Video - Landry's hit on Robinson - BS

[ETex]

Dude leaves his feet, launching head 1st into a defensless receiver? Straight BS non-call. To top it off, Ball gets tagged latter for a much tamer hit? I don't like the defenseless receiver rule but you gotta be consistent in it's application.

Hell even the Foreskins agree there shoulda been a flag.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?355067-Landry-Hit-Youtube-Video

Worst officiated I've seen in a long, long time.

[youtube]N1f_UPQpIv8[/youtube]

 

[Hoofbite]

I liked both plays. Neither should be penalized, IMO.

IMO, that's not leading with a helmet if you hit the guy with both forearms before the helmet makes any sort of contact.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Maybe I don't understand the defenseless WR rule. You have this hit, then you have the penalty Ball got. IMO, the penalty should have been called the opposite way.

Personally, I don't think the hit on Robinson should have been a penalty, but no way in hell should Ball have been called if this one wasn't. Hell, I don't think Ball should have been called at all. Even with the given rules as I understand them.

 

[tomson75]

I liked both plays. Neither should be penalized, IMO.

I agree.

 

[speedkilz88]

I liked both plays. Neither should be penalized, IMO.

I don't like the rule, but this one was actually what should be penalized.

 

[cbow44]

Based on todays rules, Landrys hit is clearly a penalty. Launches hits under the chin with the crown of his helmet. Now as a old school NFL watcher, I agree it should be just a good play. But if your going to call a penalty on Ball's hit then that one has to be 15 yards.

 

[Doomsday101]

I liked both plays. Neither should be penalized, IMO.

IMO, that's not leading with a helmet if you hit the guy with both forearms before the helmet makes any sort of contact.

I agree I don't like the rule but what I do expect is if they are going to make this rule then be consistent and call both ways.

 

[Baileyneverfailey]

That defenseless receiver stuff is far too subjective. If you want to penalize for leading with the helmet, or going helmet to helmet, I get that. Try to prevent concussions. But when the officials are just deciding on a whim when a receiver is or isn't defenseless then you get inconsistent nonsense like this example.

Looking at Laurent Robinson, I'd say he's defenseless 100% of the time Laron Landry is running toward him. :laugh2:

 

[InmanRoshi]

According to Mike Tirico there is a "new rule" where the defender has to allow the WR to catch the ball and turn up field.

True story.

 

[kmd24]

By the letter of the law, it should have been a 15 yard penalty. It's fine that it wasn't called, but you can't let that go and then call the penalty on Ball later.

 

[CowboyWay]

Nobody hates the skins scum more than I, however, I don't see a thing in the world wrong with that hit.

 

[AdamJT13]

IMO, that's not leading with a helmet if you hit the guy with both forearms before the helmet makes any sort of contact.

Landry's left forearm didn't hit him -- he reached around him with that arm. His right forearm also didn't clearly hit him before the helmet. At best, they hit at the same time, but it looks to me like the helmet hit first. You can even see Landry duck his head a little right before contact.

I'd love to hear the NFL's explanation if that's not the very definition of the NFL's new "launching" rule --

(j) if a player illegally launches into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (1) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (2) uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body.

 

[AdamJT13]

According to Mike Tirico there is a "new rule" where the defender has to allow the WR to catch the ball and turn up field.

True story.

Tirico was verging on Bryant Gumble territory last night.

 

[ArmchairQB]

I liked both plays. Neither should be penalized, IMO.

IMO, that's not leading with a helmet if you hit the guy with both forearms before the helmet makes any sort of contact.

Agreed

 

[kmd24]

I'd love to hear the NFL's explanation if that's not the very definition of the NFL's new "launching" rule --

Even if they could argue that it's not a penalty according to the letter of the rule (which I would disagree with), it's definitely the spirit of the rule. That play, and Ball's play, for that matter, are exactly the type of plays that the league is trying to guard against.

On one play, the DB launches himself and destroys the receiver, and on the other the DB uses textbook technique to avoid the head and neck. It's the latter play that gets not one, but two flags, and no official even reached for a flag on the former. Unbelievable.

 

[Hoofbite]

Landry's left forearm didn't hit him -- he reached around him with that arm. His right forearm also didn't clearly hit him before the helmet. At best, they hit at the same time, but it looks to me like the helmet hit first. You can even see Landry duck his head a little right before contact.

I'd love to hear the NFL's explanation if that's not the very definition of the NFL's new "launching" rule --

(j) if a player illegally launches into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (1) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (2) uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body.

You can't expect a ref to determine which actually hit first and how clean the forearm hit was in real time.

He put his forearms up to initiate contact, his right forearm landing pretty square.

I have no problem with this non call, I do have a problem with the call on Ball.

 

[Stautner]

Can anyone find a clip of the Ball hit?

 

[Temo]

Dude leaves his feet, launching head 1st into a defensless receiver? Straight BS non-call. To top it off, Ball gets tagged latter for a much tamer hit? I don't like the defenseless receiver rule but you gotta be consistent in it's application.

Hell even the Foreskins agree there shoulda been a flag.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?355067-Landry-Hit-Youtube-Video

Worst officiated I've seen in a long, long time.

[youtube]N1f_UPQpIv8[/youtube]

#95 on the sideline should have been flagged for taunting.

Also, that's textbook defenseless receiver and launching penalty. It should have been 15 yards and a possible fine. That's the rules. Either enforce them or don't.

 

[adamknite]

Gotta agree with everybody else, I don't think either should be penalties, but Landry's definitely was according to the new rules. I really don't like the new rule, but if you're going to make it, you have to do a better job of enforcing it correctly.

 

[flashback]

I thought it was a great hit by Landry. Perfectly timed, broke up the pass and its something that Robinson will remember every time he goes up for a pass. I also agree that they outlawed those hits, and it should have been a penalty.

Out of curiosity, what if the refs had thrown 2 personal foul flags there, one for the hit, and one on #95 for taunting? I've never seen them mark off 30 yards worth of penalties (PI excepted, of course).