I have seen many hits like this on punts. I feel that so many people hate the Pats so they want a suspension. Penalty and fine is all that is needed and move on
What do you think about the situation?
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
I have seen many hits like this on punts. I feel that so many people hate the Pats so they want a suspension. Penalty and fine is all that is needed and move on
It was a legal hit because fair catch was not called. Having said that, the only grey area is what you deem as unnecessary roughness. IMO from the reply there is no way it was a helmet to helmet hit, but one can make the argument that the hit was to the "neck area". You could also make the argument the hit was initially to his right shoulder and that if anything, it should have been KC who should have been flagged for grabbing Amendola's face mask afterwards for unsportsmanlike conduct.
0
It was a legal hit because fair catch was not called. Having said that, the only grey area is what you deem as unnecessary roughness. IMO from the reply there is no way it was a helmet to helmet hit, but one can make the argument that the hit was to the "neck area". You could also make the argument the hit was initially to his right shoulder and that if anything, it should have been KC who should have been flagged for grabbing Amendola's face mask afterwards for unsportsmanlike conduct.
I do not believe a suspension is warranted, but a punt returner using the crown of his helmet to drill another players chin, while that other player is looking up, is not a common play.
It was a stupid play.
It was a dangerous play.
It was a dirty play.
In todays NFL, that hit is probably worthy of a fine, and most definitely worthy of the "15 yarder" it was flagged for.
There's a good chance that in the not-too-distant-future that type of play will result in a significant suspension. The NFL is under great pressure to eliminate excessive violence from its game.
As a youth football coach of many years, I can attest to the fact that the amount of kids playing youth football has dropped dramatically over the last 10 years, or so. Why is this? #1 reason would be fear of long term effects of concussions/injuries.
Less kids playing youth football leads to less kids playing HS football.
Less kids playing HS leads to less kids playing college.
Eventually, there are less people playing NFL, which leads to a lesser product from a talent perspective.
Additionally, less involvement from the youth level on up equals less interest in the sport in general.
The NFL is aware of all this, and will move towards making the game safer.
Amendola's hit was anything but safe.
Tolerated today, not so much come tomorrow
bigreds daddy
0
Quote Originally Posted by Jamound09:
I have seen many hits like this on punts.
No you haven't.
I do not believe a suspension is warranted, but a punt returner using the crown of his helmet to drill another players chin, while that other player is looking up, is not a common play.
It was a stupid play.
It was a dangerous play.
It was a dirty play.
In todays NFL, that hit is probably worthy of a fine, and most definitely worthy of the "15 yarder" it was flagged for.
There's a good chance that in the not-too-distant-future that type of play will result in a significant suspension. The NFL is under great pressure to eliminate excessive violence from its game.
As a youth football coach of many years, I can attest to the fact that the amount of kids playing youth football has dropped dramatically over the last 10 years, or so. Why is this? #1 reason would be fear of long term effects of concussions/injuries.
Less kids playing youth football leads to less kids playing HS football.
Less kids playing HS leads to less kids playing college.
Eventually, there are less people playing NFL, which leads to a lesser product from a talent perspective.
Additionally, less involvement from the youth level on up equals less interest in the sport in general.
The NFL is aware of all this, and will move towards making the game safer.
It was a legal hit because fair catch was not called.
You are correct, yet oh so wrong.
Once a player calls a fair catch, he may no longer block an opposing player, thus you are correct in as much as Amendola did not call for a fair catch.
Of course, that is not the reason that Amendola was flagged. He was flagged for unnecessary roughness, thus the hit was illegal.
Also, you state that "you can make the argument the hit was to the neck area..."
That's not an argument to be made, that would be a FACT.
And the fact is that is an illegal play
bigreds daddy
0
Quote Originally Posted by drewskie:
It was a legal hit because fair catch was not called.
You are correct, yet oh so wrong.
Once a player calls a fair catch, he may no longer block an opposing player, thus you are correct in as much as Amendola did not call for a fair catch.
Of course, that is not the reason that Amendola was flagged. He was flagged for unnecessary roughness, thus the hit was illegal.
Also, you state that "you can make the argument the hit was to the neck area..."
That's not an argument to be made, that would be a FACT.
Once a player calls a fair catch, he may no longer block an opposing player, thus you are correct in as much as Amendola did not call for a fair catch.
Of course, that is not the reason that Amendola was flagged. He was flagged for unnecessary roughness, thus the hit was illegal.
Also, you state that "you can make the argument the hit was to the neck area..."
That's not an argument to be made, that would be a FACT.
And the fact is that is an illegal play
Are you certain enough from the replay to say with 100% certainty that the hit landed on his neck and hot his shoulder? If that is your interpretation then the play can absolutely be interpreted as unnecessary roughness and he was flagged appropriately. But to say it is a fact is a stretch imo. The mere fact that he hit Flemming is not a penalty, but where the crown of his helmet is not 100% definitive no matter which way you interpret it. The result was violent no doubt but this is football.
Did you conveniently forget the unnecessary roughness/unsportsmanlike conduct on Moses of KC that went uncalled when he grabbed Dola's face mask?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
You are correct, yet oh so wrong.
Once a player calls a fair catch, he may no longer block an opposing player, thus you are correct in as much as Amendola did not call for a fair catch.
Of course, that is not the reason that Amendola was flagged. He was flagged for unnecessary roughness, thus the hit was illegal.
Also, you state that "you can make the argument the hit was to the neck area..."
That's not an argument to be made, that would be a FACT.
And the fact is that is an illegal play
Are you certain enough from the replay to say with 100% certainty that the hit landed on his neck and hot his shoulder? If that is your interpretation then the play can absolutely be interpreted as unnecessary roughness and he was flagged appropriately. But to say it is a fact is a stretch imo. The mere fact that he hit Flemming is not a penalty, but where the crown of his helmet is not 100% definitive no matter which way you interpret it. The result was violent no doubt but this is football.
Did you conveniently forget the unnecessary roughness/unsportsmanlike conduct on Moses of KC that went uncalled when he grabbed Dola's face mask?
The play Amendola made was completely legal. The problem was the referees seeing it as contact above the shoulder. So the play he wanted to make was legal, but the execution of it wasn't good so it became a penalty. Calling it a Amendola a dirty player is ridiculous.
0
The play Amendola made was completely legal. The problem was the referees seeing it as contact above the shoulder. So the play he wanted to make was legal, but the execution of it wasn't good so it became a penalty. Calling it a Amendola a dirty player is ridiculous.
Are you certain enough from the replay to say with 100% certainty that the hit landed on his neck and hot his shoulder? Yes, I am 100% certain that the hit landed on his neck, as well as his lower face-mask, as well as a small part of his upper shoulder.
If that is your interpretation then the play can absolutely be interpreted as unnecessary roughness and he was flagged appropriately. But to say it is a fact is a stretch imo. The mere fact that he hit Flemming is not a penalty, but where the crown of his helmet is not 100% definitive no matter which way you interpret it. The result was violent no doubt but this is football.
Did you conveniently forget the unnecessary roughness/unsportsmanlike conduct on Moses of KC that went uncalled when he grabbed Dola's face mask? No, I did not conveniently forget anything. One has nothing to do with the other. Had the KC player behind-raped Belichek on the sideline because of the play in question, it would still have no bearing on the topic at hand, which is the legality of Amendola's hit.
bigreds daddy
0
Quote Originally Posted by drewskie:
Are you certain enough from the replay to say with 100% certainty that the hit landed on his neck and hot his shoulder? Yes, I am 100% certain that the hit landed on his neck, as well as his lower face-mask, as well as a small part of his upper shoulder.
If that is your interpretation then the play can absolutely be interpreted as unnecessary roughness and he was flagged appropriately. But to say it is a fact is a stretch imo. The mere fact that he hit Flemming is not a penalty, but where the crown of his helmet is not 100% definitive no matter which way you interpret it. The result was violent no doubt but this is football.
Did you conveniently forget the unnecessary roughness/unsportsmanlike conduct on Moses of KC that went uncalled when he grabbed Dola's face mask? No, I did not conveniently forget anything. One has nothing to do with the other. Had the KC player behind-raped Belichek on the sideline because of the play in question, it would still have no bearing on the topic at hand, which is the legality of Amendola's hit.
The play Amendola made was completely legal. The problem was the referees seeing it as contact above the shoulder. So the play he wanted to make was legal, but the execution of it wasn't good so it became a penalty. Calling it a Amendola a dirty player is ridiculous.
The play Amendola made was not completely legal, not even partially legal.
It is entirely possible that the play Amendola wanted to make was legal, but his execution of it made it 100% illegal. He led with the crown of his helmet (although I don't believe he contacted with the crown) and aimed way too high on the opposing player.
Speaking for myself only, I did not refer to Amendola as a dirty player, but that particular play was a dirty play. Anytime a player goes up high, while leading with the crown of his helmet, to hit another player who is not looking, it is a dirty play.
For the record, I am not a Pats hater, and have actually been a big fan of Amendola's since his days at Texas Tech.
bigreds daddy
0
Quote Originally Posted by Jamound09:
The play Amendola made was completely legal. The problem was the referees seeing it as contact above the shoulder. So the play he wanted to make was legal, but the execution of it wasn't good so it became a penalty. Calling it a Amendola a dirty player is ridiculous.
The play Amendola made was not completely legal, not even partially legal.
It is entirely possible that the play Amendola wanted to make was legal, but his execution of it made it 100% illegal. He led with the crown of his helmet (although I don't believe he contacted with the crown) and aimed way too high on the opposing player.
Speaking for myself only, I did not refer to Amendola as a dirty player, but that particular play was a dirty play. Anytime a player goes up high, while leading with the crown of his helmet, to hit another player who is not looking, it is a dirty play.
For the record, I am not a Pats hater, and have actually been a big fan of Amendola's since his days at Texas Tech.
The play Amendola made was not completely legal, not even partially legal.
It is entirely possible that the play Amendola wanted to make was legal, but his execution of it made it 100% illegal. He led with the crown of his helmet (although I don't believe he contacted with the crown) and aimed way too high on the opposing player.
Speaking for myself only, I did not refer to Amendola as a dirty player, but that particular play was a dirty play. Anytime a player goes up high, while leading with the crown of his helmet, to hit another player who is not looking, it is a dirty play.
For the record, I am not a Pats hater, and have actually been a big fan of Amendola's since his days at Texas Tech.
No worries mate,you are free to term it a dirty play if you so choose but I see it as unnecessary roughness at worse and not a fine or anything of that nature (not to say that's what you think should happen or not). If the play was interpreted as too high I have no problem with it being flagged accordingly as it was in this case.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
The play Amendola made was not completely legal, not even partially legal.
It is entirely possible that the play Amendola wanted to make was legal, but his execution of it made it 100% illegal. He led with the crown of his helmet (although I don't believe he contacted with the crown) and aimed way too high on the opposing player.
Speaking for myself only, I did not refer to Amendola as a dirty player, but that particular play was a dirty play. Anytime a player goes up high, while leading with the crown of his helmet, to hit another player who is not looking, it is a dirty play.
For the record, I am not a Pats hater, and have actually been a big fan of Amendola's since his days at Texas Tech.
No worries mate,you are free to term it a dirty play if you so choose but I see it as unnecessary roughness at worse and not a fine or anything of that nature (not to say that's what you think should happen or not). If the play was interpreted as too high I have no problem with it being flagged accordingly as it was in this case.
Hot Forum Topics
