Mark Richt has lost control of the Cincinnati Bengals

#26
#26
BallinVol said:
Bernard was not a defenseless player in that scenario. He made the catch, turned and took two steps. The hit was high I'll admit, but he is not defenseless, in which the rule book states...
Click to expand...

It's not about it being a defenseless player call (you might be misunderstanding how that penalty works). That's not what he's saying.

He's talking about that the guy led with the crown of his helmet and - although it started lower- it ended up going higher and turning into a helmet to helmet hit. Those parts (normally) get called as a penalty.

The ESPN post-game analysts were also saying that - while it shouldn't overshadow the ones that caused the game ending - that it was a bad missed call, especially by the way the rule and penalty is written regarding that specific issue.
 
Last edited:
#27
#27
bleedorange0037 said:
I honestly don't care what the rulebook states. It's insane that just because a guy has the ball means its legal to go headhunting like that. There's no situation in a league that claims to give a damn about head injuries where it should be okay to drive through a guy's chin and face with the top of your helmet. That's something that needs to be looked at for the future.
Click to expand...

And the Bengals didn't give a damn about what the rule book states either ... Which is why they will be watching from the couch next week.
 
#28
#28
bleedorange0037 said:
I honestly don't care what the rulebook states. It's insane that just because a guy has the ball means its legal to go headhunting like that. There's no situation in a league that claims to give a damn about head injuries where it should be okay to drive through a guy's chin and face with the top of your helmet. That's something that needs to be looked at for the future.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Ballin's talking about the right part/rule here.
 
#29
#29
TrueOrange said:
I thought it was the LB Shazier?
Click to expand...

My bad, I couldn't tell but it was still a dirty hit. And what pissed me off more about it, the refs never even called a flag. It was clearly a helmet to helmet. But when Berict hit Brown with a helmet to helmet, then the refs throw a flag. I mean that was a dirty hit too but both of them should have been penalties. This game was one of the ugliest games I've seen in NFL history. If I was the NFL, I'd be embarrassed on how bad this sport has become.
 
#32
#32
VolFreakJosh said:
My bad, I couldn't tell but it was still a dirty hit. And what pissed me off more about it, the refs never even called a flag. It was clearly a helmet to helmet. But when Berict hit Brown with a helmet to helmet, then the refs throw a flag. I mean that was a dirty hit too but both of them should have been penalties. This game was one of the ugliest games I've seen in NFL history. If I was the NFL, I'd be embarrassed on how bad this sport has become.
Click to expand...

Knowing them, they're just hoping that the next day or next weekend of football will make us forget all about it.
 
#33
#33
TrueOrange said:
It's not about it being a defenseless player call (you might be misunderstanding how that penalty works). That's not what he's saying.

He's talking about that the guy led with the crown of his helmet and - although it started lower- it ended up going higher and turning into a helmet to helmet hit. Those parts (normally) gets called as a penalty.

The ESPN analysts were also saying that - though it shouldn't overshadow the ones that caused the game ending - that it was a bad missed call, especially by the way the rule's written.
Click to expand...

If I recall, one of the replay officials stated it wasn't called because Bernard was deemed a runner, and not defenseless. I agree that the hit was definitely high. Either way, this doesn't even compare to the garbage that Burfict and Jones were throwing around all game. They are classless as they come. They'll make somebody a good cellmate one day ...
 
#37
#37
vols 30 said:
Sounds jealous to me
Click to expand...

Lmao, jealous of the Steelers? We're pointing out facts about how ugly the game was on both teams. Not just on the Bengals. But hey, the Steelers could knock everyone's head off against the Broncos and you'd still find an excuse to defend them. Enjoy watching Peyton Manning embarrass your defense.
 
#39
#39
Bleedorange0037, So when Hurd lowered his head and blew up the UGA defender, you weren't cheering but saying how that was a dirty play?
 
Last edited:
#40
#40
bleedorange0037 said:
Nah. Just find it funny that you try to justify an indisputably dirty play because of a loophole in the rulebook.
Click to expand...

I didn't justify anything. I admitted that the hit was high but apparently you missed that part. I'm going by what the replay official said to the announcers. It took the refs all game to start calling penalties that should've been called on Cincy. Don't act like they weren't calling them on Pittsburgh either. Pitt racked up over 100 yards in penalties early on. I'm not justifying anything, other than the fact that the Bengals are the most classless bunch of thugs I have seen in my life. Same goes to the fans who were cheering for Ben's injury and throwing sh*t at him. I'd be embarrassed to be a Bengals fan right now ...
 
#41
#41
BallinVol said:
I didn't justify anything. I admitted that the hit was high but apparently you missed that part. I'm going by what the replay official said to the announcers. It took the refs all game to start calling penalties that should've been called on Cincy. Don't act like they weren't calling them on Pittsburgh either. Pitt racked up over 100 yards in penalties early on. I'm not justifying anything, other than the fact that the Bengals are the most classless bunch of thugs I have seen in my life. Same goes to the fans who were cheering for Ben's injury and throwing sh*t at him. I'd be embarrassed to be a Bengals fan right now ...
Click to expand...

This we can agree on. Absolutely no place for any of that.
 
#42
#42
BallinVol said:
I didn't justify anything. I admitted that the hit was high but apparently you missed that part. I'm going by what the replay official said to the announcers. It took the refs all game to start calling penalties that should've been called on Cincy. Don't act like they weren't calling them on Pittsburgh either. Pitt racked up over 100 yards in penalties early on. I'm not justifying anything, other than the fact that the Bengals are the most classless bunch of thugs I have seen in my life. Same goes to the fans who were cheering for Ben's injury and throwing sh*t at him. I'd be embarrassed to be a Bengals fan right now ...
Click to expand...

people don't like rapists...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#45
#45
Old school football game and as a Steelers fan, and as somebody who understands what games in this division are like...

55 for Cinci, his reputation based on his own actions in games past and previous to the hit on Brown, had an affect on the refs.

Much the same way James Harrison's reputation followed him earlier in his career.

Cinci didn't lose the game there. They could have closed out the game on offense. If just the penalty on the Brown hit it still would have been a fifty yard field goal, but Pacman had to be Pacman...

Porter shouldn't have been out there and as a Steelers fan I hope Tomlin addresses it.

I'll take it, but I don't feel great about it. Ugly game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#46
#46
BallinVol said:
If I recall, one of the replay officials stated it wasn't called because Bernard was deemed a runner, and not defenseless. I agree that the hit was definitely high. Either way, this doesn't even compare to the garbage that Burfict and Jones were throwing around all game. They are classless as they come. They'll make somebody a good cellmate one day ...
Click to expand...

That's why it wasn't a hitting a defenseless player penalty. I heard that part. That would have dealt more with had Shazier launched into Bernard. The change that comes with the player no longer being defenseless - that the ref on TV was talking about - dealt with launching and how intentionally leading with the crown and hitting anywhere could be called.


Again, though, that wasn't the issue. The complaint is not that it wasn't a defenseless player call; people aren't saying he was defenseless. What he’s talking about is how the leading with the crown of the helmet - by extension, the helmet to helmet hit - wasn't flagged. That’s an entirely different subset of the unnecessary roughness penalty from the "defenseless player” penalty, and it isn’t one of the subsections that the player no longer being defenseless suddenly allows the action without penalty (nor a helmet to helmet).



ARTICLE 6. UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS. There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but will not be limited to:
(a) Using the foot or any part of the leg to strike an opponent with a whipping motion;

(b) contacting a runner when he is out of bounds

Note: Defensive players must make an effort to avoid contact. Players on defense are responsible for knowing when a runner has crossed the boundary line, except in doubtful cases where he might step on a boundary line and continue parallel with it.

(c) a player of the receiving team who has gone out of bounds and blocks a kicking team player out of bounds during the kick. If this occurs on a kick from scrimmage, post-possession rules will apply if appropriate (9-5-1)

(d) running, diving into, or throwing the body against or on a runner whose forward progress has been stopped, who has declared himself down by going to the ground untouched and has made no attempt to advance (see 7-2-1-a, d)

(e) running, diving into, or throwing the body against or on any prostrate player either before or after the ball is dead

(f) throwing the runner to the ground after the ball is dead

(g) unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (1) is out of the play or (2)

should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead

(h) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backward after the ball has been kicked, is out of the play and must not be

unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the down or until he assumes a distinctly defensive

position. However, a kicker/punter is a defenseless player through the conclusion of the down (see 12-2-7-7)

(i) using any part of a player’s helmet or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily

(j) grabbing a helmet opening of an opponent and forcibly twisting, turning, or pulling his head

Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant. If the foul is by the defense, it is also an automatic first down.

Note: When in question about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.
Click to expand...






ARTICLE 8. INITIATING CONTACT WITH THE CROWN OF THE HELMET. It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players are clearly outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle to tackle and from three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or tackler against an opponent shall not be a foul.

Penalty: Loss of 15 yards. If the foul is by the defense, it is also an automatic first down. The player may be disqualified if the action is flagrant.
Click to expand...



Merrill Hoge, who himself was a Steeler, even went into quite a rant afterwards in the postgame analysis on ESPN, though, citing that based on the NFL’s own Rule 12 (Player Conduct, unnecessary roughness, etc) that not only should have been called/flagged, but that the NFL cant be saying it’s all about “head injury prevention/safety” regarding its players and not flag hits like that.
 
#48
#48
vol66 said:
Old school football game and as a Steelers fan, and as somebody who understands what games in this division are like...

55 for Cinci, his reputation based on his own actions in games past and previous to the hit on Brown, had an affect on the refs.

Much the same way James Harrison's reputation followed him earlier in his career.

Cinci didn't lose the game there. They could have closed out the game on offense. If just the penalty on the Brown hit it still would have been a fifty yard field goal, but Pacman had to be Pacman...

Porter shouldn't have been out there and as a Steelers fan I hope Tomlin addresses it.

I'll take it, but I don't feel great about it. Ugly game.
Click to expand...

Agree on that. Especially if he just was using the opportunity to either run his mouth or talk smack.
 
#49
#49
Touché ...like I said, I agree that the hit was high and he did lead with the helmet. It should have been called. There were many other "extra curricular activities" that should have been called as well. Its always a heated rivalry, but it was taken to a new level tonight.
 
#50
#50
BallinVol said:
Touché ...like I said, I agree that the hit was high and he did lead with the helmet. It should have been called. There were many other "extra curricular activities" that should have been called as well. Its always a heated rivalry, but it was taken to a new level tonight.
Click to expand...

I agree.

And afterwards, I'm not sure either team in a situation like that should be too proud. It's not an opinion of the franchises themselves, but this game just felt ugly...almost like it went to a fairly dark place for all teams involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top