Jump to content

Milano Roughing the Passer


Recommended Posts

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 by MJS
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Milano.jpg

  • Awesome! (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DrDawkinstein said:

 

You missed the important Note #1

 

Rule_book_1.jpg

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.      

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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... :thumbsup:

 

He could have controlled himself better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Scott7975
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DrDawkinstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...