Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HOUSE

Did Jonathan Jones purposely take out Josh Allen?

Recommended Posts

I know he should have been ejected, and the offsetting penalty should not have erased the only punishment (but by rule it does).

 

Why bother changing the rules for safety unless it's just for Tommy boy?  NFL loves protecting him.

 

The NFL reduced the threshold for ejection by removing the need for the hit to be "flagrant" in 2018.

 

The player targeted, launched, and hit him in the head with his helmet.  WTF else do we need?

 

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2018/9/9/17492612/ncaa-targeting-rule-nfl-comparison

 

 

Playing Rule Article 8: It is a foul if a player lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent. The player may be disqualified. Applies to any player anywhere on the field. The player may be disqualified.

 
 
 
 

Late in the preseason, after a bunch of perplexing calls, the NFL made clear that “inadvertent” helmet contact wouldn’t be treated as a penalty.

“For us this is a pretty significant change,” Competition Committee chairman Rick McKay told reporters in announcing the change. “This one technique, we saw so many hits when a player lowered his head and delivered a hit and either hurt himself or the player he was hitting.”

The NFL already prohibited “initiating forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown” of the helmet when outside the tackle box.

In effect, that’s now banned all over the field. The league also got rid of a clause that said players could be disqualified “if the action is flagrant.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

 

This is the first time I’ve seen this angle of the hit. 

 

I still see him dropping his helmet slightly, but you can also see Allen drop his head slightly too. 

 

This video angle completely exonerates Jones, and shows Allen to be a little too aggressive for his own good. There will be no fine, and there should not have been a penalty either. 

 

Edited by 50yrpatsfan
double
  • Confused 1
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 50yrpatsfan said:

This video angle completely exonerates Jones, and shows Allen to be a little too aggressive for his own good. There will be no fine, and there should not have been a penalty either. 

50 year Pats fans don't exist, troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont believe it was completely intentional and malicious.  Moreso careless.  Should have been penalized and probably ejected.  Those are textbook what the NFL is trying to eliminate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PatsFanNH said:

That makes no sense.  Now if Allen had been in the pocket and took the hit and not 7 yards downfield running and trying get the first down I could see your point.  This is Allen acting like Cam Newton and getting lit up. (This time illegally) Allen needs to learn to slide to protect himself otherwise he will have a short career. (Like Newton. Who I like as a QB)

Sliding wasn’t an option with a guy behind him pulling him down, had that not been the case you’d have a point 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 50yrpatsfan said:

This video angle completely exonerates Jones, and shows Allen to be a little too aggressive for his own good. There will be no fine, and there should not have been a penalty either. 

 

 

He was being tackled, I'm pretty sure he wasn't targeting the defender.  😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly dont think so. Allen was comin in hot. You have to hit him hard when Allen wanted to strong arm his way for the 1st. 

 

It just happened to be a bad hit. He should be punished for it 100%...but I dont think hes looking to end careers there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Fixxxer said:

Did you guys notice the holding penalty on Dawkins? Proposterous

Wow, Fixxxer, you are dead on. I was also wondering about that holding call (and of course freaking CBS didn't show a replay). But your comment reminded me to watch the o-line carefully on that play, keying on Dawkins (the call was against Dawkins, correct?). It was absolute textbook pass blocking -- hands in tight -- and DE just falls on his face. In what parallel universe could that be construed as holding?? "Preposterous" indeed ... The call was especially galling given how many times Hughes was obviously held yesterday. 

 

And now for something a little wonkish ... Look, I think the refs try to do their job in a chaotic environment, and I don't believe in conspiracies, etc. But the referees' decisions all come down to perceptual psychology -- how one interprets what ones sees (it's my line of work -- don't ask!). A school of thought in perceptual psychophysics derives from Bayesian statistics, which holds that our percepts -- for example, a referee's decision about what he just saw (the "posterior probability") -- is a combination of what we actually saw (the visual evidence) combined with our prior expectation ("prior distribution"). Prior expectation is essentially bias -- not in an intentional, conspiratorial sense, but in the implicit perceptual sense. The "prior" in this case is that the refs implicitly expect the "well-coached" teams, like NE, to not commit penalties, while "undisciplined" teams, like the Bills, to commit penalties. Thus a clean pass block is perceived as holding because the edge-rusher fell; a young QB can take a vicious hit to the head without the offender being ejected; an experienced future HOF QB can get away with obvious grounding; or a call for defensive holding can actually be *reversed* (the latter is a perfect example of perceptual bias: there is no way in hell Gilmore would have escaped that same call when he was a Bill). Likewise, I remember the Bills getting away with a lot of calls back in the early 90s when they were considered to be a "disciplined" team. By definition, perceptual bias is unfair, but I'm not sure what one can do about it in refereeing. Maybe we'll replace refs with unbiased  machine-vision-based systems in the future!

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he led with his helmet, Allen was already being tackled.  This gets any other player ejected.  Hyde and Poyer are correct on this point.  Intent (and I think he had it) is beside the point.  That was a play that should result in ejection and a suspension.  

Just now, Stranded in Boston said:

Wow, Fixxxer, you are dead on. I was also wondering about that holding call (and of course freaking CBS didn't show a replay). But your comment reminded me to watch the o-line carefully on that play, keying on Dawkins (the call was against Dawkins, correct?). It was absolute textbook pass blocking -- hands in tight -- and DE just falls on his face. In what parallel universe could that be construed as holding?? "Preposterous" indeed ... The call was especially galling given how many times Hughes was obviously held yesterday. 

 

And now for something a little wonkish ... Look, I think the refs try to do their job in a chaotic environment, and I don't believe in conspiracies, etc. But the referees' decisions all come down to perceptual psychology -- how one interprets what ones sees (it's my line of work -- don't ask!). A school of thought in perceptual psychophysics derives from Bayesian statistics, which holds that our percepts -- for example, a referee's decision about what he just saw (the "posterior probability") -- is a combination of what we actually saw (the visual evidence) combined with our prior expectation ("prior distribution"). Prior expectation is essentially bias -- not in an intentional, conspiratorial sense, but in the implicit perceptual sense. The "prior" in this case is that the refs implicitly expect the "well-coached" teams, like NE, to not commit penalties, while "undisciplined" teams, like the Bills, to commit penalties. Thus a clean pass block is perceived as holding because the edge-rusher fell; a young QB can take a vicious hit to the head without the offender being ejected; an experienced future HOF QB can get away with obvious grounding; or a call for defensive holding can actually be *reversed* (the latter is a perfect example of perceptual bias: there is no way in hell Gilmore would have escaped that same call when he was a Bill). Likewise, I remember the Bills getting away with a lot of calls back in the early 90s when they were considered to be a "disciplined" team. By definition, perceptual bias is unfair, but I'm not sure what one can do about it in refereeing. Maybe we'll replace refs with unbiased  machine-vision-based systems in the future!

 

 

 

this would make sense, if the Pats** were also not a perpetual cheating and dirty team.  

 

Refs are also, or should be, taught to avoid this type of perceptual bias.  They are professional refs, not "common people" making on the fly decisions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Aireskoi said:

 

He was being tackled, I'm pretty sure he wasn't targeting the defender.  😂

I see Allen slightly change the direction of his body to the left to directly take on Jones, and lower his helmet. He could've nose dived or veered right. Jones wasn't looking for the helmet to helmet contact, he was bracing himself at the last second. The other tackler was irrelevant, he hadn't yet slowed down Allen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 50yrpatsfan said:

This video angle completely exonerates Jones, and shows Allen to be a little too aggressive for his own good. There will be no fine, and there should not have been a penalty either. 

 

 

No it doesn't.  Jonathan Jones did not need to make contact with Allen.  The angle looking at Allen shows just how much time and room Jones had to avoid a collision.

Jones' cheap shot was on purpose and at the least wanted to send a message to Josh, but was more likely to try and hurt him.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pat fans talking about being objective pullease..if Brady had taken a hit like that they'd be screaming foul and suspend the offending player  it is a Lock .

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Happy Gilmore said:

 

No it doesn't.  Jonathan Jones did not need to make contact with Allen.  The angle looking at Allen shows just how much time and room Jones had to avoid a collision.

Jones' cheap shot was on purpose and at the least wanted to send a message to Josh, but was more likely to try and hurt him.

He had to make contact with him to stop him from getting a 1st down. It was a 3rd down play and you had a 235lb RB barreling toward the yard marker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did what any defender is taught to do. If you have a chance to take a free shot at a QB you do it. 

 

Lets not not act like the Bills defense wouldn’t do that to Brady or any other QB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mattynh said:

It was a penalty, we can argue about intent and if he should have been ejected all day and I am sure he will get fined.  But to go frame by frame and decide that he changed his target for the sole intent on injuring is pure conjecture.  Given the down and distance, it was important to stop forward progress immediately.  Here is the thing from my perspective, the QB should use his arm to beat the opponent and not have to rely on putting his head down and trying to move the chains.  If that continues, injuries will continue.

I agree with part of what you said and disagree with part.  Yes, I think the issue of intent to injure is conjecture.  I don't see Jones changing the level of his helmet, but he certainly is leading with his helmet, and his posture indicates he is driving into Allen.  On the other side of it, it is as important for the ball carrier, QB or not, to protect the ball while he's being tackled, so you cannot expect him to take a hand off the ball to shield himself from a tackler doing something illegal, especially not at game speed.  Allen's forward momentum had pretty much stopped at that point, and he already had a first down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

this would make sense, if the Pats** were also not a perpetual cheating and dirty team.  

 

Refs are also, or should be, taught to avoid this type of perceptual bias.  They are professional refs, not "common people" making on the fly decisions.  

Ryan, I completely agree about Pats' dirty play (think Gronk on Tre, Wilfork on Losman, etc.). But it's chicken and egg: the Pats may play dirty precisely because they've learned there are few consequences from the referees. The disgusting part is that there are also few consequences from the league, which has time to carefully review plays and avoid potential bias. That is the business side of things, which I am definitely not qualified to address! But I would argue that referees' perceptual biases are super hard to overcome, because that bias is essentially built into our brains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 50yrpatsfan said:

He had to make contact with him to stop him from getting a 1st down. It was a 3rd down play and you had a 235lb RB barreling toward the yard marker.

 

Did you see the other defender on Josh Allen's back?  Josh was in process of going down, Jones' dirty and illegal hit was completely unnecessary.

I hope someone drills Brady in the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

 

This is the first time I’ve seen this angle of the hit. 

 

I still see him dropping his helmet slightly, but you can also see Allen drop his head slightly too. 

 

I don't see how anyone can watch this and think that Jones was at fault in any way. 

Allen clearly causes this helmet to helmet, it's the crown of HIS helmet striking the side of Jones'. That's how they evaluate who's at fault. He should be the one fined.

I'm sure if Jones had to do it over again, he'd go low, then you could be looking at a knee injury. He had to make a play, a 1st down was at stake.

The problem is Josh Allen thinking he's an indestructible running back cause of his physical advantages.  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 50yrpatsfan said:

This video angle completely exonerates Jones, and shows Allen to be a little too aggressive for his own good. There will be no fine, and there should not have been a penalty either. 

 

Completely disagree with this take.  Players facing impeding contact with the head do tend to lean their head forward.  I think this is instinct to protect their face.  If he doesn't angle his head forward, impact from the hit would cause his head to snap back.  That could conceivably cause a neck fracture and a spinal cord injury, and that would be even worse.  The position of Allen's head did not lower enough to have caused the helmet to helmet contact.  At most it only changed slightly the part of Allen's helmet that he contacted.  By the way,  I didn't know you posted here Mr. Riveron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

Did you see the other defender on Josh Allen's back?  Josh was in process of going down, Jones' dirty and illegal hit was completely unnecessary.

I hope someone drills Brady in the head.

watch the video again and you'll see that the other tackler hadn't yet started pulling him down, Allen was still in control of his own momentum and turned slightly left to take on Jones

Just now, TigerJ said:

Completely disagree with this take.  Players facing impeding contact with the head do tend to lean their head forward.  I think this is instinct to protect their face.  If he doesn't angle his head forward, impact from the hit would cause his head to snap back.  That could conceivably cause a neck fracture and a spinal cord injury, and that would be even worse.  The position of Allen's head did not lower enough to have caused the helmet to helmet contact.  At most it only changed slightly the part of Allen's helmet that he contacted.  By the way,  I didn't know you posted here Mr. Riveron.

Allen could have gone down to the ground and avoided Jones completely, but then he wouldn't have reached the 1st down yardage. He chose to take on Jones, and lowering his helmet like he did was an aggressive act to run over and through Jones to get the 1st down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is called spearing, and it was blatant af... it was also done at Allen's head, which makes the NFL look like a joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

every morning a DB wakes up with the prayer that he gets to put a hit like this on a QB or skill player

 

Allen sure made it easy for him

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else remember a questionable hit on Barkley later in the game or did I dream that? It didn't cause any injury and the commentators hardly mentioned it, but I remember thinking "Oh hell, who's our third QB?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 50yrpatsfan said:

I don't see how anyone can watch this and think that Jones was at fault in any way. 

Allen clearly causes this helmet to helmet, it's the crown of HIS helmet striking the side of Jones'. That's how they evaluate who's at fault. He should be the one fined.

I'm sure if Jones had to do it over again, he'd go low, then you could be looking at a knee injury. He had to make a play, a 1st down was at stake.

The problem is Josh Allen thinking he's an indestructible running back cause of his physical advantages.  

You also follow and respect the organization that has made cheating a cherished artform. The things you can't see aren't really all that surprising.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...