**** MNF Packers vs. Lions Game Thread ****

[wazu]

We beat the Lions, so... if they beat the Packers, we can relax about that game, right?

[Yehoodi]

That was not a penalty. You need to have contact with the neck, face or head.

"neck area" is not one of the options. The ref was wrong in the press conference and does not know the rule. Had the neck area been part of the rule then it would of been a penalty.

Too bad it happened twice and on 3rd downs that the Packers did not convert.

[KChiefs1]

Originally Posted by MAHOMO 4 LIFE!

The referee pool report from tonight: pic.twitter.com/b0i6sK0u23

— Rob Demovsky (@RobDemovsky) October 15, 2019

Morons

[notorious]

And so the cleansing begins.

[Yehoodi]

Originally Posted by KChiefs1

Morons

Yes, "neck area" only comes into play with a hit to that area in a defenseless receiver or roughing the passer. In both of these cases there is typically a forcible hit and so the NFL has a wider protection zone.

With the illegal use of the hands to the face it is typically a guy grabbing or thrusting a single hand to the neck/face/facemask/helmet and thus less danger than a forcible hit so smaller protection zone.

The refs just confused the three.

For me, when one is making such a key call, taking a play from a punt to a first down, one needs to be darn sure you got it correct.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

Wish I had the game DVRed so I could check if that pic is legit

They'll replay it on NFLNet at some point today.

[Yehoodi]

For those who are interested here the key portions of the rules i was talking about.

NFL Rule 12 Player Conduct - reads in pertinent part . . .

I underlined & bolded “neck area” as it appears in defenseless player or roughing the passer. The NFL specifically left this language out of illegal use of hands and just limited it to direct contact to neck itself.


Rule 12, Section 1 Article 7 (illegal hands to the face)

ARTICLE 7. ILLEGAL USE OF HANDS BY DEFENSE. It is a foul if a defensive player thrusts his hands or arms forward above the frame of an opponent to forcibly contact him on the neck, face, or head.

Note: Contact in close-line play is not a foul, unless it is direct and forcible, or prolonged.


Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9 (hit on defenseless player) Part (b)(1)

ARTICLE 9. PLAYERS IN A DEFENSELESS POSTURE. . .

. . .

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:

(1) forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;


Rule 12, Section 2, Article 11 (rough the passer) Part (c)

ARTICLE 11. ROUGHING THE PASSER . . .

. . .

(c) In covering the passer position, Referees will be particularly alert to fouls in which defenders impermissibly use the helmet and/or facemask to hit the passer, or use hands, arms, or other parts of the body to hit the passer forcibly in the head or neck area (see also the other unnecessary roughness rules covering these subjects). . . .

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by YontsRBake

To be fair, they honestly did, that Golladay play was a TD. We got lucky.

Ofc we also win easily if we don't fumble multiple times, but they aren't wrong in saying they got hosed on that call.

That was so clearly not a TD in any universe. He never had control of that ball.

[mr. tegu]

His hand is in and on his helmet. Pretty sure that qualifies as head and face. That’s a penalty. Of course a Patriots fan doesn’t think so because he has seen this player commit this penalty for years but not get called because he was with the Patriots.

[Yehoodi]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

His hand is in and on his helmet. Pretty sure that qualifies as head and face. That’s a penalty. Of course a Patriots fan doesn’t think so because he has seen this player commit this penalty for years but not get called because he was with the Patriots.

It might be a good idea for you to read the rule i posted and watch the video which is contained in this thread.

For play at the line of scrimmage contact to the helmet is not illegal hands to the face, unless it is prolonged, direct or forcible.

When you watch the video Trey had his hands grabbing the guys shoulder pads which is not illegal, at the end he spins out of the move and his hand grazes the bottom of the helmet (the still shot) but it momentary, not direct nor forcible but incidental to his spin move.

As such it is not a penalty per the rule and its note regarding the line play.

[Mecca]

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Yehoodi

It might be a good idea for you to read the rule i posted and watch the video which is contained in this thread.

For play at the line of scrimmage contact to the helmet is not illegal hands to the face, unless it is prolonged, direct or forcible.

When you watch the video Trey had his hands grabbing the guys shoulder pads which is not illegal, at the end he spins out of the move and his hand grazes the bottom of the helmet (the still shot) but it momentary, not direct nor forcible but incidental to his spin move.

As such it is not a penalty per the rule and its note regarding the line play.

It's extremely weak, but I believe that play was a penalty.

"Prior to the 2014-2015 football season, the illegal hands to the face rule required “prolonged contact” but with greater emphasis on protecting players from head and neck injuries, any forcible, non-incidental contact to a player’s face mask can incur this penalty. "

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Yehoodi

It might be a good idea for you to read the rule i posted and watch the video which is contained in this thread.

For play at the line of scrimmage contact to the helmet is not illegal hands to the face, unless it is prolonged, direct or forcible.

When you watch the video Trey had his hands grabbing the guys shoulder pads which is not illegal, at the end he spins out of the move and his hand grazes the bottom of the helmet (the still shot) but it momentary, not direct nor forcible but incidental to his spin move.

As such it is not a penalty per the rule and its note regarding the line play.

I watched the video earlier and he literally gave him one last shove with his hand in that position which clearly pushes the head back further. It wasn’t simply a grazing. It’s a clear penalty.

[Yehoodi]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

It's extremely weak, but I believe that play was a penalty.

"Prior to the 2014-2015 football season, the illegal hands to the face rule required “prolonged contact” but with greater emphasis on protecting players from head and neck injuries, any forcible, non-incidental contact to a player’s face mask can incur this penalty. "

I hear what you are saying but the 2019 NFL rules did not update the hands to the face to include what you had quoted.

It is still line play and when Flowers spun his hand, imo, just grazed the bottom of the helmet.

Also, for what it is worth, the OL head is in line with his chest and both are being bend backward together. It is not like his neck is bent back from his chest. In another words there is no strain on his neck like you see when the OL is standing straight up and his neck and head and bent back.

Given the situation they could of let it go.

I can also see from the Refs explanation that they thought contact in the neck area was enough and thus in their mind it was a penalty.

Perhaps the NFL will amend the rule in the off season to include the neck area too.

[Yehoodi]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I watched the video earlier and he literally gave him one last shove with his hand in that position which clearly pushes the head back further. It wasn’t simply a grazing. It’s a clear penalty.

Yes, i hear yah, but i would not call that last contact as forcible, but more incidental to the spin move.

We can agree to disagree.

I will say though that give how the penalty impacted the game, i would like to see a lot more than just a nudge to the bottom side of a helmet between linemen.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by lcarus

That was so clearly not a TD in any universe. He never had control of that ball.

Yeah, that was not a touchdown according to the rules. I mentioned in the thread that you would call it a touchdown in a backyard game of football, but according to the NFL's current rules, it clearly wasn't a catch.

I also think that the last Detroit TD against Kansas City wasn't a touchdown, but it was in our best interest to have it ruled a touchdown since we needed the time for the final drive, so I didn't mind that erroneous call.