Hamlin Ejection

[Rochesterfan]

28 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

Football is a collision sport.  You should expect collisions and as long as long as they aren't targeting the head, DBs should be allowed to try and separate the receiver from the ball.

 

They do expect collision - the NFL has just started correctly dictating where you can collide.  With a defenseless WR the collision is very targeted what you can do.  
 

The defender is initiating the contact has must ensure the contact stays lower in the event the WR tries to protect himself by ducking.

 

Hamlin did 90% right - used his shoulder, didn’t launch himself, targeted the ball as it arrived, but the hit was up around the upper chest/shoulders and Meyers saw it was coming and ducked and the hit went through the shoulders to the head and exactly as it should it was flagged.

 

I still believe the ejection had more to do with the crew tying to maintain control in a blow-out rather than risk escalation.

 

The NFL continues to grow in popularity while legislating more and more restrictions on hitting, blocking, tackling, and formations because it has kept more QBs, WRs, and DEs healthy and able to play throughout the year.

 

Scoring increases, number of plays increase, offensive talent increases and the game gets more fans every year watching more games and spending more money - there is no reason for the NFL to go back to the way it was done.

 

 

[Doc]

Getting back to an earlier point, has anyone seen a player get ejected for a hit like that anytime recently? I can’t say I have and I’ve seen quite a few games.

[HappyDays]

8 hours ago, billsbackto81 said:

Is he just supposed to just let him catch it?

 

By rule, yes. This line of questioning doesn't make sense in context with the modern rules. There are a lot of plays where if the DB doesn't let the WR catch it, it's a penalty. Just like you can't ever tackle a WR early before they have a chance to try and catch the ball, you can't ever lay a violent hit on the WR's head. To avoid possible penalties like that you have to be in a better position to make a play on the ball or undercut the pass. That doesn't mean Hamlin did the wrong thing in the moment, just like there are CBs that will intentionally interfere with their WR because they know they're about to be beat for a deep TD. It's still a penalty.

[CoudyBills]

20 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

He definitely played the body.

It is still tackle football, right?

[JoshAllin]

Hamlin has been known to show up with the big hits when the games are out of hand and won. I believe he did the same with the steeler qb when he slid 

[mjohns85]

So what’s the rule, any hit on a defenseless player equals an ejection??

[BananaB]

10 minutes ago, motorj said:

Hamlin has been known to show up with the big hits when the games are out of hand and won. I believe he did the same with the steeler qb when he slid 

Kid plays tough and hits hard, doesn’t matter what the score is. 

[JoshAllin]

3 minutes ago, BananaB said:

Kid plays tough and hits hard, doesn’t matter what the score is. 

Would have loved to have seen him make a big hit on that 43 yard td early on though

[BananaB]

Just now, motorj said:

Would have loved to have seen him make a big hit on that 43 yard td early on though

Yeah me too

[Billz4ever]

12 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

They do expect collision - the NFL has just started correctly dictating where you can collide.  With a defenseless WR the collision is very targeted what you can do.  
 

The defender is initiating the contact has must ensure the contact stays lower in the event the WR tries to protect himself by ducking.

 

Hamlin did 90% right - used his shoulder, didn’t launch himself, targeted the ball as it arrived, but the hit was up around the upper chest/shoulders and Meyers saw it was coming and ducked and the hit went through the shoulders to the head and exactly as it should it was flagged.

 

I still believe the ejection had more to do with the crew tying to maintain control in a blow-out rather than risk escalation.

 

The NFL continues to grow in popularity while legislating more and more restrictions on hitting, blocking, tackling, and formations because it has kept more QBs, WRs, and DEs healthy and able to play throughout the year.

 

Scoring increases, number of plays increase, offensive talent increases and the game gets more fans every year watching more games and spending more money - there is no reason for the NFL to go back to the way it was done.

 

 

Claiming the NFL has grown by restricting hitting is a stretch.  Even before the changes to hitting, most injuries that caused a lot of time missed weren't the result of big hits on the field. They were things like ACL tears just like they are today.  Correlation does not imply causation.

[PatsFanNH]

21 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?

 

The penalty was deserved, the injection I think was too much.  I agree I thought Epenesa was going to get flagged for that suplex of Jones. It’s almost always called when a defender does that to a QB. 

[ghostwriter]

21 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?

 

If he doesn’t hit him that’s a touchdown.

[Scott7975]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I thought it was probably the right decision. 

 

Yea he knows as he is making that hit that he is at risk of being ejected. He is bound to contact the helmet of a defenseless receiver. If you do that and the ref judges it is excessive force then you are going to be ejected. But he has to do it to prevent a TD. 

 

Hamlin is right to make the hit. It is a definite foul. And I think the ejection on balance was the right call. Put it this way I said "ejection" the moment I saw the collision. Whether you like the rule or not that hit is gonna result in ejection more often than not. 

 

I disagree with the ejection part.  Ejection should be used for people that are clearly targeting aka head hunting.  This is not what happened.  He clearly wasnt going for the head.  The receiver purposley positioned himself to get hit in the head.  Now, I can live with it anyways because it was a bang bang play and thats tough to see live as a ref, I am sure.  For ejection I think they should look at replay.

 

The rule itself I am crossed on because i understand why it exists.  Players can get killed out there.  At the same time, it makes it very difficult to play defense if you cant hit the receiver until he makes a move after catching the ball.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Scott7975

[NewEra]

21 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

Claiming the NFL has grown by restricting hitting is a stretch.  Even before the changes to hitting, most injuries that caused a lot of time missed weren't the result of big hits on the field. They were things like ACL tears just like they are today.  Correlation does not imply causation.

He didn’t say that. But pretend he did and make that the premise of your post.  
 

To you point, they aren’t worried about ex players knees long term.  They are worried about their brain.  

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Scott7975 said:

 

I disagree with the ejection part.  Ejection should be used for people that are clearly targeting aka head hunting.  This is not what happened.  He clearly wasnt going for the head.  The receiver purposley positioned himself to get hit in the head.  Now, I can live with it anyways because it was a bang bang play and thats tough to see live as a ref, I am sure.  For ejection I think they should look at replay.

 

That is NOT the way the NFL rule is written though. Targeting is a college rule. The NFL rule does not require targeting. Just contact to the head of a defenseless receiver that displays excessive force (in the view of the official). I think "flagrant" is the actual wording. 

 

By the terms of the NFL rule I think it was the right call. 

7 minutes ago, Victory Formation said:

If he doesn’t hit him that’s a touchdown.

 

That is true. But it also isn't a relevant consideration in the ejection decision.

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

That is NOT the way the NFL rule is written though. Targeting is a college rule. The NFL rule does not require targeting. Just contact to the head of a defenseless receiver that displays excessive force (in the view of the official). I think "flagrant" is the actual wording. 

 

By the terms of the NFL rule I think it was the right call. 

 

That is true. But it also isn't a relevant consideration in the ejection decision.

Except it wasn’t flagrant because he was going for the ball and succeeded in separating it from him.  Which made it the right plate to make regardless of the resulting penalty and ejection.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Doc said:

Except it wasn’t flagrant because he was going for the ball and succeeded in separating it from him.  Which made it the right plate to make regardless of the resulting penalty and ejection.

 

It was the right play. It can still be flagrant use of excessive force. I think the was right to make the play. But I think ejection was probably the right call by the letter of the law.

[Scott7975]

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That is NOT the way the NFL rule is written though. Targeting is a college rule. The NFL rule does not require targeting. Just contact to the head of a defenseless receiver that displays excessive force (in the view of the official). I think "flagrant" is the actual wording. 

 

By the terms of the NFL rule I think it was the right call. 

 

You are correct.  The word used is "flagrant."  I don't know what they are trained and what flagrant means to them.  What I do know is these hits happen all the time and I very rarely see players get ejected for them. There have been 3 total ejections for this, this season.  That includes Hamlins ejection.  This happened to Diggs and it wasnt even flagged.  Last season there was 1 ejection for this type of foul.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Scott7975

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Scott7975 said:

 

You are correct.  The word used is "flagrant."  I don't know what they are trained and what flagrant means to them.  What I do know is these hits happen all the time and I very rarely see players get ejected for them. There have been 3 total ejections for this, this season.  That includes Hamlins ejection.  This happened to Diggs and it wasnt even flagged.

 

That hit is normally flagged. And I'd say 60% ejections.

 

Of course there is some subjectivity. But I think they just about made the right call. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by GunnerBill

[Scott7975]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That hit is normally flagged. And I'd say 60% ejections.

 

Of course there is some subjectivity. But I think they just about made the right call. 

 

I dont think you are right.  Are you telling me that in 192 games this season that this type of hit has only happened about 6 or 7 times and 3 ejections from it?  I see these hits a lot more than 6 or 7 times.