Milano Roughing the Passer

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

3 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I didn't say though he dove at the QB, I said he hit the QB off of his own momentum.  The only way that is not a roughing the passer is if an offensive player intentionally throws him into the QB.  Milano dove over the offensive player off his own momentum that resulted (unintentionally of course) in running into the QB late after the pass was thrown.

 

That 100% correlates with the existing rule in place.  There is no part of the rule where the prerequisite of it being a penalty is malicious intent.  The rule is you can not run into the QB, just like you can not run into a kicker, regardless of intent.  The only exception is if the defensive player is thrown/tossed directly into the kicker or QB.  And in this case, I admit I thought that was what happened in live play, but seeing the replay, Milano dove over the blocker and was not tossed into the QB.  

 

So while I do not fault Milano, the unfortunate reality is that it was a roughing the passer penalty in 100% full accordance with the rule as written.  You are free to not like the rule, and I also think tweaks to it need to happen, but at the end of the day, the refs got this play right according to the existing rule in place at the time it happened.

 

Like I said in other post, I do think they need to 2 levels of the penalty though for unintentional situations like this just like they do with the kicker...5 yard and 15 yard penalty.  

 

This is what I take issue with.  The video is posted above in this thread. Milano runs, he is hit low, and his body is caused to flip.  Whatever forward movement he makes is a product of the lineman's conduct.  I've moved off intent. I understand that. However, it is clearly the offensive blocker that caused the contact.  After Milano and the defender make contact, it is solely momentum that causes him to travel forward. 

[Sig1Hunter]

4 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

I’d have to re-watch it, but live and on the broadcast replay it looked like a textbook false start to me, they suddenly stepped backward into a pass blocking stance. How is that a shift instead of a false start?

Yeah I agree. When I saw I live I was like wtf? But then when they replayed it I saw the trickery that Tennessee pulled. Seems like a good play to use on 3rd and short, but they wasted it in the red zone. 

[elroy16]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Because they arent on the line

 

 

 

 

The directTV recap doesn't show this play unfortunately because I swear Mariota called out a fake snap right as they moved.

 

It seems like a hard count with movement timed to simulate the snap should be a penalty. If he didn't call out a fake snap, then I don't have a problem with it.

 

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

This is what I take issue with.  The video is posted above in this thread. Milano runs, he is hit low, and his body is caused to flip.  Whatever forward movement he makes is a product of the lineman's conduct.  I've moved off intent. I understand that. However, it is clearly the offensive blocker that caused the contact.  After Milano and the defender make contact, it is solely momentum that causes him to travel forward. 

 

We're close, but I disagree with "clearly". Looks just as much like Milano hand-springs into him. Is it probably momentum? Yeah, maybe. But it also looks like he exaggerated the flip, which is why it got called.

 

Dont get me wrong, I wish it hadnt been called. But knowing the rule and the way the league is, I understand why and expect it to draw the flag.

[BillnutinHouston]

7 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I said he hit the QB off of his own momentum.   

 

Admittedly I didn't re-watch the play, but as I recall, after getting blocked Milano did a kind of handstand move that looked like he was intentionally launching himself toward the QB.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, BillnutinHouston said:

 

Admittedly I didn't re-watch the play, but as I recall, after getting blocked Milano did a kind of handstand move that looked like he was intentionally launching himself toward the QB.

 

Yeah, I think that's what got him flagged. Looked like a hand-spring and a leg-whip into the QB.

[The Wiz]

18 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

So now we'll see the New England Patriots deliberately block defenders into Brady to generate calls?

Sadly I was thinking just this.  

 

Out of curiosity, does this rule only apply to the QB if he is in the pocket?  I only ask because I could see mobile QB's trying to take advantage of the rule by running around and trying to get a defender to dive at them to draw the flag.  It's a low percentage chance they make everything happen correctly but just a thought.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

We're close, but I disagree with "clearly". Looks just as much like Milano hand-springs into him. Is it probably momentum? Yeah, maybe. But it also looks like he exaggerated the flip, which is why it got called.

 

Dont get me wrong, I wish it hadnt been called. But knowing the rule and the way the league is, I understand why and expect it to draw the flag.

 

C'mon...That is preposterous 

[BillnutinHouston]

Kind of a ninja-level move if you ask me.

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

C'mon...That is preposterous 

 

Not really. It's what it looks like, not saying that's what happened. In real time, looking like that, the refs will always throw the flag.

 

Watching the replay, the hand-spring is exactly what happened. If he doesnt extend his arms, he hits the ground and bounces and doesnt hit the QB.

 

Again, not saying he should be expected to control all that. But Im also not surprised it drew the flag.

Edited October 8, 2019 by DrDawkinstein

[CardinalScotts]

49 minutes ago, Philo said:

It was pure BS. Milano can't defy physics mid air. There has to be some common sense applied. 

yes 1st year referee has to use common sense is right

[Alphadawg7]

9 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

This is what I take issue with.  The video is posted above in this thread. Milano runs, he is hit low, and his body is caused to flip.  Whatever forward movement he makes is a product of the lineman's conduct.  I've moved off intent. I understand that. However, it is clearly the offensive blocker that caused the contact.  After Milano and the defender make contact, it is solely momentum that causes him to travel forward. 

 

I watched the video, and it was after watching it I changed my mind from BS call to refs got it right.  It was again Milano's own momentum, the blocker did not create force to throw Milano into the QB, Milano's leg was bumped but it was Milano's own momentum that carried him into the QB.  

 

For me, it's one of those plays where I do not fault the player (Milano), but at the same time it was a penalty according to the rule as written.  I am not trying to defend the rule and have no issue if people don't like the rule or think it needs to be adjusted or changed.  I am just stating, as the rule is written, the refs made the right call IMO.  

 

 

 

 

[Mark Vader]

44 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I cant believe Im saying this, but to be fair this was the Carson Palmer rule. Definitely sped along by the Brady injury though too.

I get what you mean, and you could be right. When it happened to crybaby, the rule became instantaneous.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

51 minutes ago, 1ManRaid said:

I'm generally in favor of black and white rules in sports, no slippery slopes.  Leave wiggle room and the Belicheats of the world will teach their players to keep "accidentally" doing things if left up to subjectivity from the biased refs.

 

You know, like he already does.

 

I reluctantly have to agree here.

[GunnerBill]

59 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

It was indeed Roughing the Passer according to the modern rules. I said "Thats a flag" the second i happened, and sure enough.... Even if "unavoidable" (which I agree with)

 

The idea that an OL would purposely throw a Defender into his own QB's knees is a bit ludicrous. That OL would be cut immediately.

 

Agree. And I said it immediately too.

 

If we want to question calls on Milano..... then the holding call is the one to begin with. To hold you have to actually.... you know.... hold. Now nobody would like to be subjected to a two handed stroke from Matt Milano more than me.... but if such a thing were to ever happen I would not consider it worth yellow laundry. 

[Alphadawg7]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Agree. And I said it immediately too.

 

If we want to question calls on Milano..... then the holding call is the one to begin with. To hold you have to actually.... you know.... hold. Now nobody would like to be subjected to a two handed stroke from Matt Milano more than me.... but if such a thing were to ever happen I would not consider it worth yellow laundry. 

 

Yeah for sure, that holding penalty was BS

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

17 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I watched the video, and it was after watching it I changed my mind from BS call to refs got it right.  It was again Milano's own momentum, the blocker did not create force to throw Milano into the QB, Milano's leg was bumped but it was Milano's own momentum that carried him into the QB.  

 

For me, it's one of those plays where I do not fault the player (Milano), but at the same time it was a penalty according to the rule as written.  I am not trying to defend the rule and have no issue if people don't like the rule or think it needs to be adjusted or changed.  I am just stating, as the rule is written, the refs made the right call IMO.  

 

 

 

 

 

So this is the rule (as attached above): 

 

(d) A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him. Notes: (1) A defender cannot initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the passer in the knee area or below, even if he is being contacted by another player. (2) It is not a foul if the defender swipes or grabs a passer in the knee area or below in an attempt to tackle him, provided he does not make forcible contact with the helmet, shoulder, chest, or forearm.

 

The relevant provision states "t is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him."  So, tell me, where is Milano's opportunity to avoid the hit after he is struck by the defender? Moreover, the block itself is what caused Milano to spiral uncontrollably towards the QBs legs. 

 

According to the rule, it is a non-foul.  

[plenzmd1]

5 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yeah for sure, that holding penalty was BS

well, if we gunna be bitching bout the refs, Phillips clearly facemasks Mariota on his first sack of the day, it was on  a third down that would have given the Titans a first down somewhere around the Bills 7, thats a huge miss too. Maybe titans go up 7-0 there instead of missing a 50yd yd field goal ?

 

These calls tend to even out in the course of a game and even more so over the season

[msw2112]

1 hour ago, golfball323 said:

its just one of those things. When he flew into Mariota you knew the flag was coming.

 

I have to say, with all of the bad calls (PI, Roughing the QB) the refs are making this year, they do a relatively good job of making up for the bad ones. Pay attention the next time you watch a game. Make up calls have been and will be a real thing as long as refs have as much power as they do in today's game.

 

And it happens in other sports too.  In last night's Sabres game, Dahlin took an obvious boarding penalty against Foligno that was not called.  The referee must have realized his mistake, because less than a minute later, he called Dahlin for a penalty on Foligno in front of the net that didn't look like much, and was certainly nowhere near the penalty that the first one was.  Refs are human.  We all have events that happen quickly and we wish we had reacted differently.  Same with the zebras - and they have the ability to quickly atone for their mistakes.

Edited October 8, 2019 by msw2112

[DrDawkinstein]

3 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

So this is the rule (as attached above): 

 

(d) A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him. Notes: (1) A defender cannot initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the passer in the knee area or below, even if he is being contacted by another player. (2) It is not a foul if the defender swipes or grabs a passer in the knee area or below in an attempt to tackle him, provided he does not make forcible contact with the helmet, shoulder, chest, or forearm.

 

The relevant provision states "t is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him."  So, tell me, where is Milano's opportunity to avoid the hit after he is struck by the defender? Moreover, the block itself is what caused Milano to spiral uncontrollably towards the QBs legs. 

 

According to the rule, it is a non-foul.  

 

You missed the important Note #1

 

 

Notes: (1) A defender cannot initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the passer in the knee area or below, even if he is being contacted by another player.

 

 

[MJS]

I don't personally see the issue with it. If it were Josh Allen getting his legs barrelled into I'd want a flag, regardless of the intent or whether the player could control himself.

 

To me it comes down to controlling your own body. Like in hockey it's up to you to control your stick. Doesn't matter if another player gets tangled up in it, you have to control your own stick. I view this the same way. If you hit a QB below the knees, that's a foul. Doesn't matter how or why it happened. Doesn't matter if you were in control or not.

 

And it looked to me like Milano put a little something extra into his fall so he could reach the QB, but that's just my perspective.

 

But I suspect others will take issue with my opinion.

Edited October 8, 2019 by MJS

[cd1]

1 hour ago, Philo said:

It was pure BS. Milano can't defy physics mid air. There has to be some common sense applied. 

 

Boy, I sure thought the same thing but watching in slow motion you can see that Milano could have just gone to the ground after the block BUT he was making every effort to stay up and moving toward the QB.

 

So I now think it was a legit call.

 

 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

Just now, DrDawkinstein said:

 

You missed the important Note #1

 

 

Notes: (1) A defender cannot initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the passer in the knee area or below, even if he is being contacted by another player.

 

 

 

True, but the defender did not initiate the roll or lunge -- the blocker initiated the roll by chipping Milano.  Initiate is an active verb. That means Milano, to initiate, must be the one to start the roll.  His body's movement was a response to the contact initiated by the defender. 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

True, but the defender did not initiate the roll or lunge -- the blocker initiated the roll by chipping Milano.  Initiate is an active verb. That means Milano, to initiate, must be the one to start the roll.  His body's movement was a response to the contact initiated by the defender. 

 

I am not sure I agree. I don't roll with my leg up like that. 

[Alphadawg7]

1 minute ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

So this is the rule (as attached above): 

 

(d) A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him. Notes: (1) A defender cannot initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the passer in the knee area or below, even if he is being contacted by another player. (2) It is not a foul if the defender swipes or grabs a passer in the knee area or below in an attempt to tackle him, provided he does not make forcible contact with the helmet, shoulder, chest, or forearm.

 

The relevant provision states "t is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him."  So, tell me, where is Milano's opportunity to avoid the hit after he is struck by the defender? Moreover, the block itself is what caused Milano to spiral uncontrollably towards the QBs legs. 

 

According to the rule, it is a non-foul.  

 

Here is the thing though, show me where Milano was blocked into him or fouled.  He was not blocked into him, Milano hit Mariotta because of his own momentum.  The defender bumped his thigh, but the defender did not forcibly block Milano into the QB nor did he foul Milano.  

 

The "and has no opportunity to avoid him" is directly in reference to the defender being blocked or fouled into the QB and only comes into play in that situation.  So lets look at the 3 components of the rule:

1. Was Milano blocked into the passer?
   1. NO - Milano was not tossed or blocked by the defender into the QB, Milano's own momentum carried him there.
2. Was Milano fouled?
   1. NO
3. Did Milano have the oppportunity to avoid the QB?
   1. Irrelevant given that neither 1 or 2 above occurred first.  

So sorry, I am not trying to be difficult here or anything, but I cant agree with you on this.  Rule is clear as day, and unfortunately Milano unintentional hit on the QB was a penalty according to the rule as written IMO.  

[Lurker]

51 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Disagree that its an absurd rule. 

 

Gotta disagree with your disagree.

 

If the penalized player has no ability to control his actions (i.e., he's pin balling through the air), how can he be held liable for the consequences?     It's like saying a personal foul should be called when a player gets his leg rolled up on by another guy falling into him.      

 

  

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

True, but the defender did not initiate the roll or lunge -- the blocker initiated the roll by chipping Milano.  Initiate is an active verb. That means Milano, to initiate, must be the one to start the roll.  His body's movement was a response to the contact initiated by the defender. 

 

I mean, you're welcome to your opinion and own perception of reality. But I, others, and most importantly the refs and NFL, disagree.

 

When players get flipped while running the ball, they rarely travel an extra 5 yards forward. Most of that roll was initiated by Milano after he hit the ground.

 

I understand we wont change each others minds. And again I do appreciate the in-depth rules analysis. This is the type of football discussion that I come to the board for.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am not sure I agree. I don't roll with my leg up like that. 

 

How often do you run full speed and are then struck below your knees? 

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, Lurker said:

 

Gotta disagree with your disagree.

 

If the penalized player has no ability to control his actions (i.e., he's pin balling through the air), how can he be held liable for the consequences?     It's like saying a personal foul should be called when a player gets his leg rolled up on by another guy falling into him.      

 

  

 

And now my disagreement with your disagreement with my disagreement...

 

He could have controlled himself better.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Watch the replay and see how Mariota's knee buckles. It's a good rule. The NFL has at best 25 starting quality QBs and can't afford injuries to any of them.

And the refs can't judge intent. Only what happens. It was a good call just a bit unfortunate for Milano.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Here is the thing though, show me where Milano was blocked into him or fouled.  He was not blocked into him, Milano hit Mariotta because of his own momentum.  The defender bumped his thigh, but the defender did not forcibly block Milano into the QB nor did he foul Milano.  

 

The "and has no opportunity to avoid him" is directly in reference to the defender being blocked or fouled into the QB and only comes into play in that situation.  So lets look at the 3 components of the rule:

1. Was Milano blocked into the passer?
   1. NO - Milano was not tossed or blocked by the defender into the QB, Milano's own momentum carried him there.
2. Was Milano fouled?
   1. NO
3. Did Milano have the oppportunity to avoid the QB?
   1. Irrelevant given that neither 1 or 2 above occurred first.  

So sorry, I am not trying to be difficult here or anything, but I cant agree with you on this.  Rule is clear as day, and unfortunately Milano unintentional hit on the QB was a penalty according to the rule as written IMO.  

 

When the blocker initiated contact with Milano, he was blocked into the quarterback. You are saying "forcibly block Milano." That is not what the rule says.  By its terms, the rule is saying where a block causes the rusher to make contact, it is not a penalty.  

 

Therefore, your first premise is incorrect.  Since the block caused the contact, Milano was indeed blocked into Mariotta.  

 

Moving to three, he did not hav an opportunity to avoid contact. 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

How often do you run full speed and are then struck below your knees? 

 

I have had some wild Friday nights...... 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I mean, you're welcome to your opinion and own perception of reality. But I, others, and most importantly the refs and NFL, disagree.

 

When players get flipped while running the ball, they rarely travel an extra 5 yards forward. Most of that roll was initiated by Milano after he hit the ground.

 

I understand we wont change each others minds. And again I do appreciate the in-depth rules analysis. This is the type of football discussion that I come to the board for.

 

I'm an attorney.  Interpreting rules is how I get my rocks off. I appreciate the discussion as well! 

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I have had some wild Friday nights...... 

 

Love it. 

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I'm an attorney.  Interpreting rules is how I get my rocks off. I appreciate the discussion as well! 

 

Love it. 

 

Haha, this ***** explains so much!

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I'm an attorney.  Interpreting rules is how I get my rocks off. I appreciate the discussion as well! 

 

And I spend my working life trying to find loopholes in lawyers' understanding. We could be at this a while. 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

When the blocker initiated contact with Milano, he was blocked into the quarterback. You are saying "forcibly block Milano." That is not what the rule says.  By its terms, the rule is saying where a block causes the rusher to make contact, it is not a penalty.  

 

Therefore, your first premise is incorrect.  Since the block caused the contact, Milano was indeed blocked into Mariotta.  

 

Moving to three, he did not hav an opportunity to avoid contact. 

Sorry but you are just wrong. Milano was not blocked onto Mariota. The blocker did nothing to push him into the QB. It was Mariota's momentum that did it. No different than if he tripped and fell forward into his legs. It's a weird situation but its a penalty. 

[r00tabaga]

This didn't bother me as much as the phantom DPI...

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 minute ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Sorry but you are just wrong. Milano was not blocked onto Mariota. The blocker did nothing to push him into the QB. It was Mariota's momentum that did it. No different than if he tripped and fell forward into his legs. It's a weird situation but its a penalty. 

 

Oops. There is your mistake. "push him into" does not equal "blocked into." You are conflating the two; however, one does not mean the other.  The latter means the block caused the defender to make contact with the QB. That is what happened here.  

[Scott7975]

Right from the rulebook.... 

 

Quote

A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee.  It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him.

 

It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him.

It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him.

It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/roughing-the-passer/

Edited October 8, 2019 by Scott7975

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Oops. There is your mistake. "push him into" does not equal "blocked into." You are conflating the two; however, one does not mean the other.  The latter means the block caused the defender to make contact with the QB. That is what happened here.  

 

Do you have that from the NFL, or is that your own interpretation?

 

Because historically, when talking about running into the kicker for example, "blocked into" does actually mean "pushed into".

 

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by DrDawkinstein