Unnecessary Roughness Call on Tre' White ?

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[NoSaint]

4 hours ago, mattynh said:

 

Since you seem to be an expert lets have a discussion based on the rule.  The rule is unnecessary roughness on a defenseless player as the NFL tweeted, not the new helmet to helmet deal.  I dont see how that rule applies to this play.

 

Here is the content of the the rule with the link below.  Lets pay special attention to the bolded and especially the bolded and underlined Note 1. 

 

First you are talking about helmet to helmet contact, the rule has a note that says "Note 1: The provisions of (b) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle or block on an opponent."  I am not sure what (b) is referring to but this clearly says incidental contact by mask or helmet is NOT prohibited, isn't that what happened here?

 

The rule talks about a player initiating "unnecessary contact" against a player in a defenseless position.  I would describe White's contact a necessary, not unnecessary.  He needed (it was necessary) to tackle the receiver and prevent a first down.  The first section defines a defenseless posture, lets agree that the receiver was defenseless, by paragraph 1.2.

 

Then we have to go to section 2 which defines the prohibited contact against a defenseless player.   Section 2.1 talks about "foricibly hitting" the players head.    No way I think that happened, the heads touched, not forcibly.  Section 2.2 talks about lowering the head, that does not apply, White clearly had his head to the side to prevent forcible head to head contact.  Section 2.3 talks about launching himself.  Both of Whites feet come off the turn as he is finishing the tackle but he did not "launch".  What part of section 2 did White violate?

 

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.

1. Players in a defenseless posture are:
   1. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass (passing posture)
   2. A receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not had time to clearly become a runner. If the player is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player
   3. The intended receiver of a pass in the action during and immediately following an interception or potential interception. If the player is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player.

      Note: Violations of this provision will be enforced after the interception, and the intercepting team will maintain possession.

   4. A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped
   5. A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air
   6. A player on the ground
   7. A kicker/punter during the kick or during the return (Also see Article 6(h) for additional restrictions against a kicker/punter)
   8. A quarterback at any time after a change of possession (Also see Article 9(f) for additional restrictions against a quarterback after a change of possession)
   9. A player who receives a “blindside” block when the path of the offensive blocker is toward or parallel to his own end line.
   10. A player who is protected from an illegal crackback block (see Article 2)
   11. The offensive player who attempts a snap during a Field Goal attempt or a Try Kick
2. Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
   1. forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenselessplayer by encircling or grasping him
   2. lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or ”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenselessplayer’s body
   3. illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body. (This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered to be a defenseless player, as defined in Article 7.)

Note 1: The provisions of (b) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle or block on an opponent.

Note 2: A player who initiates contact against a defenseless opponent is responsible for avoiding an illegal act. This includes illegal contact that may occur during the process of attempting to dislodge the ball from an opponent. A standard of strict liability applies for any contact against a defenselessopponent, even if the opponent is an airborne player who is returning to the ground or whose body position is otherwise in motion, and irrespective of any acts by the defenseless opponent, such as ducking his head or curling up his body in anticipation of contact.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

You included a ton of volume but...

 

was the receiver defenseless?

 

Probably very near the edge, but was catching the ball and only one foot down when the hit occurred. Fractions of a second later he’s established as a runner but wasn’t yet.

 

was Tre able to avoid it?

 

receiver didnt make any drastic and unexpected movements. The hit could’ve been chest level, hip, knee (knee being way riskier than the hit we saw but thems the rules)... it didn’t have to be head.

 

was it incidental?

 

maybe. But when you get to this Point you are pretty far down the path. If you hit a receiver in the act of making a catch and your helmets touch in any way while you are driving into them... you’ll OFTEN see the flag and it’s been that way for years. 

 

This wasnt the catastrophic decapitating hit that was incredibly reckless. This did, generally, check all the defenses receiver h2h boxes though. Enough that a flag shouldn’t shock after years of the rule being emphasized. I can see room for disagreement or it being iffy but don’t buy that it’s a completely ludicrous call

Edited September 26, 2018 by NoSaint

[Matt_In_NH]

26 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

 

You included a ton of volume but...

 

was the receiver defenseless?

 

Probably very near the edge, but was catching the ball and only one foot down when the hit occurred. Fractions of a second later he’s established as a runner but wasn’t yet.

 

was Tre able to avoid it?

 

receiver didnt make any drastic and unexpected movements. The hit could’ve been chest level, hip, knee (knee being way riskier than the hit we saw but thems the rules)... it didn’t have to be head.

 

was it incidental?

 

maybe. But when you get to this Point you are pretty far down the path. If you hit a receiver in the act of making a catch and your helmets touch in any way while you are driving into them... you’ll OFTEN see the flag and it’s been that way for years. 

 

This wasnt the catastrophic decapitating hit that was incredibly reckless. This did, generally, check all the defenses receiver h2h boxes though. Enough that a flag shouldn’t shock after years of the rule being emphasized. I can see room for disagreement or it being iffy but don’t buy that it’s a completely ludicrous call

 

 

There are only two elements to the rule, was the player defenseless and was the hit unnecesary

 

1.  Was he defenseless?  Yes

2.  Was the hit unnecessary?  I argue no based on the rule language I referenced but I am obviously wrong.  If you are unsure about if it was unnecessary then maybe you get into is it incidental and could he have avoided it.  Again the rule clearly ALLOWS for helmet to helmet touching which is what happened here.  It had to have been forcible hitting the head or neck.  I just watched again and I guess they can argue there was forcible head or neck contact but the majority of the hit was absorbed by the shoulder.  White needs to hit him lower which might allow the receiver to advance the ball further.

 

 

 

 

[NoSaint]

13 minutes ago, mattynh said:

 

 

There are only two elements to the rule, was the player defenseless and was the hit unnecesary

 

1.  Was he defenseless?  Yes

2.  Was the hit unnecessary?  I argue no based on the rule language I referenced but I am obviously wrong.  If you are unsure about if it was unnecessary then maybe you get into is it incidental and could he have avoided it.  Again the rule clearly ALLOWS for helmet to helmet touching which is what happened here.  It had to have been forcible hitting the head or neck.  I just watched again and I guess they can argue there was forcible head or neck contact but the majority of the hit was absorbed by the shoulder.  White needs to hit him lower which might allow the receiver to advance the ball further.

 

 

 

 

 

All good, and won’t claim super expertise- just through the years we’ve seen this conversation a few times every year. It’s definitely not the egregious and intentionally dangerous violation that we all watch for... but I do think that it’s pretty darn close to letter of the rule.

 

There’s always some grey area that day to day, ref to ref, or just depending on angle that will effect whether the flag flies but I always use the rule of thumb “is the catch completed yet? Did the helmets appear to hit in the main contact? Could the corner hit the receiver anywhere else?” If the corner fails all three, it’s just going to be a flag 9 times out of 10