He has a helmet to helmet hit on YouTube, the difference is that it's on a runner not on a pass catcher on a bang bang play.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dQgjsrfebck" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He drove up at impact. Don't do that.

Drive through and your head goes across his body. You blast the shit out of him and you likely still separate him from the ball without going helmet to helmet.

But as he was delivering the hit, he launched himself up into JJSS and that's why he got into his helmet.

It's an issue where different technique takes an accident off the table. Think of it like a goalie stopping a deflected shot in hockey. Those guys don't see the deflection and react to it, it's WAY too fast. But if they stay square to the shooter, keep the stick on the ice and do all that other goalie shit in a technically correct way, their body is going to naturally be in a position to stop the shot.

Here Cisco's technique wasn't sound and because of it he drove up and through JJSS's helmet. Was it 'intentional' - I mean, hitting him in the helmet wasn't, no. But was driving up and making it a foregone conclusion a volitional act? Hell yes it was. He was the direct cause of an avoidable injury.

That's a dirty play, IMO.

See, this! I know 1st hand! Every damn thing my kids do wrong always comes back to me, somehow!

(ROYC75 is finally happy that some other poor bastard is in the same boat as he Is!)

Yeah, that 2nd hit definitely shed some light on the possible intent of the first one.

And I try to watch these plays in real time and not disect frame by frame, thinking shit happens so quickly and there are split second decisions, etc..... and then Toney is out there adjusting his gloves mid-route before high-pointing a pass along the sidelines, so WTF do I know about how these guys can slow down the game.

Yeah, the irony of it being that I think the intent behind the 2nd hit was actually worse than the intent behind the first.

The 2nd hit was clearly him trying to blow MVS apart and giving no ****s as to how he went about doing it. It just so happened that MVS was high enough that Cisco's point of impact was below his shoulder and thus he didn't get into his head.

But both of them were plays where he was launching himself up at contact. And the NFL's entire purpose in taking 'malice' out of the equation when discussing these penalties was to get guys to stop doing that shit. The league made it clear that they don't CARE if you intend to injure the guy - just don't do the things that make that injury more likely, chief among them is launching yourself up towards the head/shoulder area.

There's a reason the rule was written like it was. The league doesn't want that kind of tackle in the game.

And yet Cisco got away with two of them.

They'll be watching him closely.

The reason so many expected a penalty us because those hits have been penalized over and over and over the last few years. Many much much lesser launching on defenseless receivers. Which is what the Juju hit was.

Chris what?

https://c.tenor.com/ClE-tPcTPYwAAAAC/tenor.gif

100% agree with you - don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise.

Yeah I came here to say this. When they showed the replay right after it happened, it would've been damn near impossible for Pat to anticipate that. It sorta looked like he was walled of behind a defender and popped up out of nowhere.

Exactly.

I'm actually surprised Cisco hasn't been fined (unless he was and I didn't see it?) despite no penalty. That hit on JuJu was clear helmet to helmet and you're 100% spot on that he launched himself upward with intent to deliver exactly that kind of hit.

Reciever wasn't defenseless and the Packer lowered his head... Come on man!

Cisco actually let up on the play. He stopped his momentum before the hit and hit him almost flat footed. Could've been a lot worse.

Simms is quickly becoming Cowherd part II.

I disagree with that. Most of what Simms says is based in fact and experience. Cowherd just says shit for the sake of saying it.