Milano Roughing the Passer

[Lurker]

2 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

Right from the rulebook.... 

 

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/roughing-the-passer/

 

 

Ah ha!   The smoking gun!      But scrolling down, it comes with a HUGH get-out-of-jail card for the refs:

 

1. When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Lurker said:

 

 

Ah ha!   The smoking gun!      But scrolling down, it comes with a HUGH get-out-of-jail card for the refs:

 

1. When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer.

 

You joke, but you arent wrong.

 

From the Rule Book:

 

 

What this means: When in doubt, it is the Defender's fault. Throw the flag.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Do you have that from the NFL, or is that your own interpretation?

 

Because historically, when talking about running into the kicker for example, "blocked into" does mean "pushed into".

 

 

 

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. 

[Scott7975]

Just now, Lurker said:

 

 

Ah ha!   The smoking gun!      But scrolling down, it comes with a HUGH get-out-of-jail card for the refs:

 

1. When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer.

Well of course.  The NFL applies that language to just about every rule.  This is why I hate NFL rules.  Too much gray area.  There are too many things a ref can do to influence the outcome of a game with almost no reprocussions.  Gray area things like this should all be reviewable IMO.

[billsbackto81]

1 hour ago, Happy Gilmore said:

I've seen this type of contact happen with multiple teams, not just Matt Milano and the Bills.  Not sure why the NFL can't get this straightened out with reviews and coach's challenges.  I see the need to protect the QB against unnecessary roughness, but it has gone too far where they might as well be playing flag football.

If there is forceful contact made on the QB intentional or not they're going to flag it. Same thing with Casey in the game. Josh was sliding and Casey tried to avoid him as he leaped over but his knee caught Josh square in the back. Surprised the announcers weren't aware cause I thought it was very clear. Taking a knee in the back from a 280 pound man running at you can cause serious damage.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

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. 

 

But then the rule would be clear, and the NFL wouldnt be able to fix games.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

You joke, but you arent wrong.

 

From the Rule Book:

 

 

What this means: When in doubt, it is the Defender's fault. Throw the flag.

 

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

[Alphadawg7]

27 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, if we gunna be bitching bout the refs, Phillips clearly facemasks Mariota on his first sack of the day, it was on  a third down that would have given the Titans a first down somewhere around the Bills 7, thats a huge miss too. Maybe titans go up 7-0 there instead of missing a 50yd yd field goal ?

 

These calls tend to even out in the course of a game and even more so over the season

Yup, good counter point and very true for all teams.

[LeGOATski]

If they want to avoid these types of hits on the QB, then make cut blocks behind the LOS illegal. They can only be done at or beyond the LOS. Calling a penalty on the defender does nothing to minimize these hits.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, billsbackto81 said:

If there is forceful contact made on the QB intentional or not they're going to flag it. Same thing with Casey in the game. Josh was sliding and Casey tried to avoid him as he leaped over but his knee caught Josh square in the back. Surprised the announcers weren't aware cause I thought it was very clear. Taking a knee in the back from a 280 pound man running at you can cause serious damage.

 

This.

 

As others have said, if rolls were reversed on the Milano penalty and that was an opposing defender flipping into Josh's legs, I'd want it called. I was "fine" with it being called against Milano because I know that's how the league works.

 

And in that same vein, I wanted the late hit on Josh called even though there was barely any contact and it looked like Josh acted a little.

 

Cant hit the QBs, man. As long as they call it for everyone, I'm fine with it. What pisses me off is when they let Cam Newton and Josh Allen take hits because they are the "young guys" but throw flags for Brady and Brees.

[Alphadawg7]

18 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

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. 

All good, we clearly see the contact different.  I watched video multiple times and I can’t see how you get the conclusion Milano was blocked into him when the offensive player didn’t even block Milano.  Milano went over and defender hit one thigh, all forward motion was created by Milano.

 

No big deal, we won and the refs called this a roughing the passer.  I don’t have an issue with that.

 

[LeGOATski]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

This.

 

As others have said, if rolls were reversed on the Milano penalty and that was an opposing defender flipping into Josh's legs, I'd want it called. I was "fine" with it being called against Milano because I know that's how the league works.

 

And in that same vein, I wanted the late hit on Josh called even though there was barely any contact and it looked like Josh acted a little.

 

Cant hit the QBs, man. As long as they call it for everyone, I'm fine with it. What pisses me off is when they let Cam Newton and Josh Allen take hits because they are the "young guys" but throw flags for Brady and Brees.

I'd be fine if it was not called on an opposing defender or Milano because I know it's not their fault. 

 

Very different than intentionally going low.

 

Calling it like it is has no impact on the frequency of these types of hits. There's no common sense being used in this case.

[Alphadawg7]

24 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

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

He was hit in one leg, and it was his thigh, not below both knees.

[Kmart128]

I don't understand the argument in this threads...Milano clearly got blocked into Mariota's knees... By rule that's not a foul. It was clear as day live and on the replay. Hopefully that ref gets a talking to... You shouldn't be throwing penalties if you don't see the entire thing. He clearly didn't see the chop block and obviously wasn't paying attention. 

[billsbackto81]

3 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

He was hit in one leg, and it was his thigh, not below both knees.

I'm surprised Milano travelled that far in the air. It looked like he was at least 3 or 4 yards away when tripped.

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I'd be fine if it was not called on an opposing defender or Milano because I know it's not their fault. 

 

Very different than intentionally going low.

 

Calling it like it is has no impact on the frequency of these types of hits. There's no common sense being used in this case.

 

I have seen low hits not get flagged because they were blocked in.

 

This particular play was a borderline play, it was not an obvious "block into" play. Evidenced by the fact that you have fellow Bills fans agreeing with the call. When in doubt, on borderline plays like in this case, they will default to throwing the flag. When the goals are to deter these hits and protect QBs, common sense says throw the flag.

 

It's too close a call to expect our version of "homer common sense" to be shared by the officials.

 

Fault and intent play no part in it.

3 minutes ago, Kmart128 said:

I don't understand the argument in this threads...Milano clearly got blocked into Mariota's knees... By rule that's not a foul. It was clear as day live and on the replay. Hopefully that ref gets a talking to... You shouldn't be throwing penalties if you don't see the entire thing. He clearly didn't see the chop block and obviously wasn't paying attention. 

 

Not "clearly" and not "blocked into". That is the argument to understand.

1 minute ago, billsbackto81 said:

I'm surprised Milano travelled that far in the air. It looked like he was at least 3 or 4 yards away when tripped.

 

Yep. That is why he got the flag.

 

Normally flipped players dont travel 3-5 yards after they hit the ground. Milano did. Flag.

[Kelly the Dog]

5 minutes ago, Kmart128 said:

I don't understand the argument in this threads...Milano clearly got blocked into Mariota's knees... By rule that's not a foul. It was clear as day live and on the replay. Hopefully that ref gets a talking to... You shouldn't be throwing penalties if you don't see the entire thing. He clearly didn't see the chop block and obviously wasn't paying attention. 

I think it wasn't a foul BUT if he didn't see the whole thing I think he has to call the penalty. The chances of it happening the way it did are astronomically low. If he just sees the end he should surely assume it was preventable to some degree and therefore a roughing call.

[LeGOATski]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

When the goals are to deter these hits and protect QBs, common sense says throw the flag.

 

This doesn't further that goal. Like I said earlier, if they want to avoid this particular situation, then make cut blocks behind the LOS illegal. Only legal at or beyond the LOS. If the RB stays on his feet, this doesn't happen. 

 

Common sense.

 

It's a lazy tactic to add the trigger word "homer" to it. Good sign that you don't have a good argument.

[Rochesterfan]

28 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Here is the thing though, show me where Milano was blocked into him or fouled.  He was not blocked into him, Milano hit Mariotta because of his own momentum.  The defender bumped his thigh, but the defender did not forcibly block Milano into the QB nor did he foul Milano.  

 

The "and has no opportunity to avoid him" is directly in reference to the defender being blocked or fouled into the QB and only comes into play in that situation.  So lets look at the 3 components of the rule:

1. Was Milano blocked into the passer?
   1. NO - Milano was not tossed or blocked by the defender into the QB, Milano's own momentum carried him there.
2. Was Milano fouled?
   1. NO
3. Did Milano have the oppportunity to avoid the QB?
   1. Irrelevant given that neither 1 or 2 above occurred first.  

So sorry, I am not trying to be difficult here or anything, but I cant agree with you on this.  Rule is clear as day, and unfortunately Milano unintentional hit on the QB was a penalty according to the rule as written IMO.  

 

 

I think blocked is the problem people have with this.

 

The correct call was made and that is exactly how it should be called.  

 

When they talk talk about being blocked into the QBs legs - they are talking about 2 players engaged with one another and the O-line either driving or forcing the defender into the QBs legs.

 

They are not talking about that type of chip block because the guy blocking is not the pushing or moving him toward the QB.  Milano blitzed with recklessness straight at the QB.  The RB chipped and caught him low, but it was all of Milano’s momentum that forced the contact.  It was not dirty and I would not expect it to be fined other than the standard roughing fine, but it was still the correct call.  

 

The defender has some responsibility over keeping themselves in control and in this case he was out of control - got flipped - and tried to continue on - which led to the contact - correct call.

 

It is also a penalty (as was seen and correctly called in another game) if you hit and try to sack the QB and the hit starts around the waist - if you slide down and end up below the knees.  

 

Sometimes it sucks, but it makes a big difference when these are called.

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

This doesn't further that goal. Like I said earlier, if they want to avoid this particular situation, then make cut blocks behind the LOS illegal. Only legal at or beyond the LOS. If the RB stays on his feet, this doesn't happen. 

 

Common sense.

 

It's a lazy tactic to add the trigger word "homer" to it. Good sign that you don't have a good argument.

 

It wasnt a trigger word (unless it is for you), it was a description, myself included. What we think is "common sense" isnt always so clear to folks with other perspectives.