Ken Hamlin's hit on Schobel WAS NOT HELMET TO HELMET

[rickwil61]

Hamilin did lead with his shoulder but I think the helmet to helmet contact occured just before the shoulder hit. I don't think it was malicious or intentional but I think the helmet to helmet contact occured and I don't think Aikman's comments were too far out of line. Sorry fellas. I'm a fan too but I think that is what happened.

What I don't know is where the line in the rules is between H to H contact that results in a penalty or incidental H to H contact that does not result in a penalty (if there is such a thing).

 

[RoyTheHammer]

what part of "lead with shoulder" do you not understand??

let me spell it out for you since you seem incapable of making an informed decision for yourself:

Hamlin leads with shoulder, therefore shoulder hits first

not helmet to helmet.. kthx bye

Wow bro, for being wrong you sure do seem to have an attitude about it. I think if you watch the video again, yes he did try to lead with his shoulder, but right before he pops him with his shoulder the helmet makes contact first. You can clearly see Hamlin's helmet hit and the TE's head whip back before his body begins to fly backwards as well. Put your mouse at the :25 second mark of the video and click and watch the slow motion replay a couple times in a row. You'll see what I mean. I'm 100% sure it was helmet to helmet first.

That being said i don't think it was intentional as I do agree he TRIED to lead with his shoulder and I would hope he doesn't get fined for this.

 

[burmafrd]

That is what the review after the game by the league is for. They look at it and decide if the helmet to helmet part was intentional or not. The video shows that it was not intentional and that is what matters.

 

[aikemirv]

Wow bro, for being wrong you sure do seem to have an attitude about it. I think if you watch the video again, yes he did try to lead with his shoulder, but right before he pops him with his shoulder the helmet makes contact first. You can clearly see Hamlin's helmet hit and the TE's head whip back before his body begins to fly backwards as well. Put your mouse at the :25 second mark of the video and click and watch the slow motion replay a couple times in a row. You'll see what I mean. I'm 100% sure it was helmet to helmet first.

That being said i don't think it was intentional as I do agree he TRIED to lead with his shoulder and I would hope he doesn't get fined for this.

I always love these threads where you are watching a video and people see two different things. Like eyes don't work the same or something.

I don't know what to say for someone that cannot see that their helmets hit first. Are they blind?

 

[kycowboyfan]

Thank God Gumbel is calling the game Saturday. He never misses a thing!!!

 

[joseephuss]

That is what the review after the game by the league is for. They look at it and decide if the helmet to helmet part was intentional or not. The video shows that it was not intentional and that is what matters.

No, it doesn't. It should matter, but the guy that hands out fines for this type of thing has shown time and time again that it doesn't matter. I can't remember his name, but I think he is a former wide receiver. He leans toward always fining these plays. I have disagreed with his rulings many times and it does not have to be a Cowboy player for me to think the guy is wrong.

 

[CATCH17]

Listen to Troys call on the play. He just kills me at times...

I love Aikman but he goes out of his way to bust on us to show he is not bias and I think its a bit rediculous.

 

[joseephuss]

I love Aikman but he goes out of his way to bust on us to show he is not bias and I think its a bit rediculous.

I thought Troy's call was perfect. During live action and the first replay he stated he thought it was helmet to helmet. FOX then showed another angle and Troy admitted that based on that new angle that Hamlin turned and got the guy with his shoulder. That was fair.

 

[YosemiteSam]

The closest thing to a penalty that I saw in the hit was it look like Hamlin launched himself into the hit. (became airborne) That I believe can be called as a penalty.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I thought Troy's call was perfect. During live action and the first replay he stated he thought it was helmet to helmet. FOX then showed another angle and Troy admitted that based on that new angle that Hamlin turned and got the guy with his shoulder. That was fair.

So everyone is clear. The rule states that you cannot LEAD with the helmet in a helmet to helmet collision. In other words, you cannot use the helmet as a weapon. It doesn't say the helmet cannot make contact with the other player or his helmet. That is to be expected.

This is very much the same rule as spearing. The closest thing Hamlin would be guilty of is spearing, as he launched himself forward, but he did NOT lead with his helmet and you can clearly see he attempted to use his shoulder in the hit.

 

[trueblue1687]

No, it doesn't. It should matter, but the guy that hands out fines for this type of thing has shown time and time again that it doesn't matter. I can't remember his name, but I think he is a former wide receiver. He leans toward always fining these plays. I have disagreed with his rulings many times and it does not have to be a Cowboy player for me to think the guy is wrong.

I guess helmet to helmet hits only apply to WRs then?? Oh, wait, what about a quarterback?? Or even better, what about RBs that take a rattling nearly EVERY play....helmet to helmet. Never called. You're dreaming. That's why players wear helmets to begin with: they crack heads.

 

[joseephuss]

I guess helmet to helmet hits only apply to WRs then?? Oh, wait, what about a quarterback?? Or even better, what about RBs that take a rattling nearly EVERY play....helmet to helmet. Never called. You're dreaming. That's why players wear helmets to begin with: they crack heads.

I don't follow what you are saying. What am I dreaming about?

 

[trueblue1687]

Exactly...Helmet to helmet...Honestly, the debate that wages on over two plays (This one and Roy's Horsecollar is ridiculous)...They were bad plays by the safeties (Where have we heard this before?).

And, no, the ground didn't result in Hamlin's helmet requiring work on the sidelines...Schobel's helmet contact did.

Moreover, even Micky Spagnola pointed out that there's a possibility that Hamlin will be hit with a punitive measure as well...Doubtful it's for a 'shoulder' to helmet hit

There you have it....from the authority. NO WAY the ground could have caused the damage!!!

 

[trueblue1687]

I don't follow what you are saying. What am I dreaming about?

That intent doesn't matter with regard to leading with the helmet. The rule is specific to that and even further, it is (in this case) against a "defensless" receiver. The TE is defenseless, but he doesn't lead w/ helmet and that is what does matter. Clean hit in my book.

 

[trueblue1687]

I always love these threads where you are watching a video and people see two different things. Like eyes don't work the same or something.

I don't know what to say for someone that cannot see that their helmets hit first. Are they blind?

May ask the same thing of you...sure looked like the TE caught it under the chin with the shoulder and took him off his feet and backwards. At any rate, I'm not sure how you could be so certain the other way as you can't even see where helmets would have touched from the camera angle. Hamlin hit the turf on his back if you didn't notice and obviously didn't have a concusion as he returned to the game. Seems pretty simple to me. One (TE) gets hit on the button and essentially knocked out momentarily and Hamlin shakes off the jolt (probably because he didn't take a hit to the HELMET) and returns sans concussion. If the helmet caused that much damage to the TE, why wouldn't Hamlin have had about the same? Don't try to say that it's because Hamlin laid the hit...don't work like that. Stop the film at exactly 28 secs and look closer through 29 secs and tell me when helmets touch...that is first contact and you will see Hamlins helmet planted firmly under TEs chin.

 

[Blue&Silver]

The hit looked illegal to me. Honestly, it looked a lot like the Witten hit in Philly where his helmet was knocked off, and nose bloodied. I don't think that was called, and I know the player wasn't fined, so I guess these type of hits are okay.

 

[joseephuss]

That intent doesn't matter with regard to leading with the helmet. The rule is specific to that and even further, it is (in this case) against a "defensless" receiver. The TE is defenseless, but he doesn't lead w/ helmet and that is what does matter. Clean hit in my book.

It was a clean hit in my opinion, too. I have seen the league fine what I thought were clean hits in the past. That is why I said it doesn't matter or at least doesn't seem to matter because whomever it is that designates the fines has a different way of interpreting the rules. He is very biased against defenders.

 

[trueblue1687]

It was a clean hit in my opinion, too. I have seen the league fine what I thought were clean hits in the past. That is why I said it doesn't matter or at least doesn't seem to matter because whomever it is that designates the fines has a different way of interpreting the rules. He is very biased against defenders.

Oh, ok. I misunderstood your intent.

 

[fan62]

May ask the same thing of you...sure looked like the TE caught it under the chin with the shoulder and took him off his feet and backwards. At any rate, I'm not sure how you could be so certain the other way as you can't even see where helmets would have touched from the camera angle. Hamlin hit the turf on his back if you didn't notice and obviously didn't have a concusion as he returned to the game. Seems pretty simple to me. One (TE) gets hit on the button and essentially knocked out momentarily and Hamlin shakes off the jolt (probably because he didn't take a hit to the HELMET) and returns sans concussion. If the helmet caused that much damage to the TE, why wouldn't Hamlin have had about the same? Don't try to say that it's because Hamlin laid the hit...don't work like that. Stop the film at exactly 28 secs and look closer through 29 secs and tell me when helmets touch...that is first contact and you will see Hamlins helmet planted firmly under TEs chin.

Have to agree here. I thought the shoulder to the chin was the part of the hit that did him in. I use to judge boxing for a few years and his head flew back just like an uppercut was thrown. Seen many boxers knocked out from a hit on the chin like that. The damage was done by the shoulder to chin. I would bet Hamlin had the wind knocked out of him from hitting the ground as he did, not from any helmet hit.

 

[Established1971]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7-_E5hNuz0

that's 2 weeks in a row now that Aikman and Buck have been COMPLETELY wrong on penalties they "think" should've been called and weren't.

it's really not even close

well maybe the helmets hit, and maybe it was a penalty, but it was not "intentional" helmet to helmet as Aikbuck was saying.