Milano Roughing the Passer

[Doc]

Yes the call was complete BS.

[Kelly the Dog]

Logically, he was indeed "blocked into the QB" because his imminent trajectory without the block would not have hit the QB.

[Chandemonium]

7 minutes ago, May Day 10 said:

The "encroachment" call in the red zone made me a bit more furious to be honest.

Me too. How do you miss the entire right side of the line taking a full step backward a full second before the ball is snapped?

[Alphadawg7]

14 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

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.    

 

Thats roughing the passer because he hit the QB all on his own accord.  In live play, I too thought he was "flipped" into the QB, but he actually wasn't and dove with his own momentum into the QB.  

 

It wasn't "intentional" but it doesn't have to be to violate a rule.  Just like running into a kicker does not have to be intentional, but if the defender hits the kicker even while trying their best avoid doing so, its still a penalty.  Roughing the passer is not required to be intentional, the rule is the QB can not be hit after he has thrown the ball regardless of the intent of the defender.

 

It is however NOT roughing the passer though if the defender is thrown into the QB by one of the offensive players.  For example, had someone physically tossed Milano into him, it would not be called.  This is to prevent OL from tying to get free yardage by intentionally making the guys they are blocking hit the QB for a penalty.  

 

One thing I would argue is that there should be two levels to the penalty like roughing the kicker with a lighter penalty of 5 yards on plays like this one and then the 15 yard play for the bigger offenses.  Especially given some of the real tricky tack roughing the QB calls that have happened across the league the last 2 years.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

17 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

It was indeed Roughing the Passer according to the modern rules. I said "Thats a flag" the second i happened, and sure enough.... Even if "unavoidable" (which I agree with)

 

The idea that an OL would purposely throw a Defender into his own QB's knees is a bit ludicrous. That OL would be cut immediately.

 

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. 

[Buddo]

Milano will probably get fined a bunch as well. After all, he couldn't do anything at all about colliding with the QB.

 

Whereas the guy who didn't have to lower his helmet to make helmet to helmet contact with Allen, gets off scott free.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

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. 

 

But as Alpha pointed out, they dont call it if the Defender is blocked in, like on Punts.

 

Disagree that its an absurd rule. But I do appreciate you bringing it up for discussion.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Thats roughing the passer because he hit the QB all on his own accord.  In live play, I too thought he was "flipped" into the QB, but he actually wasn't and dove with his own momentum into the QB.  

 

It wasn't "intentional" but it doesn't have to be to violate a rule.  Just like running into a kicker does not have to be intentional, but if the defender hits the kicker even while trying their best avoid doing so, its still a penalty.  Roughing the passer is not required to be intentional, the rule is the QB can not be hit after he has thrown the ball regardless of the intent of the defender.

 

It is however NOT roughing the passer though if the defender is thrown into the QB by one of the offensive players.  For example, had someone physically tossed Milano into him, it would not be called.  This is to prevent OL from tying to get free yardage by intentionally making the guys they are blocking hit the QB for a penalty.  

 

One thing I would argue is that there should be two levels to the penalty like roughing the kicker with a lighter penalty of 5 yards on plays like this one and then the 15 yard play for the bigger offenses.  Especially given some of the real tricky tack roughing the QB calls that have happened across the league the last 2 years.

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. 

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

But as Alpha pointed out, they dont call it if the Defender is blocked in, like on Punts.

 

Disagree that its an absurd rule. But I do appreciate you bringing it up for discussion.

 

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? 

[PromoTheRobot]

So now we'll see the New England Patriots deliberately block defenders into Brady to generate calls?

[JESSEFEFFER]

The rule has an exemption for contact that resulted from a block and made it unavoidable.  Most of these type blocks happen outside the focus of the referee who's main focus is on the QB.  

I doubt team's teach cut blocks like that in pass protection because it puts the QB at risk.

[Forward Progress]

18 minutes ago, May Day 10 said:

The "encroachment" call in the red zone made me a bit more furious to be honest.

 

Me too.

[Sig1Hunter]

7 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

Me too. How do you miss the entire right side of the line taking a full step backward a full second before the ball is snapped?

Because the movement by the two tight ends on the end of the line wasn’t a false start. It was a shift. A shift designed to entice a jump by the defense, no doubt. But, it was a legal shift nonetheless. Trent took the bait. You can even see after the play he was patting his chest admitting it was his fault. That call was a proper call.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 minute ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Because the movement by the two tight ends on the end of the line wasn’t a false start. It was a shift. A shift designed to entice a jump by the defense, no doubt. But, it was a legal shift nonetheless. Trent took the bait. You can even see after the play he was patting his chest admitting it was his fault. That call was a proper call.

 

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

[JESSEFEFFER]

6 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Because the movement by the two tight ends on the end of the line wasn’t a false start. It was a shift. A shift designed to entice a jump by the defense, no doubt. But, it was a legal shift nonetheless. Trent took the bait. You can even see after the play he was patting his chest admitting it was his fault. That call was a proper call.

Movement that simulates the start of a play like QB head bob is illegal seems to me.  Having them both move abruptly was intended to do just that.

Edited October 8, 2019 by JESSEFEFFER

[All_Pro_Bills]

I'm not sure if the Ref focused on watching the QB saw the block that flipped Milano into the QB's legs.  Unfortunately, it was just something he had to call.  I recall several years ago hearing one of the "old time" coaches (can't remember who) talking about protecting the QB.  And his response was "if you want to protect the QB then block better".

[Thurman Kelly]

Here's the rule from the NFL rulebook (emphasis added):

 

(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.

 

It comes down to whether being cut by a back is being "blocked (or fouled) into the passer".  Clearly, Milano wasn't fouled.  In my view, the natural and probable consequence of cutting a rusher is for that rusher to travel forward over top of you.  In my mind, therefore, you block a rusher into the passer if you decide to cut him in circumstances where he cannot avoid contact with the QB (below the knew) after being cut.

[Alphadawg7]

12 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

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? 

 

But I think you misread my post as I didn't say though he dove at the QB, I said he hit the QB off of his own momentum.  The only way that is not a roughing the passer is if an offensive player intentionally throws him into the QB.  Milano dove over the offensive player off his own momentum that resulted (unintentionally of course) in running into the QB late after the pass was thrown.

 

That 100% correlates with the existing rule in place.  There is no part of the rule where the prerequisite of it being a penalty is malicious intent.  The rule is you can not run into the QB, just like you can not run into a kicker, regardless of intent.  The only exception is if the defensive player is thrown/tossed directly into the kicker or QB by one of the offensive players.  And in this case, I admit I thought that was what happened in live play, but seeing the replay, Milano dove over the blocker and was not tossed into the QB.  

 

So while I do not fault Milano, the unfortunate reality is that it was a roughing the passer penalty in 100% full accordance with the rule as written.  You are free to not like the rule, and I also think tweaks to it need to happen, but at the end of the day, the refs got this play right according to the existing rule in place at the time it happened.

 

Like I said in other post, I do think they need to 2 levels of the penalty though for unintentional situations like this just like they do with the kicker...5 yard and 15 yard penalty.  

Edited October 8, 2019 by Alphadawg7

[DrDawkinstein]

11 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

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? 

 

8 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Because the movement by the two tight ends on the end of the line wasn’t a false start. It was a shift. A shift designed to entice a jump by the defense, no doubt. But, it was a legal shift nonetheless. Trent took the bait. You can even see after the play he was patting his chest admitting it was his fault. That call was a proper call.

 

Great article here regarding both penalties and the rules: https://tinyurl.com/y3cqzmyj

 

As long as its called consistently (like when Josh gets hit low), then I dont mind.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by DrDawkinstein

[Chandemonium]

4 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Because the movement by the two tight ends on the end of the line wasn’t a false start. It was a shift. A shift designed to entice a jump by the defense, no doubt. But, it was a legal shift nonetheless. Trent took the bait. You can even see after the play he was patting his chest admitting it was his fault. That call was a proper call.

I’d have to re-watch it, but live and on the broadcast replay it looked like a textbook false start to me, they suddenly stepped backward into a pass blocking stance. How is that a shift instead of a false start?

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Chandemonium said:

I’d have to re-watch it, but live and on the broadcast replay it looked like a textbook false start to me, they suddenly stepped backward into a pass blocking stance. How is that a shift instead of a false start?

 

Because they arent on the line