Bengals 2015

[scoscox]

Man, can't help but think that the Bengals would have crushed Denver, especially with Andy Dalton.

[scoscox]

In regards to the hit, I personally don't see why leading with the helmet down shouldn't be an automatic penalty in any situation. It's a reckless and frankly stupid tackling technique that's just as dangerous for both parties.

[mohr5150]

In regards to the hit, I personally don't see why leading with the helmet down shouldn't be an automatic penalty in any situation. It's a reckless and frankly stupid tackling technique that's just as dangerous for both parties.

Totally agree. I just wish people would stop thinking there was a cover-up on this play but the league has come out on several other plays, including the TD catch, and said the refs were wrong. I believe that hit should be totally illegal, but for some reason it isn't.

[LA Muskie]

Yeah it is iffy, just saying that might be why the head of officials is saying it was called correctly and not a foul. He doesnt seem to have issues saying they got other things wrong, why would he with this?

I have no dog in this fight. I don't like either team. But I've gotta say that if I was a Bengals fan, his explanation wouldn't make me feel any better. I don't know why he would try to justify a bad call (if it was one). But that's what it seems like to me.

[Kahns Krazy]

In regards to the hit, I personally don't see why leading with the helmet down shouldn't be an automatic penalty in any situation. It's a reckless and frankly stupid tackling technique that's just as dangerous for both parties.

I don't get it either. I don't understand how the helmet to helmet hit on Gio is "legal", despite the fact that it dangerous and obviously concussed him, and the shoulder leading hit on Brown is a flag and a 3 game suspension (which is effectively a $750k fine for 'Tez, too). The token fines to the Pittsburgh coaches are insulting too. Hitting is part of the game. Pulling hair and coaches on the field taunting is not.

[LA Muskie]

Totally agree. I just wish people would stop thinking there was a cover-up on this play but the league has come out on several other plays, including the TD catch, and said the refs were wrong. I believe that hit should be totally illegal, but for some reason it isn't.

Again, I have no dog in this fight. But something just doesn't add up. I've read the rule. As can any of us -- it's on the NFL's website. No where does the rule say anything about the contact needing to be intentional. To the contrary, the letter and spirit of the rule indicate otherwise. Absent an "incidental" use of the crown of the helmet (and I think it's pretty far-fetched to put this into that category), it's a foul unless it's within the tackle box.

Now maybe that's not the guidance the league has provided to its referees. But if that's the case he should at least acknowledge that the NFL has instructed referees to apply the the "incidental" contact exception broadly, and hence to err on the side of not calling the foul. Instead, he acts like the rule is obvious when, in fact, it's only obvious in the other direction.

Then again, maybe he doesn't want to admit that the NFL's "tough on head injuries" mantra is more about the letter of the rule than the rule as applied...

[LA Muskie]

I don't get it either. I don't understand how the helmet to helmet hit on Gio is "legal", despite the fact that it dangerous and obviously concussed him, and the shoulder leading hit on Brown is a flag and a 3 game suspension (which is effectively a $750k fine for 'Tez, too). The token fines to the Pittsburgh coaches are insulting too. Hitting is part of the game. Pulling hair and coaches on the field taunting is not.

I'm not a big fan of complaining about referees, but it's hard to disagree with this -- even as a neutral outside observer. Technically the Burfict suspension was for cumulative bad conduct, but that doesn't even pass the smell test. And hence it is a near certainty that the suspension will be reduced by the arbitrator, who has at this point shown an abject disdain for Goodell's arbitrary and capricious disciplinary decisions.

[gladdenguy]

Follow this Steeler haters if you're on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/dirtysteelers?s=01

[scoscox]

Yea, I don't really get it. It's just a fundamentally backwards set of rules regarding tackling. The rule protects a "defenseless receiver". That pretty much handicaps defenders entirely. Receivers aren't defenseless. They know what they're getting into. Is the defender just supposed to let them gain more yards until they can safely be called a runner? I mean it's just absolutely absurd. Unless the defender is head hunting, and by head hunting I mean "looking to hit them in the head" not "looking to hit them hard", as some people falsely interpret it sometimes, then they've got to be able to defend the pass or try to separate a receiver from the ball. I don't like the defenseless receiver rule as a whole.