Started By
Message

re: What should the Jags defender have done on the Gronk hit

Posted on 1/25/18 at 9:20 am to
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22543 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 9:20 am to
quote:

forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area


Church did not lower his head to attempt not to hit the neck or helmet area. Gronk is incidental from falling. There is a difference from bracing and forcibly hitting.
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22543 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 9:22 am to
Also, I don't think Church's intention was dirty. It just happened the way it did.
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
111439 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 9:22 am to
quote:

Church did not lower his head to attempt not to hit the neck or helmet area. Gronk is incidental from falling. There is a difference from bracing and forcibly hitting.


Really? The rule as written says even if you are makings a form tackle below the neck area, if helmet contact is made on a defenseless player it's a penalty

That's the rule and that is how they enforce it

It's a ridiculous rule
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22543 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 9:50 am to
LINK

quote:

Watching the play in slow motion revealed that, after the shoulder contact, the crown of Mundy's head struck the lower left side of White's helmet. White qualified for defenseless player protection under NFL rules -- "a receiver attempting to catch a pass" -- and Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7(b) prohibits "forcibly hitting [the] head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm or shoulder even if the initial contact is lower than the player's neck."

A note added to that rule states it "does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle."


Notes expanded from NFL rules.

quote:

Note 1: The provisions of (b) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle or block on an opponent. Note 2: A player who initiates contact against a defenseless opponent is responsible for avoiding an illegal act. This includes illegal contact that may occur during the process of attempting to dislodge the ball from an opponent. A standard of strict liability applies for any contact against a defenseless opponent, even if the opponent is an airborne player who is returning to the ground or whose body position is otherwise in motion, and irrespective of any acts by the defenseless opponent, such as ducking his head or curling up his body in anticipation of contact.


So the no effort to lower the head is the reason it was called.
This post was edited on 1/25/18 at 9:56 am
Posted by wildtigercat93
Member since Jul 2011
116169 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 9:56 am to
quote:

Posted by lsupride87 online on 1/25/18 at 7:37 am to wildtigercat93 Holy shot The pats posters in here are such fricking pussies This has nothing to do with the Patriots you taint lickers I fully beleive this penalty would have been thrown for any team against any team I am arguing against the rule


I haven't posted anything about the rule or the call against Gronk, except for saying Brady doesn't leave Gronk out to dry
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
111439 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:00 am to
quote:

I haven't posted anything about the rule or the call against Gronk, except for saying Brady doesn't leave Gronk out to dry
You are the only pats fan in here who didt leak out of their little vag.....

I swear, I know yall arent from Boston, but yall have sure managed to figure out the boston fan vibe of being a bleeding vagina


quote:

How dare you not join in on the anti-Pats circle jerk!


quote:

Your obsession with the Patriots really is sad I really couldn't imagine someone being this dumb thinking this particular penalty was an example of the "refs being paid off by the Pats" But.. you've done it




This post was edited on 1/25/18 at 10:01 am
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22543 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:00 am to
Anyway.... My point is that it is called the way it was because Church didn't make an effort to lower. He could have done a better job at getting into a better position.

Now, for a realistic opinion, I'm not one to judge someone in that situation as they were in a very adrenaline forced moment. I don't think it was dirty at all but it should be called. It should be called because if someone the size of Gronk can get a head injury, what happens to all of the smaller people? The game wouldn't last long.

I am all for hard hits. Trying to avoid the head as much as possible is reasonable.
This post was edited on 1/25/18 at 10:02 am
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
111439 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:02 am to
quote:

Anyway.... My point is that it is called the way it was because Church didn't make an effort to lower. He could have done a better job at getting into a better position.

Now, for a realistic opinion, I'm not one to judge someone in that situation as they were in a very adrenaline forced moment. I don't think it was dirty at all but it should be called. It should be called because if someone the size of Gronk can get a head injury, what happens to all of the smaller people? The game wouldn't last long.
If that is how the nfl is going to call penalties, which they are, i would 100% teach my defenders to go low.

It is the only way they can guarantee non-helmet contact. Say good bye to your knees tight ends
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22543 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:07 am to
quote:

the only way they can guarantee non-helmet contact. Say good bye to your knees tight ends




Which is better than brain injuries. These players know the risks. Gotta choose one way or the other and I think hurt knees are relatively better.
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
111439 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:10 am to
quote:

Which is better than brain injuries. These players know the risks. Gotta choose one way or the other and I think hurt knees are relatively better.

Not disagreeing


To put a bow on this:

I feel the QB, and tight end were the most responsible players here in the cause of the helmet to helmet contact. Which is why I logically dont see why it is put on the defender

The qb can control his throw, and the offensive player is in control of his body. However, we throw the flag on the defender because his helmet hit another players who changed their own body angle
Posted by LNCHBOX
70448
Member since Jun 2009
89129 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:13 am to
quote:

You are the only pats fan in here who didt leak out of their little vag.....


He got all that out of the way in a thread on Monday I think.
Posted by CelticDog
Member since Apr 2015
42867 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:17 am to
If you played, you would know there is always a choice.

Posted by keakar
Member since Jan 2017
30152 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:17 am to
if its the patriots, the only way to avoid a penalty is to stand 5 yards away and in a firm tone voice shout please stop and lay down on the ground. if the player chooses not to then you missed the tackle and you go on to the next play.

that hit was "by rule" 100% legal, the ONLY reason the penalty was called was he dropped the ball and they were told to help the pats win, they did just that.

the NFL is "almost" as rigged as the WWE, the only reason i say almost is penalties along arent as absolute to ensure a rigged game since the team still needs to score points to win, but they can definitely rig it to get the desired outcome 90% of the time.
Posted by TigerFanInSouthland
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2012
28065 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 10:20 am to
I have zero sympathy for Gronkowski after his stunt with Tre White earlier this season. frick him. I wish the defender would’ve launched at the thug.
Posted by TROLA
BATON ROUGE
Member since Apr 2004
14745 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 11:33 am to
quote:

So the no effort to lower the head is the reason it was called.



The problem being that its poor technique and extremely dangerous to lower you head when you know contact is imminent. The rule is one sided and places all the burden on the defensive player regardless of what the offensive player does.
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22543 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 11:59 am to
Well in that situation, it should. Defensive player can see what is about to happen. The receiver can't because they are focused on catching the ball.
Posted by Goldrush25
San Diego, CA
Member since Oct 2012
33963 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 12:21 pm to
Nothing was wrong with the hit.

People want this neat, clean way of tackling where no one ever gets hit helmet to helmet. It's not possible.
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
111439 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 12:22 pm to
quote:

People want this neat, clean way of tackling where no one ever gets hit helmet to helmet. It's not possible.
Correct.

Love the wrap up, form tackle comments like that guarantees helmets wont collide
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22543 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 12:23 pm to
quote:

Love the wrap up, form tackle comments like that guarantees helmets wont collide



Sigh..... The attempt is the important part not that they actually collide.
Posted by TH03
Mogadishu
Member since Dec 2008
172004 posts
Posted on 1/25/18 at 12:32 pm to
quote:

So the no effort to lower the head is the reason it was called.



Quoted just so I can reiterate that you're calling for players to defy physics when a receiver's body positioning changes in a split second.
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram