Roy's interception for a TD..

[AbeBeta]

First of all, I doubt you'll find one instance where a player was fined for hitting a defenseless player legally. No player is ever 'fair game', there are restrictions on contact that apply to all circumstances, some with more restrictions than others.

Secondly, and for the second time in a row, there is no rule that says you cannot ever hit a defenseless receiver. There are rules that say you cannot hit a defensless receiver in a certain fashion, Newman violated one of them, the referee failed to elaborate on which one the official believed Newman specifically violated. It's not an elaboration unless they tell us specifically what they believed about the hit to be illegal, wouldn't you agree?

I think you are placing too much emphasis on the NFL.Com NFL Rulebook -- that defines the basic parameters of penalties but does not reflect the Rules Committee's interpretation and clarifications of those rules.

Over and over you've said "you can go helmet to helmet on a defenseless receiver" etc. -- and over and over I've said "you can't got helmet to helmet on anyone, defenseless or not" - it is pretty clear that you simply cannot lay out a defenseless receiver -- even if you use your shoulder. The rulebook states that SPECIAL attention in administering helmet to helmet hits etc. is made for defenseless players (any, not just receivers). Special attention however refers to fines -- b/c helmet to helmet is a penalty either way.

Newman's job is to try to avoid a hit on a defenseless receiver as best he can. The ref's judgement -- as poor as it was -- was that Newman could have avoided the hit. You can't lay out a defenseless receiver -- the ref said that. What else do you need exactly?

 

[Smashmouth24]

I think you are placing too much emphasis on the NFL.Com NFL Rulebook -- that defines the basic parameters of penalties but does not reflect the Rules Committee's interpretation and clarifications of those rules.

Over and over you've said "you can go helmet to helmet on a defenseless receiver" etc. -- and over and over I've said "you can't got helmet to helmet on anyone, defenseless or not" - it is pretty clear that you simply cannot lay out a defenseless receiver -- even if you use your shoulder. The rulebook states that SPECIAL attention in administering helmet to helmet hits etc. is made for defenseless players (any, not just receivers). Special attention however refers to fines -- b/c helmet to helmet is a penalty either way.

Newman's job is to try to avoid a hit on a defenseless receiver as best he can. The ref's judgement -- as poor as it was -- was that Newman could have avoided the hit. You can't lay out a defenseless receiver -- the ref said that. What else do you need exactly?

There is no rule, or interpretation of the rules, that require defenders to avoid hitting 'defenseless' receivers. Defenseless receivers can be hit, with restrictions on the type of contact made. It's as simple as that.

You can absolutely make helmet to helmet contact (not the same thing as helmet-first) on players that are not protected as 'defenseless' (passers, airborne receivers, kickers, punters). Helmet to helmet contact occurs all of the time, quite legally, throughout the course of a game.

 

[AbeBeta]

You can absolutely make helmet to helmet contact (not the same thing as helmet-first) on players that are not protected as 'defenseless' (passers, airborne receivers, kickers, punters). Helmet to helmet contact occurs all of the time, quite legally, throughout the course of a game.

I'm not placing too much emphasis on anything other than 1) how the NFL has called this penalty in the past 3 years, 2) what Newman appeared to be guilty of on that play.

I think you are missing the point. A defenseless receiver is given the protection similar to a sliding QB (or as i've said earlier, a player who is going out of bounds). You have to do everything you can to avoid that hit -- the enforcement (i.e., fine) is more severe if you use your helmet.

You have to use a bit of logic here - what is worse a) a jarring hit delivered with a shoulder or b) a light hit where helmet incidentally touch? If you are talking about protecting a defenseless player then a is going to be penalized.

The helmet to helmet issue is all about the fine -- it is especially heavily enforced after incidents like Woodson putting Darrell Jackson in the hospital. And like any play, it is a more severe fine if you lead with the helmet.

 

[Smashmouth24]

I think you are missing the point. A defenseless receiver is given the protection similar to a sliding QB (or as i've said earlier, a player who is going out of bounds). You have to do everything you can to avoid that hit -- the enforcement (i.e., fine) is more severe if you use your helmet.

You have to use a bit of logic here - what is worse a) a jarring hit delivered with a shoulder or b) a light hit where helmet incidentally touch? If you are talking about protecting a defenseless player then a is going to be penalized.

The helmet to helmet issue is all about the fine -- it is especially heavily enforced after incidents like Woodson putting Darrell Jackson in the hospital. And like any play, it is a more severe fine if you lead with the helmet.

It's simply not the case that a defenseless receiver is afforded the same protection as a sliding QB, or a player that has gone out of bounds. You do NOT have to avoid the hit. A defenseless receiver can be one who as missed a catch, or caught the ball. It's the fact that they're airborne and concentrating on catching the ball that makes them, by rule, defenseless. You've got it mixed up.

It doesn't matter what I think about the severity of helmets touching, but ANY instance of helmets touching can be as has been legitimately penalized under the rules and the competition committee's interpretations. I think "any helmet contact" is a stupid condition, but I'm not trying to give you my opinion.

 

[AbeBeta]

It's simply not the case that a defenseless receiver is afforded the same protection as a sliding QB, or a player that has gone out of bounds. You do NOT have to avoid the hit. A defenseless receiver can be one who as missed a catch, or caught the ball. It's the fact that they're airborne and concentrating on catching the ball that makes them, by rule, defenseless. You've got it mixed up.

That's how i've seen it called regularly for several year.

But maybe you are right and the refs must be wrong.

 

[Smashmouth24]

That's how i've seen it called regularly for several year.

But maybe you are right and the refs must be wrong.

You have not seen referees regularly call penalties for not avoiding airborne receivers. You've probably seen various types of illegal hits, defenseless or otherwise, on receivers.