Should helmet to helmet hits be reviewable?

[mdchiefsfan]

Just curious what the majority thinks.

EDIT: This was meant to be helmet to helmet after the catch. What has become impossible to defend.

[Iconic]

Only if it's against us.

[mdchiefsfan]

Only if it's against us.

I like the way you think

[Bugeater]

No. Too much shit is being reviewed as it is.

[mdchiefsfan]

No. Too much shit is being reviewed as it is.

See I agree that too much is being reviewed, but it does cough up 15 yards at the slightest thought of it occurring. How could the league penalize this while making it possible to defend, other than by review?

[cdcox]

No. Too much replay in the game already.

They could probably make a techno-helmet that automatically detects non-incidental helmet-to-helmet.

[mdchiefsfan]

No. Too much replay in the game already.

They could probably make a techno-helmet that automatically detects non-incidental helmet-to-helmet.

We can't get the microphones to work in the helmets well enough (ex. Monday night). Can we trust more technology to gauge that as well?

[LiveSteam]

No this league has become way to puss-a-fied
& this shit of just throwing a ball 60 yards & 20 feet from a receiver & getting PI spot foul= ( game changer)Needs changed today. PI should be no more than a 15 yards like it is in collage

[mdchiefsfan]

No this league has become way to puss-a-fied
& this shit of just throwing a ball 60 yards & 20 feet from a receiver & getting PI spot foul= ( game changer)Needs changed today. PI should be no more than a 15 yards like it is in collage

But wouldn't reviewing a helmet to helmet hit be an attempt at "un-pussifying" the league? You can drill the player, after the catch, as long as you don't hit helmet to helmet to jar the ball loose. If they err on the side of caution you can review to see if helmet contact was made.

[cdcox]

We can't get the microphones to work in the helmets well enough (ex. Monday night). Can we trust more technology to gauge that as well?

Probably can't trust technology to broadcast games either.

[mdchiefsfan]

Probably can't trust technology to broadcast games either.

well broadcasting equipment isn't taking the punishment helmets are. But I guess we can land a man on the moon, why not this?

[mcaj22]

Ray Lewis straight turded on Hines Ward tonight and I loved every minute of it.

money well spent once he gets that hefty fine.

[mdchiefsfan]

Ray Lewis straight turded on Hines Ward tonight and I loved every minute of it.

money well spent once he gets that hefty fine.

I agree, shitty player, who cracks players from behind. He deserved to have his ass served through his mouth.

[alnorth]

By the league to determine suspensions and fines? Sure. By the refs on the field in the middle of a game? No.

[alnorth]

But wouldn't reviewing a helmet to helmet hit be an attempt at "un-pussifying" the league?

Uhhh.... no. It would not.

[mdchiefsfan]

By the league to determine suspensions and fines? Sure. By the refs on the field in the middle of a game? No.

Even if it's added into the coaches two challenges per game. Say the coach feels there is no helmet to helmet and their defense shouldn't be penalized and throw the red flag. Then is it unacceptable?

[mdchiefsfan]

Uhhh.... no. It would not.

How would it not? It would make the defense able to attempt to jar the ball loose as long as they don't make helmet to helmet contact. The way the league is going with refs erring on the side of caution is pussifying the league, this rule would protect defenders, for once, letting them do their jobs.

[WV]

If your talking about that helmit to helmit hit on Ward you shut your whore mouth!:harumph: That was the one second in time I've actually liked Ray Lewis! :)

[mdchiefsfan]

If your talking about that helmit to helmit hit on Ward you shut your whore mouth!:harumph: That was the one second in time I've actually liked Ray Lewis! :)

I loved it too, but if it were to happen to Flowers or Carr, with no helmet contact, I would be pissed. I am just seeing what people think would be a good way to counteract the league's mandate for the refs to "err on the side of caution." I think that provides too much power to the refs.

I have seen NBA decline in quality, because of gray areas in rules. I would like to see this gray area 86'ed.

[DRU]

How would it not? It would make the defense able to attempt to jar the ball loose as long as they don't make helmet to helmet contact. The way the league is going with refs erring on the side of caution is pussifying the league, this rule would protect defenders, for once, letting them do their jobs.

I could be wrong on this, but I think there are two separate issues at hand here.

1) Helmet to helmet. This is something they could call on anybody, any time, if the defender delivers a direct h2h hit.

2) A separate rule, though, is the defenseless receiver rule. This is one that involves spearing, lunging, and all the other confusing causes of the flag that they released videos and what-not about last year to try and explain.

Personally, I think there is a pretty clear difference between the two. We've seen guys use the crown of their helmet to deliver a blow straight to the jaw or helmet of other players, and that seems to have stopped now with the penalties and fines that go with it (at least you don't see it nearly as much).

The problem is this def. receiver bullshit takes away their only other option, which is to lower their shoulder and use it to blast the receiver in the chest and separate them from the ball. Now they can't do anything in those situations.

IMO the first one would be fine to continue with, but I absolutely hate the second one. The hit on McClain on Monday night, I think was a great hit, and the hit today on Bowe as well. And guess what...our guys held on and popped right back up to play another down.

To answer the original question, though, no, I don't think it should be reviewable. If they review it they'll see the same thing...a receiver who is in the act of catching the ball (defenseless) and they'll still call it the same way whether it was h2h or not.

[Oh Snap]

I think penalties inside the 2 min warning should be reviewable. Tacky? perhaps, but some of those calls can be so crucial.

[mdchiefsfan]

I could be wrong on this, but I think there are two separate issues at hand here.

1) Helmet to helmet. This is something they could call on anybody, any time, if the defender delivers a direct h2h hit.

2) A separate rule, though, is the defenseless receiver rule. This is one that involves spearing, lunging, and all the other confusing causes of the flag that they released videos and what-not about last year to try and explain.

Personally, I think there is a pretty clear difference between the two. We've seen guys use the crown of their helmet to deliver a blow straight to the jaw or helmet of other players, and that seems to have stopped now with the penalties and fines that go with it (at least you don't see it nearly as much).

The problem is this def. receiver bullshit takes away their only other option, which is to lower their shoulder and use it to blast the receiver in the chest and separate them from the ball. Now they can't do anything in those situations.

IMO the first one would be fine to continue with, but I absolutely hate the second one. The hit on McClain on Monday night, I think was a great hit, and the hit today on Bowe as well. And guess what...our guys held on and popped right back up to play another down.

I agree. I guess I said helmet to helmet because here is an article regarding the new rules about defenseless receivers posted May 2011:

"The 32 owners have voted unanimously to enhance the protection of defenseless players. Anyone who leaves both feet before contact to spring forward and upward into an opponent and delivers a blow to the helmet with any part of his helmet will draw a 15-yard penalty.

Such tackles also will be subject to fines.

The definition of a defenseless receiver has been extended. Now, a receiver who has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner even if both feet are on the ground is considered defenseless."

The issue at hand is helmet to helmet contact after the catch. A hit to the chest, as long as there is no contact to the helmet should be acceptable, according to this rule. Maybe they extended the rule even more than that, but I don't recall it being as big of a deal as the refs are making it now.

[DRU]

I think penalties inside the 2 min warning should be reviewable. Tacky? perhaps, but some of those calls can be so crucial.

This has always sort of driven me nuts. Why are the last 2 min of any half any more important than the first 2 min?

If something crazy happens at 2:01 and a coach doesn't have any challenges left, he's screwed, but if it happens at 1:59 they'll look at it. That sort of thing would get even more out of hand if they start looking at penalties only at certain times.

If you're gonna look at it, look at it. If not, don't.

[4th and Long]

This aint golf.

[mdchiefsfan]

This aint golf.

lol. I know. Hence the helmets. :p

[4th and Long]

lol. I know. Hence the helmets. :p

:p

No blood, no foul.

[mdchiefsfan]

:p

No blood, no foul.

I agree, but it is becoming more and more difficult for defenders to do their jobs especially with referees calling the foul at the slightest idea of the penalty occurring. If a review were allowed, your defense wouldn't give up 15 yards for defending correctly.

[WV]

gray area

This is the best point, it's soo subjective as to whether a player is intentionally using his helmet or if the contact was unavoidable. Unless it's blatant spearing this crap shouldn't be called and shouldn't be reviewable. It's also absurd to ask either the ball carrier or the tackler to be able to precisely tell when either one is going to lower their heads and avoid helmet to helmet contact.

[4th and Long]

I agree, but it is becoming more and more difficult for defenders to do their jobs especially with referees calling the foul at the slightest idea of the penalty occurring. If a review were allowed, your defense wouldn't give up 15 yards for defending correctly.

While I'm all for making the game safer, it needs to be "within reason." The pussification of the NFL is really starting to irritate me. In a few years, we're likely to just strap flags to their belts.

[mdchiefsfan]

This is the best point, it's soo subjective as to whether a player is intentionally using his helmet or if the contact was unavoidable. Unless it's blatant spearing this crap shouldn't be called and shouldn't be reviewable. It's also absurd to ask either the ball carrier or the tackler to be able to precisely tell when either one is going to lower their heads and avoid helmet to helmet contact.

Exactly my point, but if the league is mandating that the refs call it on the side of caution, shouldn't teams be given the proper means to refute it? Because as it stands, if the refs are 50/50 on the penalty they are told to blow the whistle. It seems too subjective, as you stated.

[mdchiefsfan]

While I'm all for making the game safer, it needs to be "within reason." The pussification of the NFL is really starting to irritate me. In a few years, we're likely to just strap flags to their belts.

Right, and would you rather flags being attached to players or one penalty included in the list of things coaches can challenge? It maintains the game's integrity and keeps players safe. Win-win in my eyes.

[DRU]

Exactly my point, but if the league is mandating that the refs call it on the side of caution, shouldn't teams be given the proper means to refute it? Because as it stand if the refs are 50/50 on the penalty they are told to blow the whistle. It seems too subjective, as you stated.

Are you just going to keep asking the question until somebody says yes?

I don't think it's just a 50/50 thing. Take that hit on Bowe today. I would venture to say the refs knew very good and well it wasn't h2h, but because was a "defenseless receiver" and a hard hit they're calling it anyway. That's what I hate about it.

With that opinion in mind, if they reviewed it they'd confirm it and it'd be a big waste of time.

[Bugeater]

I think penalties inside the 2 min warning should be reviewable. Tacky? perhaps, but some of those calls can be so crucial.
Are we going to review non-calls as well? Those can be just as crucial. How about we just review every fucking play?

Or here's a better idea...get rid of it all. We're never going to get to the point where a game is called perfectly and all we're doing is bogging down the pace of the game with this crap. The call on the McCluster non-fumble Monday night finally convinced me that this shit is a waste of time.

[jd1020]

No. You can't review intent.

Players are taught to get low. Helmet to helmet contact is inevitable.

[4th and Long]

Right, and would you rather flags being attached to players or one penalty included in the list of things coaches can challenge? It maintains the game's integrity and keeps players safe. Win-win in my eyes.

[insert old man voice here] Listen here, sonny. Back in my day, we played REAL football. We didn't have none of them silly penalties like you young kids have today. Folks were being bashed in the head, bitten, spit on, and clotheslined, left and right ... and we LIKED IT!

[mdchiefsfan]

Are you just going to keep asking the question until somebody says yes?

I don't think it's just a 50/50 thing. Take that hit on Bowe today. I would venture to say the refs knew very good and well it wasn't h2h, but because was a "defenseless receiver" and a hard hit they're calling it anyway. That's what I hate about it.

With that opinion in mind, if they reviewed it they'd confirm it and it'd be a big waste of time.

I am going to keep asking questions to debate the issue at hand. Until there is a solid reason why it shouldn't be reviewed I will stick to my belief that it should be. That is the reason I am looking for opinions on it. You are allowed to tackle a receiver the moment he catches the ball you just aren't allowed to make contact to the receiver's helmet or luge upward, towards a receiver's helmet, if I understand the rule correctly. But any questionable hit is being described as a hit on a defenseless receiver.

[mdchiefsfan]

[insert old man voice here] Listen here, sonny. Back in my day, we played REAL football. We didn't have none of them silly penalties like you young kids have today. Folks were being bashed in the head, bitten, spit on, and clotheslined, left and right ... and we LIKED IT!

And this review would keep players, who are playing clean football, from being penalized unfairly. Thus being able to play on instinct and training as opposed to worrying about being penalized for tackling properly.

[mdchiefsfan]

No. You can't review intent.

Players are taught to get low. Helmet to helmet contact is inevitable.

That's fine. I am not looking to review intent. I am looking to erase the calling of a helmet hitting a defenseless receiver, when there is no contact evident. Refs are told to throw the flag, even if they aren't 100% certain, out of caution. There should be means to counteract this uncertainty.

[jd1020]

That's fine. I am not looking to review intent. I am looking to erase the calling of a helmet hitting a defenseless receiver, when there is no contact evident. Refs are told to throw the flag, even if they aren't 100% certain, out of caution. There should be means to counteract this uncertainty.

You cant have it one way. If they are going to review if contact actually happened then they have to review when it did happen.

No.

The best refs are the ones you don't notice.

[mdchiefsfan]

You cant have it one way. If they are going to review if contact actually happened then they have to review when it did happen.

No.

The best refs are the ones you don't notice.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. The timing of a defenseless receiver is clearly defined so the hit on the defenseless receiver would also be clearly defined. The thing in question would be if the team deserves the 15 yard penalty for actually making contact to the helmet of a defenseless receiver, with the defender's helmet.

EDIT: I do agree that the best refs are the ones that go unnoticed, but when they call a hit on a receiver, that was clearly within the rules, you notice them.

[DRU]

I am going to keep asking questions to debate the issue at hand. Until there is a solid reason why it shouldn't be reviewed I will stick to my belief that it should be. That is the reason I am looking for opinions on it. You are allowed to tackle a receiver the moment he catches the ball you just aren't allowed to make contact to the receiver's helmet or luge upward, towards a receiver's helmet, if I understand the rule correctly. But any questionable hit is being described as a hit on a defenseless receiver.

Yet you keep skipping over the opinions that you don't want to hear.

My opinion once again, which is apparently worthless to you, and that's fine, is that I don't think they're calling these because it was questionable and they're being cautious. I think they're calling any hard hit on a defenseless receiver and they'd see it the same way in a review as they did when they flagged it. As such, there's no reason to review it.

Am I saying that I think this is case every single time, and that what you're saying is NEVER the case? No. But I do think the majority of the time they can tell if it was h2h or not and they're simply calling hard hits on these guys when they haven't "established themselves" again after the catch and been given an opportunity to protect themselves.

I hate it, and it takes away a huge part of the game. It makes it nearly impossible for defenders who can't simply blanket the receiver and knock the ball away to defend, which is why 4 TD's and 400+ yards is pretty much what 3 TD's and 300 yards used to be for a QB.

I'm pretty much giving in to the fact that this is exactly what Goodell wants. He's changing the game and until he's gone it's not gonna stop. By the time he is gone it may be too late.

[mdchiefsfan]

Yet you keep skipping over the opinions that you don't want to hear.

My opinion once again, which is apparently worthless to you, and that's fine, is that I don't think they're calling these because it was questionable and they're being cautious. I think they're calling any hard hit on a defenseless receiver and they'd see it the same way in a review as they did when they flagged it. As such, there's no reason to review it.

Am I saying that I think this is case every single time, and that what you're saying is NEVER the case? No. But I do think the majority of the time they can tell if it was h2h or not and they're simply calling hard hits on these guys when they haven't "established themselves" again after the catch and been given an opportunity to protect themselves.

I hate it, and it takes away a huge part of the game. It makes it nearly impossible for defenders who can't simply blanket the receiver and knock the ball away to defend, which is why 4 TD's and 400+ yards is pretty much what 3 TD's and 300 yards used to be for a QB.

I'm pretty much giving in to the fact that this is exactly what Goodell wants. He's changing the game and until he's gone it's not gonna stop. By the time he is gone it may be too late.

I am not ignoring what you are saying at all, and I do appreciate your responses. I am just asking you why you "accept it" when this review could provide a clear look at if there was contact to the helmet, which the rule states as being wrong. If the rule was a hard hit to a receiver that would be one thing, but as I understand it, it is hitting the receiver's helmet with the defender's helmet through lunging or tackling, before he becomes a runner after the catch.

Maybe my interpretation of the rule is wrong.

EDIT: It isn't helmet to helmet contact, but helmet contact by the defender, who has left both feet. But the review could determine if there was contact to the receiver's helmet. If there is no contact to the defenseless receiver's helmet, there is no penalty.

[Frankie]

Should helmet to helmet hits be reviewable?

I think farting in the pile up should be ruled unsportsmanlike conduct and subject to review. We don't have enough stoppage of the game.

[mdchiefsfan]

I think farting in the pile up should be ruled unsportsmanlike conduct and subject to review. We don't have enough stoppage of the game.

Your gonna need thermal cameras for that review though.
And there wouldn't be anymore stoppage of the game than there already is. This would be one of the two challenges provided to the HCs.

[notorious]

Fuck No.


In fact, it shouldn't even be a penalty. Fine them a % of their salary that hurts if it is bad enough.


I am tired of delays for replay and penalties on players for doing their job.

[wazu]

Everything should be reviewable. Add pass interference, the most devastating and inconsistently called penalty in the game.