Cheap Shot Incident from MNF: Smith-Schuster on Burfict

[26CornerBlitz]

4 minutes ago, folz said:

The taunting was stupid and deserves a flag and a fine, but I still cannot figure out how that hit is illegal.

 

It was not helmet to helmet, he led with his shoulder. Tons of plays have incidental helmet to helmet contact, watch any running play that goes up the gut of the D.

But 19 did not lead or spear with his head.

 

It is not an illegal peel back or crack back as he did not hit him from the side or back or below the waist.

 

For those calling it illegal, please point out the rule that states such.

 

Totally legal play in my mind...and comparing it to the Gronk hit is ridiculous. The Gronk hit wasn't a legal hit and it wasn't during a play.

 

It's closer to the Landry hit on A. Williams last year, but JuJu didn't launch off his feet like Landry did and Landry's angle was more from the side (and if I remember Landry didn't even get a penalty for his hit). Why did that hit not get any national attention, but this is a dirty, cheap shot as bad as what Gronk did? There is such a double-standard in the NFL.

 

A little karma for Burfict....really hope I don't hear him complain about that hit, with the s%#! he's pulled in this league.

 

Because you don't know the rules.

Edited December 5, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz

[MAJBobby]

2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Because you don't know the rules.

Correct been illegal since 2013

 

"if a player who is aligned in the tackle box when the ball is snapped moves to a position outside the box, he cannot initiate contact on the side and below the waist against an opponent if (a) the blocker is moving toward his own end line; and (be) he approached the opponent from behind or the side."

 

Contains the not "if the near shoulder of the blocker contacts the front of the opponent's body the 'peel back' block is legal

 

 

So yes As many have stated this was an illegal block in todays NFL

 

 

Edited December 5, 2017 by MAJBobby

[BarleyNY]

6 hours ago, simpleman said:

I don't know what video you saw. but the video on the above link clearly shows an intentional uppercut helmet to helmet hit when they show the slow mo version of it. (54-55 sec on video)

 

Absolutely correct.  The play was designed for JuJu to get the crack back block on Burflict.  The helmet to helmet was intentional and malicious.  The intent was to injure Burflict in retaliation for several cheap shots on Steelers players, including a recent one on Antonio Brown.  I’m sure JuJu let Burflict know exactly what the hit was for.

 

This was the Steelers not only paying back a cheap shot, it was them sending a message to other teams that this is how they handle their business.  It’s why some teams get away with cheap spotting opponents and some don’t.

 

It is why the Bills need to retaliate against Gronk (or another star Pats player coughBradycough) in a couple weeks.  If the league isn’t going to sufficiently police this crap - and they sure didn’t with Gronk - then the players have to.  The alternative is to accept our role as the bullied little kid.  That should be unacceptable at every level of a team with any pride.

Edited December 5, 2017 by BarleyNY

[MAJBobby]

3 hours ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

How in the hell does anyone thing this is a cheap shot? Not even close. Perfect block. Cheap shot... lmfao what a joke. Great block juju.

How was it illegal? They were facing each other no helmet to helmet he hit him square in the chest. Legal hit. Great job by the rookie

 

1. the blocker is moving toward his own end line; and
2. he approaches the opponent from behind or from the side.

Note: If the near shoulder of the blocker contacts the front of his opponent’s body, the “peel back” block is legal.

 

 

Player was moving towards sidelines not endlines. He hit him in the numbers. 

 

Legal hit

Wrong Ju Ju was moving back from the 50 when he initiated contact on the side, this was a very easy recognized Illegal Peel Back Block

[folz]

5 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Illegal since 2013.

 

 

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/3/19/4125046/nfl-rule-changes-peel-back-block

 

3 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Because you don't know the rules.

 

Sorry, but I still think you guys are wrong...what am I missing?

 

Here is the wording from the actual article that you posted MAJBobby (and apparently the wording in the NFL rule book):

 

"If a player who is aligned in the tackle box when the ball is snapped moves to a position outside the box, he cannot initiate contact on the side and below the waist against an opponent if: (a) the blocker is moving toward his own end line; and (b) he approached the opponent from behind or from the side."

 

The rule contains the following note: "If the near shoulder of the blocker contacts the front of his opponent's body, the ‘peel back' block is legal."

 

 

JuJu was not aligned in the tackle box, was not moving toward his own end line, and he hit him from the front, not from the side or below the waist. So, the rule you quoted can not be the rule applied for this play. If there is another rule that speaks to this play, I'd be glad to see it.

 

And again, why was Jarvis landry's hit on A. Williams last year legal?

 

 

 

 

 

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, folz said:

 

 

Sorry, but I still think you guys are wrong...what am I missing?

 

Here is the wording from the actual article that you posted MAJBobby (and apparently the wording in the NFL rule book):

 

"If a player who is aligned in the tackle box when the ball is snapped moves to a position outside the box, he cannot initiate contact on the side and below the waist against an opponent if: (a) the blocker is moving toward his own end line; and (b) he approached the opponent from behind or from the side."

 

The rule contains the following note: "If the near shoulder of the blocker contacts the front of his opponent's body, the ‘peel back' block is legal."

 

 

JuJu was not aligned in the tackle box, was not moving toward his own end line, and he hit him from the front, not from the side or below the waist. So, the rule you quoted can not be the rule applied for this play. If there is another rule that speaks to this play, I'd be glad to see it.

 

And again, why was Jarvis landry's hit on A. Williams last year legal?

 

You simply cannot hit high from the blindside like that when the defender is in a defenseless posture as Burfict was.  Thus the flag.

[MAJBobby]

3 minutes ago, folz said:

 

 

Sorry, but I still think you guys are wrong...what am I missing?

 

Here is the wording from the actual article that you posted MAJBobby (and apparently the wording in the NFL rule book):

 

"If a player who is aligned in the tackle box when the ball is snapped moves to a position outside the box, he cannot initiate contact on the side and below the waist against an opponent if: (a) the blocker is moving toward his own end line; and (b) he approached the opponent from behind or from the side."

 

The rule contains the following note: "If the near shoulder of the blocker contacts the front of his opponent's body, the ‘peel back' block is legal."

 

 

JuJu was not aligned in the tackle box, was not moving toward his own end line, and he hit him from the front, not from the side or below the waist. So, the rule you quoted can not be the rule applied for this play. If there is another rule that speaks to this play, I'd be glad to see it.

 

And again, why was Jarvis landry's hit on A. Williams last year legal?

 

 

 

 

 

He was Moving toward his own line (he was at the 50 hit made at the 46 ish (had to come to his OWN end line).  He did approach the player from behind and side.

 

The only thing in question was where the tackle box was designated (as he was the inside guy in the formation) 

 

 

And Landrys hit wasn't legal actually but they missed the call IMO

Edited December 5, 2017 by MAJBobby

[BigBuff423]

Look, I am not a proponent of dirty hits or trying to injure a player, regardless of whether it's "legal" or not....but if there was ever a player due for some Karma in the pain department, Burfict is the prime candidate given his history since coming into the league...

 

As for being like the Gronk fiasco, hit....to me, not even close....main reason being, both players were knowingly, actively engaged in the play while it was occurring....Tre was down, play was over, whistle blown, out of bounds...about as egregious as it gets IMHO....

[GoBills808]

14 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

 

Absolutely correct.  The play was designed for JuJu to get the crack back block on Burflict.  The helmet to helmet was intentional and malicious.  The intent was to injure Burflict in retaliation for several cheap shots on Steelers players, including a recent one on Antonio Brown.  I’m sure JuJu let Burflict know exactly what the hit was for.

 

This was the Steelers not only paying back a cheap shot, it was them sending a message to other teams that this is how they handle their business.  It’s why some teams get away with cheap spotting opponents and some don’t.

 

It is why the Bills need to retaliate against Gronk (or another star Pats player coughBradycough) in a couple weeks.  If the league isn’t going to sufficiently police this crap - and they sure didn’t with Gronk - then the players have to.  The alternative is to accept our role as the bullied little kid.  That should be unacceptable at every level of a team with any pride.

I'm not sure that play was designed that way at all, I think that was a checkdown to Bell and the block was just a coincidence. Tomlin didn't look like that was the intended result afterwards.

 

14 minutes ago, folz said:

 

 

Sorry, but I still think you guys are wrong...what am I missing?

 

Here is the wording from the actual article that you posted MAJBobby (and apparently the wording in the NFL rule book):

 

"If a player who is aligned in the tackle box when the ball is snapped moves to a position outside the box, he cannot initiate contact on the side and below the waist against an opponent if: (a) the blocker is moving toward his own end line; and (b) he approached the opponent from behind or from the side."

 

The rule contains the following note: "If the near shoulder of the blocker contacts the front of his opponent's body, the ‘peel back' block is legal."

 

 

JuJu was not aligned in the tackle box, was not moving toward his own end line, and he hit him from the front, not from the side or below the waist. So, the rule you quoted can not be the rule applied for this play. If there is another rule that speaks to this play, I'd be glad to see it.

 

And again, why was Jarvis landry's hit on A. Williams last year legal?

 

 

 

 

 

If this is the right rule, you're correct. But I don't think it is, because this one deals specifically with initiating contact 'on the side and below the waist', which isn't relevant to this block.

[CommonCents]

48 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Meh....caught him a bit with his helmet.  Big hit.  Wasn't "knocked out". 

 

Wind knocked out, 15 yards! Blah 

[GoBills808]

I'd also like to comment on how VASTLY DIFFERENT the reaction from the announcers to Smith-Schuster's block was compared to Romo and Nance's reaction to Gronkowski's hit.

[2003Contenders]

Bills players, take note. Someone needs to do this to Gronk in a few weeks...

[MAJBobby]

Also here are the other rule violations.

 

Defenseless Player:

 

"a person that receives a "blindside block" when the path of the offensive player is toward or parallel to his own end line" (Burfict Defenseless based on Ju Ju's Path)

 

That is exactly what Ju Ju did as well and is an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty as called.

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defenseless-player/

8 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I'm not sure that play was designed that way at all, I think that was a checkdown to Bell and the block was just a coincidence. Tomlin didn't look like that was the intended result afterwards.

 

If this is the right rule, you're correct. But I don't think it is, because this one deals specifically with initiating contact 'on the side and below the waist', which isn't relevant to this block.

He is not.  rule No 9 violation

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defenseless-player/

 

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Also here are the other rule violations.

 

Defenseless Player:

 

"a person that receives a "blindside block" when the path of the offensive player is toward or parallel to his own end line" (Burfict Defenseless based on Ju Ju's Path)

 

That is exactly what Ju Ju did as well and is an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty as called.

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defenseless-player/

He is not.  rule No 9 violation

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defenseless-player/

 

Yeah, wrong rule. Not crackback, defenseless player. You are right.

[YoloinOhio]

Wow. Same as Gronk! F U NFL 

 

[BarleyNY]

19 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I'm not sure that play was designed that way at all, I think that was a checkdown to Bell and the block was just a coincidence. Tomlin didn't look like that was the intended result afterwards.

 

 

I disagree. He could’ve thrown to Brown. They ran that play exactly how they wanted and got the desired result.  JuJu did his job and then let Burdlict know exactly what it was all about.  This is how the Steelers have been operating for decades.  They’re no strangers to cheap shots. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 hours ago, Commonsense said:

I didn't see it live but from watching the replay it doesn't look like much of a cheap shot. Burfict was close enough to the runner that he should be blocked, JUJU led with the shoulder. Just because it was an aggresive hit now it's a penalty? This wasn't a Warren Sapp type of peel back block.

 

I think Shazier leading with his head and then the vicious hit on Mixon were more noteworthy. Those guys are tackling with intent to injure.

 

Which is how Gronkowski should be treated in two weeks. Hunt his head. Send him out in an ambulance.

 

[MAJBobby]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

Which is how Gronkowski should be treated in two weeks. Hunt his head. Send him out in an ambulance.

 

Wont be this is the lovable Bills

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Wow. Same as Gronk! F U NFL 

 

 

Yeah...I can find highlight films with blocks like JuJu's being called "great."

You yourself probably cheered when Nate Clements did that to Mr. Bundchen.

[CommonCents]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

Which is how Gronkowski should be treated in two weeks. Hunt his head. Send him out in an ambulance.

 

 

It's going to be a bit weird yelling for blood on Xmas eve but I'm sure I won't be alone in doing it. I don't like seeing someone get hurt but that was way over the top for me.

 

It's compounded by the local media, Zolak in particular, still playing it up and still saying that it's on Buffalo and the refs. Pretty embarrassing.