Mr. WEO Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) How was the call blown? According to the article the rules were applied correctly. Where the refs supposed to 'just give it to him' because it happened on the goal line and he's a nice kid who took a big hit? Also, what penalty do you think should have been called? Not really... "The intent is unassailable, but the enforcement is suspect. In Bell's case, his helmet came off in the process of being tackled. He wasn't made safer by the play retroactively being declared dead as he was going to the ground. Bell would have been given his continuation had he lost his helmet on any play that wasn't automatically reviewable, so why not here? All the rule did in this instance was penalize the Steelers for their runner being hit helmet-to-helmet." Edited November 30, 2013 by Mr. WEO
Meatloaf Sandwich Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) Not really... "The intent is unassailable, but the enforcement is suspect. In Bell's case, his helmet came off in the process of being tackled. He wasn't made safer by the play retroactively being declared dead as he was going to the ground. Bell would have been given his continuation had he lost his helmet on any play that wasn't automatically reviewable, so why not here? All the rule did in this instance was penalize the Steelers for their runner being hit helmet-to-helmet." Well he shouldn't have lead with his helmet if it makes you feel any better. That's the rules live with it. Edited November 30, 2013 by Meatloaf Sandwich
NoSaint Posted November 30, 2013 Author Posted November 30, 2013 Not really... "The intent is unassailable, but the enforcement is suspect. In Bell's case, his helmet came off in the process of being tackled. He wasn't made safer by the play retroactively being declared dead as he was going to the ground. Bell would have been given his continuation had he lost his helmet on any play that wasn't automatically reviewable, so why not here? All the rule did in this instance was penalize the Steelers for their runner being hit helmet-to-helmet." All that says is that the rule protecting a helmetless player ended up hurting his team. It was properly enforced. And a running back lowering his head at the goal line isn't a protected player as he's clearly not defenseless. Really the easiest penalty call would've been on bell for lowering his head (not saying it should've been called, simply that it was the closest on that hit to an illegal act by the rulebook)
KD in CA Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 Not really... "The intent is unassailable, but the enforcement is suspect. In Bell's case, his helmet came off in the process of being tackled. He wasn't made safer by the play retroactively being declared dead as he was going to the ground. Bell would have been given his continuation had he lost his helmet on any play that wasn't automatically reviewable, so why not here? All the rule did in this instance was penalize the Steelers for their runner being hit helmet-to-helmet." Your bolded text serves only to highlight the contradiction in that paragraph. Unless the rule specifically states the refs are supposed to only enforce the rule if they judge it would improve player saftey (I doubt that's the case), than the rule was applied as written -- therefore, correctly. That means your argument should be with the rules committe, not the game officials.
Braedenstearns Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 Didnt that happen to another team not to long ago? They were standing on the white and they got penalized for it... I think it was the jets? But im not sure.
KD in CA Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 Didnt that happen to another team not to long ago? They were standing on the white and they got penalized for it... I think it was the jets? But im not sure. Yes, it was an assistant coach with the Jets. IIRC, he was not on the white line, but when the Miami gunner on the punt team was pushed onto the sideline, the coach leaned out to trip him rather than getting out of the way. He was fired.
NoSaint Posted November 30, 2013 Author Posted November 30, 2013 Yes, it was an assistant coach with the Jets. IIRC, he was not on the white line, but when the Miami gunner on the punt team was pushed onto the sideline, the coach leaned out to trip him rather than getting out of the way. He was fired. That happened, but within the last month or so the jets were flagged for being to close to the field as well.
Meatloaf Sandwich Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) Yes, it was an assistant coach with the Jets. IIRC, he was not on the white line, but when the Miami gunner on the punt team was pushed onto the sideline, the coach leaned out to trip him rather than getting out of the way. He was fired. Actually no he was never fired. He was suspended for the year then they let him resign so he is now the strength coach for a college team. Edited November 30, 2013 by Meatloaf Sandwich
firemedic Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 A team JUST got penalized or this.........
Mr. WEO Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 All that says is that the rule protecting a helmetless player ended up hurting his team. It was properly enforced. And a running back lowering his head at the goal line isn't a protected player as he's clearly not defenseless. Really the easiest penalty call would've been on bell for lowering his head (not saying it should've been called, simply that it was the closest on that hit to an illegal act by the rulebook) Nope... "The new rule that stipulates a ballcarrier cannot use the crown of his helmet to deliver a forcible blow to a defender". Bell wasn't doing any of that. He was going low to avoid a hit and cross the goal line. He didn't deliver a blow. Your bolded text serves only to highlight the contradiction in that paragraph. Unless the rule specifically states the refs are supposed to only enforce the rule if they judge it would improve player saftey (I doubt that's the case), than the rule was applied as written -- therefore, correctly. That means your argument should be with the rules committe, not the game officials. You said the article claims the play was called correctly. The article disagrees with you. Clearly the author feels that in any other nonreviewable play, the runner losing the helmet would have been given continuation, meaning he would have been given credit for where he and the ball were legally down--in this case, in the end zone. Here they ruled that the play was over before he and the ball reached the ground/end zone. Had he ben going simply for a first down and fell (a yard) over the first down marker a half second after losing his helmet, he would be awarded the first down 100% of the time , no doubt. I thought that was a bogus interpretation and so did the author of the article. In fact, that's why he wrote it. Go back and read it again.
NoSaint Posted November 30, 2013 Author Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) Nope... "The new rule that stipulates a ballcarrier cannot use the crown of his helmet to deliver a forcible blow to a defender". Bell wasn't doing any of that. He was going low to avoid a hit and cross the goal line. He didn't deliver a blow. You said the article claims the play was called correctly. The article disagrees with you. Clearly the author feels that in any other nonreviewable play, the runner losing the helmet would have been given continuation, meaning he would have been given credit for where he and the ball were legally down--in this case, in the end zone. Here they ruled that the play was over before he and the ball reached the ground/end zone. Had he ben going simply for a first down and fell (a yard) over the first down marker a half second after losing his helmet, he would be awarded the first down 100% of the time , no doubt. I thought that was a bogus interpretation and so did the author of the article. In fact, that's why he wrote it. Go back and read it again. No he's saying on the play he was awarded the forward progress mistakenly but because it was a scoring play the spot was reviewed and it was found the whistle should've been at the 1. He's arguing the rules bad, not that the call is bad. That they want the refs to have a judgement call there instead of the currently written instant whistle when the helmet pops off. And I didn't say that bell should've been called, simply that his lowering of the head was closer to a real penalty than the defender who did nothing remotely illegal, as the runner wasn't defenseless and not protected from the helmet contact And nowhere does he argue your original point of contention, that it was an illegal h2h hit. Edited November 30, 2013 by NoSaint
Doc Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 The play is blown dead the instant the helmet comes off. Bell was short when that happened, therefore no TD. As for the penalty, if called it would have made almost no difference since it would have been half the distance to the goal line. The Steelers ultimately scored on that drive but couldn't convert the 2 point play.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 Explaining that over and over you feel that Tomlin did NOT break the stride of number 12. Yeah. I just don't see where Tomlin hampered the runner. Yes, whack him (Tomlin) on the rules. I honestly don't think Tomlin realized he was on the field slightly! 12 was more concerned with 28's angle of pursuit and that is why he cut inside... To get away from 28, not Tomlin. I don't even think 12 knows Tomlin exists (despite what he may have said)... He was going to bowl Tomlin over if he didn't move. The cut was for 28. The Pitt player made a great TD saving tackle! By no means am I pro-Pitt... Could have got ugly... Again, whack Tomlin on the rules... But stop all the whining and crying that 12 would have broke free! He was going down no matter what... 28 put great angle on him and I think the choice to cut inside had nothing to do w/Tomlin!
uncle flap Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 On the Bell hit: I don't know if this came into play during the review of the TD, or in the writing of the rule and the subsequent training of the refs wrt its enforcement, but I think the NFL is fine with having no "wiggle room" so that it can never come back to bite them. By that I mean that in any subsequent litigation, the NFL can claim that they are crystal clear as far as leaving no calls regarding player safety as judgment calls. "Just giving it to him," even though that would seem to reflect the spirit of the play, would signify an instance where they strayed from the letter of the law. Any instance like that could be used as "evidence" that player safety exists on a slippery slope, and that's not a perception that the NFL wants, at least as far as how its rules are enforced. Personally, I think Bell's TD should've counted, as it's not like he made a choice to continue his progress into the end zone. However, I don't think there is a way to write a rule that would allow for that and that allows for the NFL to maintain its alleged hard stance on player safety.
NoSaint Posted November 30, 2013 Author Posted November 30, 2013 On the Bell hit: I don't know if this came into play during the review of the TD, or in the writing of the rule and the subsequent training of the refs wrt its enforcement, but I think the NFL is fine with having no "wiggle room" so that it can never come back to bite them. By that I mean that in any subsequent litigation, the NFL can claim that they are crystal clear as far as leaving no calls regarding player safety as judgment calls. "Just giving it to him," even though that would seem to reflect the spirit of the play, would signify an instance where they strayed from the letter of the law. Any instance like that could be used as "evidence" that player safety exists on a slippery slope, and that's not a perception that the NFL wants, at least as far as how its rules are enforced. Personally, I think Bell's TD should've counted, as it's not like he made a choice to continue his progress into the end zone. However, I don't think there is a way to write a rule that would allow for that and that allows for the NFL to maintain its alleged hard stance on player safety. Or more importantly, leave behind any doubt for a defender coming into the play- it's dead, don't worry if he's falling forward, no need to stop his progress.
KD in CA Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 Nope... "The new rule that stipulates a ballcarrier cannot use the crown of his helmet to deliver a forcible blow to a defender". Bell wasn't doing any of that. He was going low to avoid a hit and cross the goal line. He didn't deliver a blow. You said the article claims the play was called correctly. The article disagrees with you. Clearly the author feels that in any other nonreviewable play, the runner losing the helmet would have been given continuation, meaning he would have been given credit for where he and the ball were legally down--in this case, in the end zone. Here they ruled that the play was over before he and the ball reached the ground/end zone. Had he ben going simply for a first down and fell (a yard) over the first down marker a half second after losing his helmet, he would be awarded the first down 100% of the time , no doubt. I thought that was a bogus interpretation and so did the author of the article. In fact, that's why he wrote it. Go back and read it again. I don't need to read it again, I recognized the author's contradiction the first time. You need to stop focusing on his erroneous phrase 'enforcement is suspect' as it is factually incorrect. The fact that Bell was not allowed continuance is only relevant if the rule states that is to be allowed. If the rule doesn't state that, than it's the rule that is flawed and penalized the Steelers, not the enforcement. The author lays out the facts to support that conclusion, he just fails to state so correctly.
Pneumonic Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 Linegate? All teams cheat like this but the league needs to take a stand so that it no longer happens. I think the league should penalize Tomlin $500k and the Steelers should be penalized next years 1st rounder. And we all should refer to the Steelers as *Cheatlers* from this day forward.
Mike in Syracuse Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 Yes, it's common practice for coaches to stand with their backs to the field of play and every few seconds they peek over their shoulder to see what's going on . Seriously people? If you think there's even a remote chance that this wasn't completely intentional then you need to look at the smirk on Tomlin's face after the play. He should be suspended for a game AND fined on top of that. That type of behavior on the part of coaches is inexcusable. The only disappointing part about this whole incident is that Jones didn't lower his shoulder and bury Tomlin in the process.
uncle flap Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 Or more importantly, leave behind any doubt for a defender coming into the play- it's dead, don't worry if he's falling forward, no need to stop his progress. Good point.
Mr. WEO Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) The point the author was making is that referees interpret this rule as continuation anytime a ball carrier loses a helmet. there isn't a review to see where to spot the ball in other such cases, so obviously refs have leeway here. But because this was a scoring play, it is reviewed. The author points out that it is bogus that in this instant, they called the play unlike they have in other situations. No question they did. There is no rule against a ball carrier lowering his head. Has to be doing it in the act of delivering a blow, so it wouldn't a call that could have "easily" been made, NoSaint. And a runner needn't be defenseless for a flag to be thrown for h to h Edited November 30, 2013 by Mr. WEO
Recommended Posts