JoshAllenHasBigHands

I think the other big thing being missed here is that one of the reasons Metcalf fell is a lot of GMs thought that he may be juicing. That is something to keep an eye out for going forward.

This is the only answer to the ford talk. This fan base man...

"He is an OK tackle, but if we 'kicked him inside' he would be a pro bowler"

Maybe, but I can tell you those rules are written by lawyers. People like me that pick apart the words being used. For example, "strict liability" is a legal term. But I gotta run, and I'm gonna try to stay off here until after the bye. But hey, Go Bills!

Howevvvvver, what you are really talking about is that "engaged and pushed into" is 99% of the examples of being "blocked into." That does not mean that one equals the other. That doesn't preclude that "blocked into" includes other distinct scenarios (such as the Milano hit).

The problem, Alpha, is you think the work "block" means "push." That is not accurate. If the NFL had meant for the term block to encompass pushing the defender into the QB, they would have used the term "push." The fact that they didn't means they intended something else.

If that were true, they would have used different verbs--e.g. pushed, etc. The fact that they didn't means that is not what they meant.

That, to me, is the worst part...

Alas, their is not legislative history for me to look at. His interpretation is intuitive, because that is how the play develops 99% of the time. So we think that one means the other, but the words are different. If the NFL had meant "pushed into" they would have just used those words. Instead, they used "blocked into." Those words should be given meaning.

Oops. There is your mistake. "push him into" does not equal "blocked into." You are conflating the two; however, one does not mean the other. The latter means the block caused the defender to make contact with the QB. That is what happened here.

I'm an attorney. Interpreting rules is how I get my rocks off. I appreciate the discussion as well! Love it.

When the blocker initiated contact with Milano, he was blocked into the quarterback. You are saying "forcibly block Milano." That is not what the rule says. By its terms, the rule is saying where a block causes the rusher to make contact, it is not a penalty. Therefore, your first premise is incorrect. Since the block caused the contact, Milano was indeed blocked into Mariotta. Moving to three, he did not hav an opportunity to avoid contact.

How often do you run full speed and are then struck below your knees?

True, but the defender did not initiate the roll or lunge -- the blocker initiated the roll by chipping Milano. Initiate is an active verb. That means Milano, to initiate, must be the one to start the roll. His body's movement was a response to the contact initiated by the defender.

So this is the rule (as attached above): (d) A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him. Notes: (1) A defender cannot initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the passer in the knee area or below, even if he is being contacted by another player. (2) It is not a foul if the defender swipes or grabs a passer in the knee area or below in an attempt to tackle him, provided he does not make forcible contact with the helmet, shoulder, chest, or forearm. The relevant provision states "t is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him." So, tell me, where is Milano's opportunity to avoid the hit after he is struck by the defender? Moreover, the block itself is what caused Milano to spiral uncontrollably towards the QBs legs. According to the rule, it is a non-foul.

C'mon...That is preposterous

This is what I take issue with. The video is posted above in this thread. Milano runs, he is hit low, and his body is caused to flip. Whatever forward movement he makes is a product of the lineman's conduct. I've moved off intent. I understand that. However, it is clearly the offensive blocker that caused the contact. After Milano and the defender make contact, it is solely momentum that causes him to travel forward.

That motion is super clever. I don't hate it.

Alpha, I know you are coming off a big win with the Zay thing, but I just don't know how you look at that play and think he "dove" at the QB. Thats just physics, man. You run full speed, and are then tripped at your lowest point, your momentum will carry you the exact way he flew. Tell you what, throw away the intent element. What about where the offensive lineman caused the contact? That is what happened here. The blocker caused the defender to initiate low contact. Should that be a penalty?

Well obviously. That isn't the point. It is still a play that draws a flag against the defense. The point is to illustrate the absurdity of the rule.

So for whatever reason, I haven't seen this discussed. I found this to be one of the wildest roughing the passer penalties I have ever seen. My question is this: Is there an intent element to these penalties? If not, should there be? I mean, imagine for a moment an offensive lineman throws his guy into the quarterbacks knees. Would the rusher still get a penalty? I feel like this is essentially what happened to Milano. I understand accidents--such as your free hand striking a quarterbacks head--but this was more than an accident, Milano did a complete flip. This was completely unavoidable on his part.

Everyone once in a while you get owned so well you just have to give props. This is it. Well done.

I want to live in a world where every one understands this is a special teams move and not a back-up running back move.

He is a nice piece, but at some point you have to make hard choices. He is good, for sure, but unless he wants in the 5 to 10 range, you are almost better off bringing in a rookie. I know we have space now, but it will be more important to extend Poyer, Jordan Phillips, and Tre. I am sure I am missing others as well.

See what I mean about linear growth? He had a step back against the pats, but he is progressing again. The general trajectory is still up.