Hamlin Ejection

[BFLO]

19 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

Because the penalty is a hit on a defenseless receiver; that's how the rule is written and enforced

 

 

It doesn't matter if it's helmet to helmet. It can be forearm to helmet, shoulder to helmet, elbow to helmet, whatever.

So now imagine the same hit, but on a player established as a runner. Same body parts hitting in the same spots with the same force as in the Halmin ejection. 

 

It's not even a penalty. But it's the exact same damage to the players in both cases.

 

If it was really about safety it would be a penalty in both cases. 

 

[Simon]

17 minutes ago, BFLO said:

So now imagine the same hit, but on a player established as a runner.

It generally doesn't happen because a runner can protect himself whereas a guy catching a pass cannot.

If I've got the ball and you're looking to take my head off, I can prevent that by juking (a passcatcher can't), changing my pad level (a passcatcher can't), protecting my head with my shoulders (a passcatcher can't), etc.

It's about protecting the heads of guys when they're vulnerable and can't protect themselves.

[CircleTheWagons99]

It was a BS DQ, I was fine with the flag because he did hit him in the head. 

[BFLO]

4 minutes ago, Simon said:

It generally doesn't happen because a runner can protect himself whereas a guy catching a pass cannot.

If I've got the ball and you're looking to take my head off, I can prevent that by juking (a passcatcher can't), changing my pad level (a passcatcher can't), protecting my head with my shoulders (a passcatcher can't), etc.

It's about protecting the heads of guys when they're vulnerable and can't protect themselves.

It is more likely to happen during a catch than to a runner, I never argued otherwise. But that's not what I've been talking about. 

 

I'm saying what about the hits where the runner wasn't able to protect himself? Is a hit to the head where the guy could have protected himself but didn't, any less dangerous or damaging than a hit to the head where the guy couldn't protect himself? The answer is no, it's the same. 

 

Yes, you're right that it's less likely to happen, but it still happens all the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Michael1962]

FWIW, J.Murphy and Tasker (I think) thought it was a lame DQ

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

I understand they are calling that play tightly, whether I like it or not but I believe they have to look at the video to determine the DQ and it is ridiculous he was sent off. 

[Bubba Gump]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

why wasn't that a catch?  I don't understand the catch rule nowadays....

 

Neither do the officials

[Andy1]

The ejection was stupid. If the officials were following the rule, the rule needs to be changed. In this instance, Hamlin had no time to change is point of impact and he hit with his shoulder.

[mikemac2001]

Maybe league looked at it as a chance to eject someone for “players safety” knowing it wouldn’t impact an outcome.

 

 

[Goin Breakdown]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Honestly, he’s supposed to avoid the contact all together. If you can’t play the ball don’t make contact.

 

There was a play in the Lions game Diggs took a shot to the head late. No call. I was fuming.

There was a play lastnight where Diggs was brought down and on the way up (I'll assumes Jackson) kneed or kicked diggs the helmet. I'll admit that it could have been unintentional but I've seen less get called and it just didn't look good. Kinda got me yelling at the screen. 

[1ManRaid]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

There was a play in the Lions game Diggs took a shot to the head late. No call. I was fuming.

 

Was that the one where he was just sitting on the ground after the play was over, and some goon just came out of nowhere and drilled him back into the ground again?

[Rubes]

3 hours ago, Irv said:

I’m a total Bills fan and homer.  I ask myself how I would feel if Diggs took the same hit Hamlin laid on Meyers?  No. I wouldn’t like it. But what is he supposed to do?  Go for the knees?  No.  Was he able to lower his head into the mid-section?  I don’t know.  On the second half thread there was some disagreement last night.  You can’t just let the receiver go untouched.  Right?  This is football for cripes sake.  
 

I thought Epenesa’s sack was vicious.  Should he have been ejected?  Hard to figure out.  What do you think?

 

 

Epenesa's sack was pretty vicious. I was waiting for the flag on that play for intentionally slamming the QB to the ground.

 

[Doc]

The call was borderline but the ejection was college quality.  If Hamlin doesn't hit him (legally) then it's a TD.  So good thing he did.

[Beck Water]

 

[QLBillsFan]

5 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

If it looks bad they react to the crowd and call it.

 

Simple as that.

 

Hamlin did his job and separated the WR from the ball with the shoulder.

 

Oh well.

And no TD. Great play .. take the ejection even if debatable. 

[Bferra13]

6 hours ago, Buffalo ill said:

I think in an effort to prevent concussions (a worthy cause) they will one day convert it into a flag football league.

It would be an absolute last resort because number 1 thing NFL cares about is $$$$$. Go to flag football and there's a TON of people who will stop watching. That will kill the golden goose.

[ehfeuh57]

It doesn't have to be helmet to helmet to get ejected. You can be ejected for anything and this qualified.

 

Like unnecessary roughness can be for anything and at a higher degree of egregiousness can turn into an ejection. The ref does not have to prove it was a Legal or Illegal hit. That's why he did it so fast without even reviewing because he no longer cared whether the hit was legal. He just deemed it unnecessary to a high degree on the spot.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

7 hours ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

Was that the one where he was just sitting on the ground after the play was over, and some goon just came out of nowhere and drilled him back into the ground again?

Yes it was. I couldn’t believe it wasn’t called. It was Hutchinson.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Buffalo_Stampede

[Manther]

10 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

He didn't play the ball?

 

From what I see, he's looking at the ball and he hits the ball with his arm. Hamlin knocked the ball out.

 

The rule is the rule and it's a penalty by rule. Can't really argue that.

 

Maybe if he had a split second longer he could've gotten lower and it wouldn't look so bad.

The receiver was very low.  Hamlin couldn’t have got any lower.  Hamlin stopped a TD.  He couldn’t of done anything else.

 

He had to hit him and couldn’t get lower.  Didn’t like the ejection.  Sure call a penalty (I don’t like it), but, the ejection is not warranted to me.

10 hours ago, pennstate10 said:

Copy pasted this from last nights thread. 
 

“Just rewatched the Hamlin hit in end zone. 
 

By rule, the roughness call may be correct. But ejection was a bad call. 
 

Here’s what happens. 
Pat WR catches ball in air, returns to ground. 
Then, he lowers his head, as he is anticipating Hamlin hit. 
So he’s NOT really defenseless. Makes a move to protect himself by getting lower. 
 

Problem was, by getting lower, he ducks his head right into Hamlins shoulder pad. 
 

If he hadn’t ducked, Hamlin shoulder would have hit his chest, not his head. 
 

Hamlin didn’t lead with helmet. 
Hamlin didn’t launch. 
Bad call. “

Exactly, well said!

[billsbackto81]

11 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

If it looks bad they react to the crowd and call it.

 

Simple as that.

 

Hamlin did his job and separated the WR from the ball with the shoulder.

 

Oh well.

Exactly! What if that was the go ahead gaming winning score in that situation? Is he just supposed to just let him catch it? The hit wasn't early, it wasn't helmet to helmet and he was playing the ball. RG3 tweeted that it would have been praised 20 years ago when football was actually, you know football. I understand it but don't agree just like the Poyer INT.