Milano Roughing the Passer

[Lurker]

2 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

Right from the rulebook.... 

 

 

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

 

 

Ah ha!   The smoking gun!      But scrolling down, it comes with a HUGH get-out-of-jail card for the refs:

 

1. When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Lurker said:

 

 

Ah ha!   The smoking gun!      But scrolling down, it comes with a HUGH get-out-of-jail card for the refs:

 

1. When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer.

 

You joke, but you arent wrong.

 

From the Rule Book:

 

 

What this means: When in doubt, it is the Defender's fault. Throw the flag.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

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 mean "pushed into".

 

 

 

Alas, their is not legislative history for me to look at. 

 

His interpretation is intuitive, because that is how the play develops 99% of the time.  So we think that one means the other, but the words are different. If the NFL had meant "pushed into" they would have just used those words.  Instead, they used "blocked into."  Those words should be given meaning. 

[Scott7975]

Just now, Lurker said:

 

 

Ah ha!   The smoking gun!      But scrolling down, it comes with a HUGH get-out-of-jail card for the refs:

 

1. When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer.

Well of course.  The NFL applies that language to just about every rule.  This is why I hate NFL rules.  Too much gray area.  There are too many things a ref can do to influence the outcome of a game with almost no reprocussions.  Gray area things like this should all be reviewable IMO.

[billsbackto81]

1 hour ago, Happy Gilmore said:

I've seen this type of contact happen with multiple teams, not just Matt Milano and the Bills.  Not sure why the NFL can't get this straightened out with reviews and coach's challenges.  I see the need to protect the QB against unnecessary roughness, but it has gone too far where they might as well be playing flag football.

If there is forceful contact made on the QB intentional or not they're going to flag it. Same thing with Casey in the game. Josh was sliding and Casey tried to avoid him as he leaped over but his knee caught Josh square in the back. Surprised the announcers weren't aware cause I thought it was very clear. Taking a knee in the back from a 280 pound man running at you can cause serious damage.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Alas, their is not legislative history for me to look at. 

 

His interpretation is intuitive, because that is how the play develops 99% of the time.  So we think that one means the other, but the words are different. If the NFL had meant "pushed into" they would have just used those words.  Instead, they used "blocked into."  Those words should be given meaning. 

 

But then the rule would be clear, and the NFL wouldnt be able to fix games.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

You joke, but you arent wrong.

 

From the Rule Book:

 

 

What this means: When in doubt, it is the Defender's fault. Throw the flag.

 

That, to me, is the worst part...

[Alphadawg7]

27 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

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

Yup, good counter point and very true for all teams.

[LeGOATski]

If they want to avoid these types of hits on the QB, then make cut blocks behind the LOS illegal. They can only be done at or beyond the LOS. Calling a penalty on the defender does nothing to minimize these hits.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, billsbackto81 said:

If there is forceful contact made on the QB intentional or not they're going to flag it. Same thing with Casey in the game. Josh was sliding and Casey tried to avoid him as he leaped over but his knee caught Josh square in the back. Surprised the announcers weren't aware cause I thought it was very clear. Taking a knee in the back from a 280 pound man running at you can cause serious damage.

 

This.

 

As others have said, if rolls were reversed on the Milano penalty and that was an opposing defender flipping into Josh's legs, I'd want it called. I was "fine" with it being called against Milano because I know that's how the league works.

 

And in that same vein, I wanted the late hit on Josh called even though there was barely any contact and it looked like Josh acted a little.

 

Cant hit the QBs, man. As long as they call it for everyone, I'm fine with it. What pisses me off is when they let Cam Newton and Josh Allen take hits because they are the "young guys" but throw flags for Brady and Brees.

[Alphadawg7]

18 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. 

All good, we clearly see the contact different.  I watched video multiple times and I can’t see how you get the conclusion Milano was blocked into him when the offensive player didn’t even block Milano.  Milano went over and defender hit one thigh, all forward motion was created by Milano.

 

No big deal, we won and the refs called this a roughing the passer.  I don’t have an issue with that.

 

[LeGOATski]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

This.

 

As others have said, if rolls were reversed on the Milano penalty and that was an opposing defender flipping into Josh's legs, I'd want it called. I was "fine" with it being called against Milano because I know that's how the league works.

 

And in that same vein, I wanted the late hit on Josh called even though there was barely any contact and it looked like Josh acted a little.

 

Cant hit the QBs, man. As long as they call it for everyone, I'm fine with it. What pisses me off is when they let Cam Newton and Josh Allen take hits because they are the "young guys" but throw flags for Brady and Brees.

I'd be fine if it was not called on an opposing defender or Milano because I know it's not their fault. 

 

Very different than intentionally going low.

 

Calling it like it is has no impact on the frequency of these types of hits. There's no common sense being used in this case.

[Alphadawg7]

24 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

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

He was hit in one leg, and it was his thigh, not below both knees.

[Kmart128]

I don't understand the argument in this threads...Milano clearly got blocked into Mariota's knees... By rule that's not a foul. It was clear as day live and on the replay. Hopefully that ref gets a talking to... You shouldn't be throwing penalties if you don't see the entire thing. He clearly didn't see the chop block and obviously wasn't paying attention. 

[billsbackto81]

3 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

He was hit in one leg, and it was his thigh, not below both knees.

I'm surprised Milano travelled that far in the air. It looked like he was at least 3 or 4 yards away when tripped.

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I'd be fine if it was not called on an opposing defender or Milano because I know it's not their fault. 

 

Very different than intentionally going low.

 

Calling it like it is has no impact on the frequency of these types of hits. There's no common sense being used in this case.

 

I have seen low hits not get flagged because they were blocked in.

 

This particular play was a borderline play, it was not an obvious "block into" play. Evidenced by the fact that you have fellow Bills fans agreeing with the call. When in doubt, on borderline plays like in this case, they will default to throwing the flag. When the goals are to deter these hits and protect QBs, common sense says throw the flag.

 

It's too close a call to expect our version of "homer common sense" to be shared by the officials.

 

Fault and intent play no part in it.

3 minutes ago, Kmart128 said:

I don't understand the argument in this threads...Milano clearly got blocked into Mariota's knees... By rule that's not a foul. It was clear as day live and on the replay. Hopefully that ref gets a talking to... You shouldn't be throwing penalties if you don't see the entire thing. He clearly didn't see the chop block and obviously wasn't paying attention. 

 

Not "clearly" and not "blocked into". That is the argument to understand.

1 minute ago, billsbackto81 said:

I'm surprised Milano travelled that far in the air. It looked like he was at least 3 or 4 yards away when tripped.

 

Yep. That is why he got the flag.

 

Normally flipped players dont travel 3-5 yards after they hit the ground. Milano did. Flag.

[Kelly the Dog]

5 minutes ago, Kmart128 said:

I don't understand the argument in this threads...Milano clearly got blocked into Mariota's knees... By rule that's not a foul. It was clear as day live and on the replay. Hopefully that ref gets a talking to... You shouldn't be throwing penalties if you don't see the entire thing. He clearly didn't see the chop block and obviously wasn't paying attention. 

I think it wasn't a foul BUT if he didn't see the whole thing I think he has to call the penalty. The chances of it happening the way it did are astronomically low. If he just sees the end he should surely assume it was preventable to some degree and therefore a roughing call.

[LeGOATski]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

When the goals are to deter these hits and protect QBs, common sense says throw the flag.

 

This doesn't further that goal. Like I said earlier, if they want to avoid this particular situation, then make cut blocks behind the LOS illegal. Only legal at or beyond the LOS. If the RB stays on his feet, this doesn't happen. 

 

Common sense.

 

It's a lazy tactic to add the trigger word "homer" to it. Good sign that you don't have a good argument.

[Rochesterfan]

28 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.  

 

 

I think blocked is the problem people have with this.

 

The correct call was made and that is exactly how it should be called.  

 

When they talk talk about being blocked into the QBs legs - they are talking about 2 players engaged with one another and the O-line either driving or forcing the defender into the QBs legs.

 

They are not talking about that type of chip block because the guy blocking is not the pushing or moving him toward the QB.  Milano blitzed with recklessness straight at the QB.  The RB chipped and caught him low, but it was all of Milano’s momentum that forced the contact.  It was not dirty and I would not expect it to be fined other than the standard roughing fine, but it was still the correct call.  

 

The defender has some responsibility over keeping themselves in control and in this case he was out of control - got flipped - and tried to continue on - which led to the contact - correct call.

 

It is also a penalty (as was seen and correctly called in another game) if you hit and try to sack the QB and the hit starts around the waist - if you slide down and end up below the knees.  

 

Sometimes it sucks, but it makes a big difference when these are called.

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

This doesn't further that goal. Like I said earlier, if they want to avoid this particular situation, then make cut blocks behind the LOS illegal. Only legal at or beyond the LOS. If the RB stays on his feet, this doesn't happen. 

 

Common sense.

 

It's a lazy tactic to add the trigger word "homer" to it. Good sign that you don't have a good argument.

 

It wasnt a trigger word (unless it is for you), it was a description, myself included. What we think is "common sense" isnt always so clear to folks with other perspectives.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

I think blocked is the problem people have with this.

 

The correct call was made and that is exactly how it should be called.  

 

When they talk talk about being blocked into the QBs legs - they are talking about 2 players engaged with one another and the O-line either driving or forcing the defender into the QBs legs.

 

They are not talking about that type of chip block because the guy blocking is not the pushing or moving him toward the QB.  Milano blitzed with recklessness straight at the QB.  The RB chipped and caught him low, but it was all of Milano’s momentum that forced the contact.  It was not dirty and I would not expect it to be fined other than the standard roughing fine, but it was still the correct call.  

 

The defender has some responsibility over keeping themselves in control and in this case he was out of control - got flipped - and tried to continue on - which led to the contact - correct call.

 

It is also a penalty (as was seen and correctly called in another game) if you hit and try to sack the QB and the hit starts around the waist - if you slide down and end up below the knees.  

 

Sometimes it sucks, but it makes a big difference when these are called.

 

If that were true, they would have used different verbs--e.g. pushed, etc.  The fact that they didn't means that is not what they meant. 

[Alphadawg7]

3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

I think blocked is the problem people have with this.

 

The correct call was made and that is exactly how it should be called.  

 

When they talk talk about being blocked into the QBs legs - they are talking about 2 players engaged with one another and the O-line either driving or forcing the defender into the QBs legs.

 

They are not talking about that type of chip block because the guy blocking is not the pushing or moving him toward the QB.  Milano blitzed with recklessness straight at the QB.  The RB chipped and caught him low, but it was all of Milano’s momentum that forced the contact.  It was not dirty and I would not expect it to be fined other than the standard roughing fine, but it was still the correct call.  

 

The defender has some responsibility over keeping themselves in control and in this case he was out of control - got flipped - and tried to continue on - which led to the contact - correct call.

 

It is also a penalty (as was seen and correctly called in another game) if you hit and try to sack the QB and the hit starts around the waist - if you slide down and end up below the knees.  

 

Sometimes it sucks, but it makes a big difference when these are called.

 

Yeah, this is my exact stance too.  So not sure if you were agreeing with me or thought I meant something else, but I fully agree with your post and its my exact opinion as well.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yeah, this is my exact stance too.  So not sure if you were agreeing with me or thought I meant something else, but I fully agree with your post and its my exact opinion as well.

 

The problem, Alpha, is you think the work "block" means "push." That is not accurate.  If the NFL had meant for the term block to encompass pushing the defender into the QB, they would have used the term "push." The fact that they didn't means they intended something else. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by JoshAllenHasBigHands

[LeGOATski]

4 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

They are not talking about that type of chip block because the guy blocking is not the pushing or moving him toward the QB.  Milano blitzed with recklessness straight at the QB.  The RB chipped and caught him low, but it was all of Milano’s momentum that forced the contact.   

Instead of requiring defenders to blitz slowly and not directly at the QB, how about requiring blockers behind the LOS to stay upright?

 

I think this makes more sense.

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

If that were true, they would have used different verbs--e.g. pushed, etc.  The fact that they didn't means that is not what they meant. 

 

Not true for the NFL. "Blocked into" as it has always been used with kicking, means "engaged and pushed into".

 

There are no lawyers on the field arguing semantics (luckily)

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Not true for the NFL. "Blocked into" as it has always been used with kicking, means "engaged and pushed into".

 

There are no lawyers on the field arguing semantics (luckily)

 

Howevvvvver, what you are really talking about is that "engaged and pushed into" is 99% of the examples of being "blocked into."  That does not mean that one equals the other.  That doesn't preclude that "blocked into" includes other distinct scenarios (such as the Milano hit). 

[Nuncha]

2 hours ago, May Day 10 said:

The "encroachment" call in the red zone made me a bit more furious to be honest.

Yea the "encroachment" on Murphy when two guys were moving on the Tenn line.  Total BS.  Too many horrible calls in a tight defensive game.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Azucho98

[Bob in STL]

Just another NFL "judgement call" that went against us.  Some do, some don't.  You can probably call something on every play. 

 

So many rules are subject to interpretation by the ref, this is one of them.  Baby Huey was certainly over officious that day. 

[DrDawkinstein]

9 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

If that were true, they would have used different verbs--e.g. pushed, etc.  The fact that they didn't means that is not what they meant. 

 

You keep arguing this, and I get it in a real world legal sense. But that just isnt true for the NFL.

 

They have their own Federal laws. Their own economy. And their own language. "Blocked into" has always meant "engaged and pushed into".

3 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Howevvvvver, what you are really talking about is that "engaged and pushed into" is 99% of the examples of being "blocked into."  That does not mean that one equals the other.  That doesn't preclude that "blocked into" includes other distinct scenarios (such as the Milano hit). 

 

Please understand, you arent arguing against me. I'm just relaying how the NFL perceives it. As evidenced by the calls they have made or havent made.

 

That said, I gotta tap out of this.

 

Managed to kill my afternoon though! Go Bills!

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by DrDawkinstein

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

You keep arguing this, and I get it in a real world legal sense. But that just isnt true for the NFL.

 

They have their own Federal laws. Their own economy. And their own language. "Blocked into" has always meant "engaged and pushed into".

 

Maybe, but I can tell you those rules are written by lawyers. People like me that pick apart the words being used.  For example, "strict liability" is a legal term. 

 

But I gotta run, and I'm gonna try to stay off here until after the bye.  But hey, Go Bills!  

Edited October 8, 2019 by JoshAllenHasBigHands

[Rochesterfan]

38 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. 

 

 

The problem with the “literal” interpretation of an NFL rule book is that we are not always privy to what they show them as specific examples of fouls and not fouls and why they are called that way.

 

I have seen several times them bring in the “rules experts” and they talk about the rules and how the NFL has bunches of videos of acceptable and not acceptable plays to help guide the Refs.

 

This is one that they talk about a couple of times a year and it always revolves around definition and explanation.  Technically Milano is not blocked into the QB because the blocking player is moving away from the QB and therefore his contact and movement would not move Milano into the QB.  The momentum and speed of Milano is what causes the contact.  Yes it would not occur if the guy did not cut him, but the action of the cut is independent of the outcome.

 

Unfortunately as a lawyer- you are looking at it as a hard and fast rule, but the NFL uses previous plays to guide the refs to better understand the current interpretation of the rules and that can be fluid to some degree.  They do not want guys lunging wildly or diving over piles and taking out planted QBs - so the rules are interpreted to ensure that is not the case.  They place a ton of emphasis on the defensive player being in control of themselves and maintaining body awareness.  It sometimes leads to near impossible things that defenders must do, but the QB should be protected as much as possible - just as defenseless receivers should.

[LeGOATski]

6 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

It wasnt a trigger word (unless it is for you), it was a description, myself included. What we think is "common sense" isnt always so clear to folks with other perspectives.

That's exactly how you intended it. Simply saying "you're just being a homer" is not a good argument.

 

I've offered a better solution, in my opinion. Not just complaining that the Bills got a foul called against them. And not just saying "it is what it is."

 

They can and should improve this rule, as well as the WR pick play rule. I watch all the games and the refs are getting these wrong across the league.

 

The point of the rule book is to prevent one side from having an unfair advantage. They're often losing sight of that and not using common sense.

[Lurker]

8 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

There are no lawyers on the field arguing semantics (luckily)

 

Good thing Ed Hochuli retired...

[Rochesterfan]

11 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yeah, this is my exact stance too.  So not sure if you were agreeing with me or thought I meant something else, but I fully agree with your post and its my exact opinion as well.

 

No you were exactly right it is just the reason others are disagreeing- the word blocked is causing issues.

 

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, LeGOATski said:

That's exactly how you intended it. Simply saying "you're just being a homer" is not a good argument.

 

I've offered a better solution, in my opinion. Not just complaining that the Bills got a foul called against them. And not just saying "it is what it is."

 

They can and should improve this rule, as well as the WR pick play rule. I watch all the games and the refs are getting these wrong across the league.

 

The point of the rule book is to prevent one side from having an unfair advantage. They're often losing sight of that and not using common sense.

 

Dude, I said OUR homer common sense. Dont take it so personally. Dang, it really DID trigger you.

 

I like your solution. Email Roger.

[LeGOATski]

3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

Yes it would not occur if the guy did not cut him, but the action of the cut is independent of the outcome.

The outcome is dependent on how the blocker acts. 

 

The effect on the QB becomes more unpredictable the closer the action is to the QB.

 

So, adjusting the rule to account for the action and proximity to the QB makes perfect sense.

5 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Dude, I said OUR homer common sense. Dont take it so personally. Dang, it really DID trigger you.

 

I like your solution. Email Roger.

You just don't like that I called your tactic lazy and you have no counter-argument. It's not personal, it's just about winning the debate.

 

Thanks!

[Rochesterfan]

19 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

If that were true, they would have used different verbs--e.g. pushed, etc.  The fact that they didn't means that is not what they meant. 

 

 

The rule was written long ago - which is why they create videos to show the refs every off season and throughout the season how they want these called. 

 

The NFL rulebook ends up being super complicated because most rules were written and implemented when blocking was blocking not guys flying through and getting upended. 

 

They do do not go through and rewrite every rule as things get updated - they amend some, but use more teaching guides to show what they want and do not want.  

 

If you go go through the rule book as a lawyer- you will find tons of things that contradict each other or you can argue against, but in the end they want to protect he guy - they are calling that a foul most of the time.

[1ManRaid]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I reluctantly have to agree here.

Reluctantly?  Aw dang I thought we were friends...

[LeGOATski]

3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

If you go go through the rule book as a lawyer- you will find tons of things that contradict each other or you can argue against, but in the end they want to protect he guy - they are calling that a foul most of the time.

Calling this a foul on the defender doesn't protect anyone. That's the problem.

 

This isn't going to prevent blitzing. 

[BillsfanAZ]

Since the Refs missed Phillips face mask on Mariota while sacking him then it makes up for it.