet.

[Wallace108]

That's a good point, shinoff. The thing that makes that hit different than Harrison's is that Mendenhall never lowered his head. Ward, leading with his helmet, launched himself up into Mendy's facemask.

I guess it's the fact that Mendenhall is a runner and not a receiver. I would think that a hit to the helmet is a hit to the helmet, whether you have the ball or not. Just goes to show you how insane the rules are.

[SirHulka]

Correct. "Defenseless" receivers are protected, RBs are not. You can literally beat a RB to death legally. You're right. The rules ARE insane. A helmet-to-helmet hit is gonna hurt someone badly whether or not it's a WR or a RB. Another case: Harrison (again) knocked out Magahee with a helmet hit earlier this year, and no one said a thing about it. Magahee is a RB.

[ALLD]

Cribbs was a running back and it drew a fine.

[TheRuneMeister]

Cribbs was a running back and it drew a fine.
Nope, the Massaquoi hit was fined, not the Cribbs hit. The 'prior' that he had was the sack on VY.

[Just George]

Cribbs was a running back and it drew a fine.

as Rune said Cribbs hit was not a factor in fine.

Cribbs was running the wildcat wasn't he? so as a "runner" he is ok to " beat..to death legally"

[CPanther95]

Nope, the Massaquoi hit was fined, not the Cribbs hit. The 'prior' that he had was the sack on VY.

The prior offense was BS as well. VY wouldn't have been pile driven if two other defenders weren't up high trying to bring him down when Harrison upended him.

[Vis]

Correct. "Defenseless" receivers are protected, RBs are not. You can literally beat a RB to death legally. You're right. The rules ARE insane. A helmet-to-helmet hit is gonna hurt someone badly whether or not it's a WR or a RB. Another case: Harrison (again) knocked out Magahee with a helmet hit earlier this year, and no one said a thing about it. Magahee is a RB.

The idea here is that a rb can see whats coming and adjust. A receiver going up for the ball has no chance to see the defender or change his position to avoid headhunting. It's similar to the kicker with his leg up - no chance to avoid.

[Wallace108]

The idea here is that a rb can see whats coming and adjust. A receiver going up for the ball has no chance to see the defender or change his position to avoid headhunting. It's similar to the kicker with his leg up - no chance to avoid.

Cribbs did a hell of a job of adjusting. :chuckle:
I'm not going to disagree with you, Vis, because you're absolutely correct in their reasoning, but the reasoning is flawed. If they're concerned about injuries resulting from helmet-to-helmet hits, having the ball doesn't lessen the impact of the hit. And although it's true that runners have a chance to see it coming, in the Steelers-Browns game, I saw two runners take helmet-to-helmet hits and only one receiver. :noidea:

[Vis]

Cribbs did a hell of a job of adjusting. :chuckle:
I'm not going to disagree with you, Vis, because you're absolutely correct in their reasoning, but the reasoning is flawed. If they're concerned about injuries resulting from helmet-to-helmet hits, having the ball doesn't lessen the impact of the hit. And although it's true that runners have a chance to see it coming, in the Steelers-Browns game, I saw two runners take helmet-to-helmet hits and only one receiver. :noidea:

But it wasn't the cribbs hit that resulted in a fine, was it?

[Wallace108]

But it wasn't the cribbs hit that resulted in a fine, was it?

Nope. And it shouldn't have been, based on the rules. What I'm saying is the rules make no sense.

[Vis]

Nope. And it shouldn't have been, based on the rules. What I'm saying is the rules make no sense.

All i would say is you don't have to solve all the problems to make solving one a good idea.

[Wallace108]

All i would say is you don't have to solve all the problems to make solving one a good idea.

But what did they solve? All they've done is create confusion and outrage.

[Vis]

But what did they solve? All they've done is create confusion and outrage.

We don't know yet. If fewer players get concussions, good for those players. It's a wait and see.

[Wallace108]

We don't know yet. If fewer players get concussions, good for those players. It's a wait and see.

But it's OK if running backs get concussions?

What I'm having trouble understanding is the league's goal and reasoning. If their goal is to prevent head injuries, then ALL helmet-to-helmet hits should be illegal.

If they're reasoning for allowing it on runners is that they can see it coming and adjust, then why is it a penalty when a defensive player makes helmet-to-helmet contact with a QB (even if the QB is hit straight on and could see it coming)?

Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you ... I just don't understand the league's reasoning.

[stlrtruck]

Through all this discussion I haven't heard this concern:

What about the referee's? How will they be trained in time for this weekend's games? How long before a none-call becomes "THE" call that leads to a team losing the game only later to get a call from the NFL that the hit was legal and shouldn't have been flagged!

This is what is now my concern. It will do a team no good if they lose a vital game down the stretch, ousted of the playoffs because of one game, only to have a letter framed on the wall that says, "We're sorry!"

[Vis]

Through all this discussion I haven't heard this concern:

What about the referee's? How will they be trained in time for this weekend's games? How long before a none-call becomes "THE" call that leads to a team losing the game only later to get a call from the NFL that the hit was legal and shouldn't have been flagged!

This is what is now my concern. It will do a team no good if they lose a vital game down the stretch, ousted of the playoffs because of one game, only to have a letter framed on the wall that says, "We're sorry!"

the rule didn't change, only the size of the sanctions

[Wallace108]

Through all this discussion I haven't heard this concern:

What about the referee's? How will they be trained in time for this weekend's games? How long before a none-call becomes "THE" call that leads to a team losing the game only later to get a call from the NFL that the hit was legal and shouldn't have been flagged!

This is what is now my concern. It will do a team no good if they lose a vital game down the stretch, ousted of the playoffs because of one game, only to have a letter framed on the wall that says, "We're sorry!"

Good point, truck. That's part of the confusion I was talking about. Regardless of how anyone feels about a certain rule, I don't believe in changing rules in the middle of the game. Address it during the off-season.

[Vis]

Good point, truck. That's part of the confusion I was talking about. Regardless of how anyone feels about a certain rule, I don't believe in changing rules in the middle of the game. Address it during the off-season.

Again, no rule changed.

[Wallace108]

Again, no rule changed.

True. But it's one thing to be flagged 15 yards and/or fined. It's other thing to have a player suspended. That penalty wasn't in place for the first five games and could have made a difference in games if certain players had gotten suspensions. You can't change the rules and/or penalties in the middle of the season.

[Vis]

True. But it's one thing to be flagged 15 yards and/or fined. It's other thing to have a player suspended. That penalty wasn't in place for the first five games and could have made a difference in games if certain players had gotten suspensions. You can't change the rules and/or penalties in the middle of the season.

but getting suspended by the league after a game has nothing to do with what the officials do. The penalty on the field, and the rule itself, are the same. No additional referee training is needed.

[Wallace108]

but getting suspended by the league after a game has nothing to do with what the officials do. The penalty on the field, and the rule itself, are the same. No additional referee training is needed.

Again, true. But if a player gets suspended for a hit on Sunday when a player wasn't suspended for the same exact hit in games 1-5, then that's unfair.

[silver & black]

Through all this discussion I haven't heard this concern:

What about the referee's? How will they be trained in time for this weekend's games? How long before a none-call becomes "THE" call that leads to a team losing the game only later to get a call from the NFL that the hit was legal and shouldn't have been flagged!

This is what is now my concern. It will do a team no good if they lose a vital game down the stretch, ousted of the playoffs because of one game, only to have a letter framed on the wall that says, "We're sorry!"

LOL... the Raiders have an entire room full of those framed letters.

[CPanther95]

the rule didn't change, only the size of the sanctions

Wrong.

Not only the size of the sanctions. They are also adding sanctions for legal hits that are too violent.

Fines based on one criteria, but penalties and rules based on a different set of criteria is asinine.

[SteelerFanInStl]

but getting suspended by the league after a game has nothing to do with what the officials do. The penalty on the field, and the rule itself, are the same. No additional referee training is needed.

I disagree. You're right, nothing has changed with the rules but the fact is that players are getting fined and/or suspended for hits that aren't even drawing flags during the game. That's a problem.

There was a hit last week in the Rams game on Sam Bradford that I haven't heard mentioned by anyone on a national level. He was rolling out to his left so I guess that you'd call him a runner but the defensive player launched himself helmet first right up into Bradford's facemask. No penalty was called even though you're not supposed to be allowed to hit the QB in the head and it was also a helmet to helmet hit. There should've been a personal foul called and the defensive player should've been fined. Neither happened. The referees are so inconsistent with their calls that they need training.

[stlrtruck]

There was a hit last week in the Rams game on Sam Bradford that I haven't heard mentioned by anyone on a national level. He was rolling out to his left so I guess that you'd call him a runner but the defensive player launched himself helmet first right up into Bradford's facemask. No penalty was called even though you're not supposed to be allowed to hit the QB in the head and it was also a helmet to helmet hit. There should've been a personal foul called and the defensive player should've been fined. Neither happened. The referees are so inconsistent with their calls that they need training.

His name was Brady, Farve, or Manning, therefore it is not a penalty.

Good Lord don't you know the ruffing the QB rules for the NFL? :sarcasm:

[Vis]

I disagree. You're right, nothing has changed with the rules but the fact is that players are getting fined and/or suspended for hits that aren't even drawing flags during the game. That's a problem.

There was a hit last week in the Rams game on Sam Bradford that I haven't heard mentioned by anyone on a national level. He was rolling out to his left so I guess that you'd call him a runner but the defensive player launched himself helmet first right up into Bradford's facemask. No penalty was called even though you're not supposed to be allowed to hit the QB in the head and it was also a helmet to helmet hit. There should've been a personal foul called and the defensive player should've been fined. Neither happened. The referees are so inconsistent with their calls that they need training.

Referees miss calls all the time. Look at holding on Harrison. That doesn't change the rule or the league's ability to fine or suspend. The league isn't bound by a ref's bad call or non-call.

[SteelerFanInStl]

Referees miss calls all the time. Look at holding on Harrison. That doesn't change the rule or the league's ability to fine or suspend. The league isn't bound by a ref's bad call or non-call.

Of course they miss calls all the time. That's one reason why they need training. I have no illusions of them never missing a call but if they're going to call something one way, call it that way ALL THE TIME. The same kind of hit on both Brady and Bradford deserves the same call every time. The same kind of hit should garner a penalty and/or suspension no matter who is involved and no matter if the player gets a concussion or not.

[Vis]

Of course they miss calls all the time. That's one reason why they need training. I have no illusions of them never missing a call but if they're going to call something one way, call it that way ALL THE TIME. The same kind of hit on both Brady and Bradford deserves the same call every time. The same kind of hit should garner a penalty and/or suspension no matter who is involved and no matter if the player gets a concussion or not.

All true but if the ref is dodging another player, he might miss how a hit is delivered. I don't know why the hit on Bradford (which I haven't seen) wasn't called. It might not have been seen for some reason,

[Devilsdancefloor]

With all this talk about helmet to helmet contact NO one is talking about the big uglies in the trenches they have helmet to helmet contact ALL the time. Think about it how many times have you seen on Dline and oline helmets the other teams colors? This isnt about safety at all. If it is instate the rule everyone wears double sided mouth pieces & the helmet for concussions not give the player a choice? Plus i havent heard ANY talk about stiff arms as well a nice little jab to the head by a WR or RB. THIS IS FOOTBALL it is going to happen no matter what you do. If a hit isnt a penalty it sholdnt be reviewed for a fine or now a suspension.

[SteelerFanInStl]

All true but if the ref is dodging another player, he might miss how a hit is delivered. I don't know why the hit on Bradford (which I haven't seen) wasn't called. It might not have been seen for some reason,

He had the ball when it happened so eyes were on him. I happened to find a video of it here (http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2010/10/18/1759255/refs-idle-while-bradford-takes-illegal-helmet-to-helmet-hit). I think that Burnett should've been fined for the hit.

[stlrtruck]

He had the ball when it happened so eyes were on him. I happened to find a video of it here (http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2010/10/18/1759255/refs-idle-while-bradford-takes-illegal-helmet-to-helmet-hit). I think that Burnett should've been fined for the hit.

I saw the video and while it's a helmet to helmet hit, watch Bradford towards the end of his run. He lowers his helmet to take part of the blow. If he doesn't lower the helment it's a cleaner hit, but then Bradford risks some broken ribs.

This is my argument all along. No one is watching the offensive players during these plays. They want to automatically say the defensive player is at fault. But how can a defensive player who is also in motion be held responsible for the offensive player who at the last minute changes his body position?

[Vis]

I saw the video and while it's a helmet to helmet hit, watch Bradford towards the end of his run. He lowers his helmet to take part of the blow. If he doesn't lower the helment it's a cleaner hit, but then Bradford risks some broken ribs.

This is my argument all along. No one is watching the offensive players during these plays. They want to automatically say the defensive player is at fault. But how can a defensive player who is also in motion be held responsible for the offensive player who at the last minute changes his body position?

Bradford lowered his head in attempt to defend himself knowing he was going to get hit. The defender lead with his helmet to use it as a tool/weapon in making a hit. That's the difference. yes the helmet makes a effective tool in making a punishing hit, that's why it's used.

[SteelerFanInStl]

I saw the video and while it's a helmet to helmet hit, watch Bradford towards the end of his run. He lowers his helmet to take part of the blow. If he doesn't lower the helment it's a cleaner hit, but then Bradford risks some broken ribs.

This is my argument all along. No one is watching the offensive players during these plays. They want to automatically say the defensive player is at fault. But how can a defensive player who is also in motion be held responsible for the offensive player who at the last minute changes his body position?

I agree, he lowered his helmet, just like Massaquoi did on the Harrison hit, but Burnett launched himself helmet first at Bradford. That hit should have been penalized and fined.

[stlrtruck]

Bradford lowered his head in attempt to defend himself knowing he was going to get hit. The defender lead with his helmet to use it as a tool/weapon in making a hit. That's the difference. yes the helmet makes a effective tool in making a punishing hit, that's why it's used.


I agree, he lowered his helmet, just like Massaquoi did on the Harrison hit, but Burnett launched himself helmet first at Bradford. That hit should have been penalized and fined.

I missed him launching his head the first time. I went back and watched it. And you're right that should have been penalized and fined.

[shinoff2183]

They were talking on NFL Live last night, and it was mentioned that the refs have a choice where they can know eject a player from the game, for these hits. Ill try and find a link.

[stlrtruck]

They were talking on NFL Live last night, and it was mentioned that the refs have a choice where they can know eject a player from the game, for these hits. Ill try and find a link.

Yeah it was on ESPN.com, on the main page. It was a in the bit about Goodell giving 3 points and the final point was that refs could now eject players.

[SteelerFanInStl]

Well, they're supposed to eject a player for throwing a punch also and I never see that happen. Usually they don't even throw a flag.

[Kaeg]

Ok, it seems we have covered one of my two upcoming questions: The Ward hit on Mendenhall at about 4:00 left in the game, I'm assuming. By the way, the commentators remarked about what a nice hit it was. In the case of an RB, you're allowed to have your head taken off. :chuckle:
But I was rewatching the game last night and I saw another hit that I have not seen mentioned. At about 13:30 left in the 4th qtr. Brown hit A.R.E. helmet to helmet also. After a 10 yard catch. I'm no expert, so I'm just asking anyone who knows, and remembers that hit if that one was ok. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around what's legal and what's not. I'm confused. :confused:

[ALLD]

Ok, it seems we have covered one of my two upcoming questions: The Ward hit on Mendenhall at about 4:00 left in the game, I'm assuming. By the way, the commentators remarked about what a nice hit it was. In the case of an RB, you're allowed to have your head taken off. :chuckle:
But I was rewatching the game last night and I saw another hit that I have not seen mentioned. At about 13:30 left in the 4th qtr. Brown hit A.R.E. helmet to helmet also. After a 10 yard catch. I'm no expert, so I'm just asking anyone who knows, and remembers that hit if that one was ok. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around what's legal and what's not. I'm confused. :confused:


Most likely anybody hitting a Steeler will not be fined or penalized.

[BigNastyDefense]

The NFL has a lot of rules that make no sense:

The ground cannot cause a fumble.....however it can cause an incomplete pass.

Helmet-to-helmet hits are bad....unless the player isn't "defenseless"....and unless the player who's head is being hit is a defensive player's

You cannot cut-block a defensive lineman (but it happens multiple times a game)....but you can take out a defenders legs on a down field block

Illegal touching....it's only against defensive players, not offensive players

[ALLD]

The NFL has a lot of rules that make no sense:

The ground cannot cause a fumble.....however it can cause an incomplete pass.

Helmet-to-helmet hits are bad....unless the player isn't "defenseless"....and unless the player who's head is being hit is a defensive player's


You cannot cut-block a defensive lineman (but it happens multiple times a game)....but you can take out a defenders legs on a down field block

Illegal touching....it's only against defensive players, not offensive players

Offensive line holding on a LB is 10-yards unless it is against James Harrison, then it is not a penalty.

[HollywoodSteel]

The hit on Bradford puts a great spotlight on what this is all about. It has nothing to do with safety. It has to do with putting up appearances. What was the difference between the Bradford hit and the ones that got fined? Bradford wasn't knocked out, and it didn't make the highlight reel. It was just as illegal and just as dangerous, but if the press won't focus on it, the NFL doesn't give a rat's ass.

Not to beat a dead horse (okay, maybe to beat a dead horse) but it's the same reason Big Ben got suspended and guys like Rey Maualuga didn't. What is objectively more immoral, sex in a bathroom and failing to card someone in a bar before buying them a drink, or driving so drunk that you plow into parked cars and parking meters? Doesn't matter, one made the headlines, the other did not.

I find it funny that the NFL cares so much about safety and human lives that they're going to start suspending first time offenders for vicious hits on the football field. But put innocent lives at risk... you get a pass. Maybe if you're caught twice they'll do something about it.