Twitter: The NFL determines that Kazee delivered a clean hit

[bigE79]

Thanks captain obvious... stupid nfl

 

[charron]

Yea we know, we saw it was clean when it happened.

 

[john van brocklin]

Agreed
Bogus call

 

[Bullflop]

Evidently, the NFL didn't feel that leaving his feet to make the tackle was illegal. Otherwise, it seems he would have been fined. Perhaps the rule that states a player launching himself with both feet off the ground to tackle, should be nullified. The hit, itself, which was shoulder to shoulder, was obviously legal. It appears there's a discrepancy between the rule itself and its jurisdiction. Go figure . . .

 

[gimmesix]

I'm kind of glad this call went against us. Balances out the non-called fumble by Schultz. We scored after that blown call and they scored after this one.

 

[Runwildboys]

The ref that threw the flag should be fined

Nah, I think most people assumed it was an illegal hit before the slo-mo replay. That's what needs to change. They need to make those plays reviewable.

 

[BAT]

I thought that stupid call might have been reviewed to be correct due to Kazee leaving his feet.

You were wrong.

 

[MarcusRock]

Agreed. At home we get instant replays from multiple angles in slow motion. The officials get one full speed look and have to make a judgment call.

Game changing penalties should not be made based on judgment calls; which is why this needs to be added to the reviewable plays list.

Holding is a judgement call. PI is a judgement call. Roughing the passer is a judgement call. And before all that, you'd need to clearly define "game changing," which at this point is, you guessed it, a judgement call. How much do you want to slow the game down to a parade of reviews?

 

[MRV52]

I suggest when the league is wrong that they pay the player $50,000. That will teach them.

 

[CCBoy]

And like almost all NFL decisions involving the Cowboys, it is well after the incident and does nothing but gets around a sense of a guilty conscience...even if they are loyal to the negotiated TV contracts.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

You were wrong.

BOOM!!

 

[Batman1980]

Holding is a judgement call. PI is a judgement call. Roughing the passer is a judgement call. And before all that, you'd need to clearly define "game changing," which at this point is, you guessed it, a judgement call. How much do you want to slow the game down to a parade of reviews?

 

[Tommy]

Sweet!

One day we will have the technology so those decisions can be made in real time instead of days later when it doesn’t matter anymore.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Holding is a judgement call. PI is a judgement call. Roughing the passer is a judgement call. And before all that, you'd need to clearly define "game changing," which at this point is, you guessed it, a judgement call. How much do you want to slow the game down to a parade of reviews?

This is a good point that shouldn’t just be glossed over. In the running for worst ref faux pax in NFL history IMO (or at least one of the the worst I’ve ever seen) was the no-call on that obvious PI during the Falcons/Saints NFCCG. Yeah, you look at that and think these types of calls should be subject to replay. The reality is though, that the vast, vast majority of PIs (and other vaguely subjective calls like roughing the passer) would likely not be overturned because most of the time they aren’t as brazenly obvious to a reasonable person as that no-call in the Falcons/Saints game. So, do we as fans want to see games lengthened for that one rare call that would be overturned?

Idk how I feel about it to be honest. The Saints really got screwed there and it probably cost them a trip to the SB. Yet I feel that the impact of another replay tool for these types of calls wouldn’t be nearly as beneficial as determining if a ball was caught, crossed the goal-line, or was actually fumbled. In those types of calls, the reasonableness standard, even though still subjective, is more clearly defined versus calls like PI, roughing the passer, etc etc etc. I feel like the latter would rarely get overturned because that clarity between “what is and isn’t” is too vague. Is it worth it with that being the case? Idk.. I’m guessing Saints fans would think so.

 

[kevinhickey]

They review those hits in college; they should be reviewed because the play happens so fast and the refs are handing out a 15 yard penalty.

 

[Flamma]

Nah, I think most people assumed it was an illegal hit before the slo-mo replay. That's what needs to change. They need to make those plays reviewable.

It was a clean hit so there was no fine, but do you remember what was called? A penalty often enforced incorrectly by the refs, and only enforced when it's a hard hit. Hitting a defenseless receiver. This penalty will pop up every once in awhile and the talking football heads will all ask, what was he supposed to do?

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defenseless-player/

Read #2. By rule replay wouldn't help.

 

[JustChip]

I don't think that will change the outcome of these judgement calls at all.

The review system is more about looking for a way to take plays off the board than confirm a solid play. That's why all TDs are automatically reviewed, that's why all turnovers are automatically reviewed. They're looking for any reason to take a play away.

In this case, if they reviewed this they'd likely conclude what the announcer did at the time. "It kind of looks like he launches a bit", or whatever he said. Giving the officials instant replays from angles they didn't have before won't change anything, IMO.

Interesting point about taking plays off the board. I haven’t thunked about that, but it makes sense.

Off-hand, I think all plays, or virtually all plays should be reviewable or challengeable. However, as was the case with the temporary PI reviews, it likely won’t matter because the Brotherhood of the Striped Shirt will undermine it.

 

[Runwildboys]

It was a clean hit so there was no fine, but do you remember what was called? A penalty often enforced incorrectly by the refs, and only enforced when it's a hard hit. Hitting a defenseless receiver. This penalty will pop up every once in awhile and the talking football heads will all ask, what was he supposed to do?

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defenseless-player/

Read #2. By rule replay wouldn't help.

It's not clearly written, because they list the rules as 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, etc. rather than 1a, 1b, 1c, etc.
Did you mean this?:

1. A receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not had time to clearly become a runner. If the player is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player

or this?:

1. 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 defenselessplayer by encircling or grasping him
   2. lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or ”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenselessplayer’s body
   3. illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body. (This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered to be a defenseless player, as defined in Article 7.)

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.

 

[Flamma]

It's not clearly written, because they list the rules as 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, etc. rather than 1a, 1b, 1c, etc.
Did you mean this?:

1. A receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not had time to clearly become a runner. If the player is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player

or this?:

1. 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 defenselessplayer by encircling or grasping him
   2. lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or ”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenselessplayer’s body
   3. illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body. (This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered to be a defenseless player, as defined in Article 7.)

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.

This is the one.

A receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not had time to clearly become a runner. If the player is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player

That's what they called.

 

[Runwildboys]

This is the one.

A receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not had time to clearly become a runner. If the player is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player

That's what they called.

If you read the other part I posted 2. Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:, it seems to negate the call.