Video clip of the "late hit" / "leading with helmet" penalty

#1

JeepJeep

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,112
Likes
2
#1
I know it was called "leading with the helmet", but it was more of a late hit than anything.

Pause at the .04 & .11 sec mark, and you can see the ball was already on the ground way before he was hit.

The video is 10mb, so you might want to "right click" and save it on your computer somewhere.

http://www.jeepjeep.com/VOLS/OU-UT_penalty.wmv
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
The one good thing about getting blown out is after the game I couldn't care in the least about bad calls. The refs could have put on orange jerseys and helped UT tackle and the outcome wouldn't have changed.
 
#3
#3
It was not a late hit. It was not leading with the helmet. I "think" the official initially wanted to call it hitting an unprotected player and made something up because it wasn't that either. There were hits in that game on both sides that came much, much closer to a violation than that one. It was a 100% bogus, CYA call. The official made a mistake and wouldn't let it be waved off. I HOPE UT has protested that call with the Office.

What it was... was a turning point in the game. UT could have and should have gone in at halftime with a lead and the momentum. They should have been able to come out after the half and pound the rock to protect a lead.

Bad calls happen and good teams handle it better than the Vols obviously did... but a bogus call started a series of mistakes and missed assignments that led to a blow out loss.
 
#4
#4
The one good thing about getting blown out is after the game I couldn't care in the least about bad calls. The refs could have put on orange jerseys and helped UT tackle and the outcome wouldn't have changed.

With an inexperienced team, anything that happens to break momentum or rattle confidence has a high probability of changing the outcome.
 
#5
#5
By the letter of the rule, it's a debatable call.

The rule, in general, sucks.

Guys wear pads for a reason. The whistle was blowing about the time Gordon hit him. It wasn't a malicious hit.
 
#6
#6
It was not a late hit. It was not leading with the helmet. I "think" the official initially wanted to call it hitting an unprotected player and made something up because it wasn't that either. There were hits in that game on both sides that came much, much closer to a violation than that one. It was a 100% bogus, CYA call. The official made a mistake and wouldn't let it be waved off. I HOPE UT has protested that call with the Office.

What it was... was a turning point in the game. UT could have and should have gone in at halftime with a lead and the momentum. They should have been able to come out after the half and pound the rock to protect a lead.

Bad calls happen and good teams handle it better than the Vols obviously did... but a bogus call started a series of mistakes and missed assignments that led to a blow out loss.


Agreed. I absolutely hate it when any game completely turns on a bogus call by the zebras.
 
#7
#7
The one good thing about getting blown out is after the game I couldn't care in the least about bad calls. The refs could have put on orange jerseys and helped UT tackle and the outcome wouldn't have changed.

exactly. agreed.
 
#9
#9
By the letter of the rule, it's a debatable call.

The rule, in general, sucks.

Guys wear pads for a reason. The whistle was blowing about the time Gordon hit him. It wasn't a malicious hit.

I imagine though it's more about the helmets here than the pads, which unfortunately have done a pretty sh-tty job recently of preventing concussions
 
#10
#10
From where I was sitting (and replay), it looked like he was coming in to lower the boom because the Oregon player was still trying to make a play on the ball. The closer he got to the play it looked like he turned his body to try avoid the contact. It did not warrant a flag.

As to the rule. They have taken it way too far (in the pro game as well). If it is about safety, it is a worthless rule. You are still gonna see players get lit up in those situations.
 
#11
#11
I imagine though it's more about the helmets here than the pads, which unfortunately have done a pretty sh-tty job recently of preventing concussions

It's an unfortunate part of the game.

If players are leading with their head it's going to happen.

It's a fundamental flaw in coaching. Guys aren't taught how to tackle from the beginning (whatever level they start out) and it snowballs into leading with the head.
 
#12
#12
Agreed. I absolutely hate it when any game completely turns on a bogus call by the zebras.
if anyone here truthfully believes the game turned on a call by the official....you should be banned from posting the rest of the season!
 
#13
#13
With an inexperienced team, anything that happens to break momentum or rattle confidence has a high probability of changing the outcome.

When a game ends with a 35 point loss, I have trouble believing a single play has a 'high probability' of changing the outcome, no matter how much it shifted momentum and rattled UT. If they were going to get rattled that easily then if that play didn't do it another play probably would have.
 
#14
#14
if anyone here truthfully believes the game turned on a call by the official....you should be banned from posting the rest of the season!

I wouldn't go that far but you know some fans are going to hold onto the idiotic notion that if that hadn't been called, we would have won.

If it had been the last drive of the game, I could buy it. But when the final score is 48-13....not even close. If you want to pin it on one play, pin it on the interception. The team quit after that.
 
#15
#15
I think that call was bs, and then the shortly followed TD really took away some of the UT momentum going into halftime. The team never really seemed to recover from that.
 
#17
#17
When a game ends with a 35 point loss, I have trouble believing a single play has a 'high probability' of changing the outcome, no matter how much it shifted momentum and rattled UT. If they were going to get rattled that easily then if that play didn't do it another play probably would have.

Pretty sure I said "anything" didn't I?

The outcome change might have been a TD or two. It could have been no better than a 34-13 loss.

I didn't say it caused them to lose. I tend to think however that they might have been more inclined to run the ball early in the 2nd half with a 7 pt lead. If successful, that would have kept the D off the field and eaten clock... so who really knows?
 
#18
#18
Bad call without a doubt but it didn't affect the outcome of the game. A good team has to play through bad calls.
 
#19
#19
Pretty sure I said "anything" didn't I?

The outcome change might have been a TD or two. It could have been no better than a 34-13 loss.

I didn't say it caused them to lose. I tend to think however that they might have been more inclined to run the ball early in the 2nd half with a 7 pt lead. If successful, that would have kept the D off the field and eaten clock... so who really knows?

I do....Oregon would have won regardless.
 
#20
#20
It's an unfortunate part of the game.

If players are leading with their head it's going to happen.

It's a fundamental flaw in coaching. Guys aren't taught how to tackle from the beginning (whatever level they start out) and it snowballs into leading with the head.

Some of it, too, is the player's physical abilities (strength, how hard they hit, etc) have grown alot greater and much faster than the safety equipment has or might even be able to;

the rate at which players are these reaching higher peaks of physical performance we all see and enjoy now has increased drastically, unfortunately, compared to the improvements in the equipment. The modern helmet still does a pretty good job protecting the head, but it's nowhere near as fully protective or effective as it used to be.

The number of concussions has really risen in the last 10 years or so, to the point - there were at least 3 alone in the NFL in week 1, and that was only looking at 2 games - where it's not just something those in charge of the game can just ignore anymore (especially after multiple reported incidents of ex-players experiencing head-trauma induced depression later in life and that ex-nfl lineman killing himself 7 or 8 years back or so).

Unfortunately though, they're really at this point playing with pretty out-dated equipment. The helmet needs to be improved so that anytime a player takes a big helmet hit, he doesn't fall limp to the ground and have to be carried off on a cart or taken to a hospital.

Player safety has always been a huge part of the game ever since back when Theodore Roosevelt made them reevaluate/improve the sport after the 1905 season caused 18 deaths. It's a dangerous sport, they're trying to find some ways to keep these kids from ending up with serious problems


But rules like these coming up now are really about protecting the players. With all the findings coming in the last few years of the mild to severe brain damage later in life that's showing up from concussions, they're not really an injury anymore that can be brushed off as 'part of the game,' both on a moral level for the actual physical and mental well being of these kids, but in some ways a legal perspective as well. Until someone's able to come up with a way to drastically improve the helmet's protection, the closest thing they can currently do are penalties to try to discourage behaviors that might lead to players causing them, unfortunately.



I do agree that the tackle methods need to be taught better by coaches so things like this won't happen, but it's also alot how the modern helmet unfortunately no longer protects as effectively it really needs to be for the modern game.
 
#21
#21
Watched the replay and the announcer called it immediately. Apparently it's the defenseless player rule or something. Also a fairly new rule, I'm not sure it was the right call but I think Gordon had time to pull up after seeing the receiver drop the ball. IMO you should be able to knock the stuffing out of a player trying to make a play on the ball, defenseless or not.
 
#22
#22
Some of it, too, is the player's physical abilities (strength, how hard they hit, etc) have grown alot greater and much faster than the safety equipment has or might even be able to;

the rate at which players are these reaching higher peaks of physical performance we all see and enjoy now has increased drastically, unfortunately, compared to the improvements in the equipment. The modern helmet still does a pretty good job protecting the head, but it's nowhere near as fully protective or effective as it used to be.

The number of concussions has really risen in the last 10 years or so, to the point - there were at least 3 alone in the NFL in week 1, and that was only looking at 2 games - where it's not just something those in charge of the game can just ignore anymore (especially after multiple reported incidents of ex-players experiencing head-trauma induced depression later in life and that ex-nfl lineman killing himself 7 or 8 years back or so).

Unfortunately though, they're really at this point playing with pretty out-dated equipment. The helmet needs to be improved so that anytime a player takes a big helmet hit, he doesn't fall limp to the ground and have to be carried off on a cart or taken to a hospital.

Player safety has always been a huge part of the game ever since back when Theodore Roosevelt made them reevaluate/improve the sport after the 1905 season caused 18 deaths. It's a dangerous sport, they're trying to find some ways to keep these kids from ending up with serious problems


But rules like these coming up now are really about protecting the players. With all the findings coming in the last few years of the mild to severe brain damage later in life that's showing up from concussions, they're not really an injury anymore that can be brushed off as 'part of the game,' both on a moral level for the actual physical and mental well being of these kids, but in some ways a legal perspective as well. Until someone's able to come up with a way to drastically improve the helmet's protection, the closest thing they can currently do are penalties to try to discourage behaviors that might lead to players causing them, unfortunately.



I do agree that the tackle methods need to be taught better by coaches so things like this won't happen, but it's also alot how the modern helmet unfortunately no longer protects as effectively it really needs to be for the modern game.

I agree with you about the helmets.

There have been what, 3 or 4 different helmets come out in the past 3 years or so.

But look at a guy like Stewart Bradley yesterday in the Eagles game. He dove in head first in a pile and got a concussion. Nothing is really going to prevent that.
 
#23
#23
The punt hurt us worse than that penalty, too short of a field for an offense that takes 10 seconds off the play clock
 
#24
#24
It was understandable why the call was made but, and I usually don't blast announcers and such, but man Craig James is really BAD. Just a bad announcer and really rambled a lot. Maybe its me and getting older but this year more than ever I have noticed really inept announcers. Not being prepared has been the biggest glaring problem I have seen....
 
#25
#25
Pretty sure I said "anything" didn't I?

The outcome change might have been a TD or two. It could have been no better than a 34-13 loss.

I didn't say it caused them to lose. I tend to think however that they might have been more inclined to run the ball early in the 2nd half with a 7 pt lead. If successful, that would have kept the D off the field and eaten clock... so who really knows?

When I said the 'outcome' wouldn't have changed I meant they still would have lost.
 
Advertisement



Back
Top