Milano Roughing the Passer

[DrDawkinstein]

12 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

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.

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!

 

There was no tactic, what you perceive as "common sense" isnt necessarily "common" outside of us on this board. only thing lazy is your brain in understanding that.

 

but lol at "winning a debate" in this thread (or even on the board). if that's what youre after here, youve already lost. ?

Edited October 8, 2019 by DrDawkinstein

[frostbitmic]

If he hit Brady like that, Milano would never play in this league again.

[Rochesterfan]

22 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

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. 

 

 

It does not necessarily mean push,  the DE could be rushing and beat him to the outside and the tackle could grab the arm and pull causing him to go  into the QBs legs.  The DT could bull rush and knock a guard on his back and the guard could pull him down and they collide with the QBs legs and it does not get called.  

 

The defining part seems to be the “blocker” creates the momentum that causes the impact.  In this case the blocker caused the player to flip, but did not cause the momentum that brought him in contact.  The NFL rules as written just do not cover every situation - it would be impossible- therefore there is leeway and guidance that helps the refs make a call.

[LeGOATski]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

There was no tactic, what you perceive as "common sense" isnt necessarily "common" outside of us on this board.

 

but lol at "winning a debate" in this thread (or even on the board). if that's what youre after here, youve already lost. ?

It's the same reason you're in this thread, quoting rules and such.

 

Pot calling the kettle black.

[Bookie Man]

To me, it looked like he could have avoided rolling into him. It was a pretty athletic move mid-air, but it seemed like he was still going for the sack via some kind of aerial log roll or something. Haha I know that sounds weird and it may be unpopular, but I think he could have not touched him if wanted to. 

[JESSEFEFFER]

As a result of a cut block (not chip or chop) the defender was no longer able to avoid contact with the QB because this feet were flipped over his head.  This is a dangerous type of block at a blitzing LB just for that reason and I doubt they teach it that way.  That is the definition of unavoidable due to a block attempt.

[Florida Bills Fanatic]

2 hours 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.

I don't disagree that the rule is pretty nondescript about hitting the player low.  It does not delineate any exceptions.  I have to admit that I have seen other hits not called where the blocker provided the impetus for the collision.  Unless the rule is altered to call out exceptions, the most we can hope for is to call it consistently.

[DrDawkinstein]

5 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

It's the same reason you're in this thread, quoting rules and such.

 

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

And yet, you dont see me or JoshAllenHasBigHands taking anything so personally or trying to "win".

 

Plus, why bring race into this?

 

[Alphadawg7]

35 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

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. 

That’s not what I or others think at all though.  

 

The bottom line is that players momentum into the QB was not at all caused by the minor contact on his thigh and was primarily from Milano’s own momentum.

 
In other words the contact did not forcibly propel Milano into the QB.

[LeGOATski]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

And yet, you dont see me or JoshAllenHasBigHands taking anything so personally or trying to "win".

 

You literally are.

 

You just can't own up to it because you didn't have a good argument.

 

It's plain as day.

[Kelly the Dog]

9 minutes ago, NC Book said:

To me, it looked like he could have avoided rolling into him. It was a pretty athletic move mid-air, but it seemed like he was still going for the sack via some kind of aerial log roll or something. Haha I know that sounds weird and it may be unpopular, but I think he could have not touched him if wanted to. 

Cirque de Soleil, maybe. NFL linebacker, not so much.

[Buffarukus]

id love to see rules start getting enforced on the guys who are commiting them. 

 

helpless reciever? maybe they should not throw the ball into traffic...penalty on the qb.

 

guy lowers his head at the last second its on him that the helmet colision happens

 

qb wants extra yards slides at the very last moment or holds the ball forever you get hit...stop doing it.

 

chop block a guy blitzing and its his fault he flys into the qbs knees? 

 

the nfl is acctually encouraging offensive guys to do dangerous stuff because they can get free yardage out of it and if you watch the guys are turning into soccer floppers left and right..its pretty sad to see. a bs call is a bs call and if your going to complain about milano you also have to complain about the bs allen late hit where guy tryed avoid him but caught him with a knee.

 

direct and intentional is fine but this pitty pat bs is really putting games in the wrong hands

 

 

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

My feeling is that with his "lunge" he would have not landed close to the QB. He was several yards away. The block is what got him to that point and the only thing that got him to that point, unless you believe he pushed himself further while falling. I guess that is possible but I don't see that.

[LeGOATski]

3 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

id love to see rules start getting enforced on the guys who are commiting them. 

 

helpless reciever? maybe they should not throw the ball into traffic...penalty on the qb.

 

guy lowers his head at the last second its on him that the helmet colision happens

 

qb wants extra yards slides at the very last moment or holds the ball forever you get hit...stop doing it.

 

chop block a guy blitzing and its his fault he flys into the qbs knees? 

 

the nfl is acctually encouraging offensive guys to do dangerous stuff because they can get free yardage out of it and if you watch the guys are turning into soccer floppers left and right..its pretty sad to see. a bs call is a bs call and if your going to complain about milano you also have to complain about the bs allen late hit where guy tryed avoid him but caught him with a knee.

 

direct and intentional is fine but this pitty pat bs is really putting games in the wrong hands

 

 

 

 

It is to a degree and they have to rely more on the basic tenets of common sense and unfair advantage.

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, LeGOATski said:

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.

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!

 

I have no issue if you want to ban the low hits, but that is not currently the rule.  
 

You see defensive players get upended like that in every couple of games - they are still responsible for their momentum.  
 

Whether it helps or not is up for debate because it happens infrequently and without that getting called would it happen more?  Would defensive players launch themselves more frequently and with more abandon if they were not penalized if the blocker touched them?

 

We won’t know - only that currently it seems to be illegal and is a very infrequent issue.

[billsfan89]

There has to be some digression with a call like that. At that point you are just rewarding a QB for an unavoidable play happening. Those types of penalties are just too favorable to the offense. 

[JESSEFEFFER]

17 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

I have no issue if you want to ban the low hits, but that is not currently the rule.  
 

You see defensive players get upended like that in every couple of games - they are still responsible for their momentum.  
 

Whether it helps or not is up for debate because it happens infrequently and without that getting called would it happen more?  Would defensive players launch themselves more frequently and with more abandon if they were not penalized if the blocker touched them?

 

We won’t know - only that currently it seems to be illegal and is a very infrequent issue.

 

I do not see momentum anywhere in the rule.  As a matter of fact the reason to blitz like that is to defeat the blocker, make sure he can't become a receiver and continue on to the QB.  That's how it will happen if Lewis tries to block him higher.  Instead he cuts him and turns him into a flying, tumbling missile.  Unavoidable contact due to a block, say I.

[LABILLBACKER]

Where was the penalty on the player that cut Milano at the knees and launched him into the air? 

[3rdand12]

4 hours 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.

I think i am okay with it. not right, but if it is consistently enforced? then Players can at least understand what they are up against.
But that said, no way he intended any illegal contact.
such is the game ..

[Seven-N-Nine]

I think he purposely pushed off with his hands and cartwheeled to get more airtime to force a collision.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Seven-N-Nine

[Chicharito]

Completely horse ? of a call . I’m calling it now somehow he’s going to get fined for it!

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

5 hours ago, May Day 10 said:

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

 

I actually think the refs got that one right. The two guys on the end of the Titans’ line were able to shift since I don’t think they went into a 3-point stance, and they were shifting in the formation, which caused the bills player to jump Offside. I think that’s why they called encroachment. 

[Rochesterfan]

2 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

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

 

This isn't going to prevent blitzing. 

 

 

It should not prevent blitzing - why would they want to prevent blitzing?

 

They want the defenders attacking, but under control.  You had guys like JP Losman, Carson Palmer, and most famously Tom Brady get taken out by defenders that ended up hitting the QB low around the knees.  They wanted to lessen that chance - so they started making it illegal to hit a QB in the pocket down low and put a lot of guidance around that.

 

It seems to have helped as knee injuries to the QB are less frequent- especially in the pocket.

 

I think that penalizing the defender seems to have helped, but in the end sometimes things happen and guys get hurt, but working to have them hit in the body increases the protection.

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

 

I do not see momentum anywhere in the rule.  As a matter of fact the reason to blitz like that is to defeat the blocker, make sure he can't become a receiver and continue on to the QB.  That's how it will happen if Lewis tries to block him higher.  Instead he cuts him and turns him into a flying, tumbling missile.  Unavoidable contact due to a block, say I.

 

 

I understand, but the NFL seems to disagree as they called it a penalty and it gets called like that the majority of times a QB is hit low.

 

You can say you do not agree, but if it is called a penalty the majority of the times it happens - then the obvious guidance behind the rules must be the NFL deems that a penalty.

 

There are a lot of penalties I do not agree with or think are ticky-Tac, but if they get called most of the time - then what I think is unimportant because the league has decided to call it that way - until they change it up with new guidance.

1 hour ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Where was the penalty on the player that cut Milano at the knees and launched him into the air? 

 

 

It is legal to cut block him at this time.

[CommonCents]

The league’s rules and officiating is beyond ridiculous. Rob Derdek would have a decade worth of content just laughing at calls made on Sundays. I don’t care if that’s written in the rule, an official should have the ability to make the right call. 

[jkeerie]

You know, even if Milano had defied the laws of gravity and missed Mariota, they would have still flagged him for breaking the law.

[LeGOATski]

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

I have no issue if you want to ban the low hits, but that is not currently the rule.  
 

You see defensive players get upended like that in every couple of games - they are still responsible for their momentum.  
 

Whether it helps or not is up for debate because it happens infrequently and without that getting called would it happen more?  Would defensive players launch themselves more frequently and with more abandon if they were not penalized if the blocker touched them?

 

We won’t know - only that currently it seems to be illegal and is a very infrequent issue.

The point I was making is that the way the rule is enforced in this particular situation does not lessen the chance of low hits on the QB. Since the RB's cut block is what caused the low hits, the refs calling a penalty on Milano is meaningless. 

 

They should update the rule to lessen the chance of low hits on the QB. Take out cut blocks behind the LOS and it lessens the chance of low hits on the QB.

 

Debating one way or the other on the current enforcement is not as interesting as proposing solutions.

[GoBills808]

36 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

The point I was making is that the way the rule is enforced in this particular situation does not lessen the chance of low hits on the QB. Since the RB's cut block is what caused the low hits, the refs calling a penalty on Milano is meaningless. 

 

They should update the rule to lessen the chance of low hits on the QB. Take out cut blocks behind the LOS and it lessens the chance of low hits on the QB.

 

Debating one way or the other on the current enforcement is not as interesting as proposing solutions.

Bolded isn't going to happen. It's a totally legal and singularly effective block if executed correctly. What you could look at (if your intent was eliminating Milano's particular scenario, and personally I didn't have much of a problem with either the play or the call tbh, just bad luck) is make it illegal for RB/FB to perform the block as they're the ones usually picking up LBs or DBs on blitz who would be flying into the QB low if they get blocked low. 

 

Can't take cut blocks away from olinemen as it's often used to access quick throwing lanes, screens etc...important part of their arsenal.

[Rochesterfan]

39 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

The point I was making is that the way the rule is enforced in this particular situation does not lessen the chance of low hits on the QB. Since the RB's cut block is what caused the low hits, the refs calling a penalty on Milano is meaningless. 

 

They should update the rule to lessen the chance of low hits on the QB. Take out cut blocks behind the LOS and it lessens the chance of low hits on the QB.

 

Debating one way or the other on the current enforcement is not as interesting as proposing solutions.

 

 

I don’t disagree with that - I would love to see the cut block eliminated just about everywhere for safety, but it has real uses.

 

The only other thing that I would say is maybe after the penalty- Milano attacks that blitz differently.  Maybe instead of the full tilt attack - that opened him up to the hit.  He rushes a bit more under control to jump or better avoid the RB - lessening the chance he ends up flying through the air and landing there.  

 

In this case it was a double whammy - he took a nasty tumble and got flagged.  If it was just the hit, but he got to hit the QB with no penalty - then the players are more likely to dive that way opening themselves, the QBs, and the blockers up to more potential big hits and injury.

 

I feel bad for Milano because I was obvious that he was just the victim of the circumstance and the play was not dirty in any way, but I can also understand still calling it a foul to protect the player.

[LeGOATski]

2 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Bolded isn't going to happen. It's a totally legal and singularly effective block if executed correctly. What you could look at (if your intent was eliminating Milano's particular scenario, and personally I didn't have much of a problem with either the play or the call tbh, just bad luck) is make it illegal for RB/FB to perform the block as they're the ones usually picking up LBs or DBs on blitz who would be flying into the QB low if they get blocked low. 

 

Can't take cut blocks away from olinemen as it's often used to access quick throwing lanes, screens etc...important part of their arsenal.

Behind the LOS.

 

So OL cut blocks at and ahead of the LOS would be fine. 

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

Behind the LOS.

 

So OL cut blocks at and ahead of the LOS would be fine. 

How far behind? This is Solder freeing up the throwing lane to Amendola a couple yards behind LOS-

 

 

 

[LeGOATski]

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

How far behind? This is Solder freeing up the throwing lane to Amendola a couple yards behind LOS-

 

 

 

That's what I'm envisioning as a typical legal at-the-LOS cut block. All cut blocks on a run play or a QB scrambling outside the pocket would be fine, too.

 

Pretty much anything outside the pocket. But the more specific they can make these rules, the better.

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, LeGOATski said:

That's what I'm envisioning as a typical legal at-the-LOS cut block. All cut blocks on a run play or a QB scrambling outside the pocket would be fine, too.

 

Pretty much anything outside the pocket. But the more specific they can make these rules, the better.

So only allow them to cut block outside the tackles, at LOS (or within a yard or two?) I kind of like that idea re: player safety and injury risk tbh

 

The issue wrt the Milano play is no LB coming through the line is ever going to deliberately leave his feet to avoid the cut block by the RB...there's too much injury risk trying to dodge around or jump over a guy blocking you low when you're surrounded by linemen engaged and all your momentum is forward into the backfield. 100% of the time you're looking to keep your base and blow up the RB if he blocks you straight up or if he goes low you just let your momentum carry you through the pile. The onus can't be on the LB to try to avoid flying into the QB if he gets chopped imo

[Buffalo Barbarian]

13 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

So for whatever reason, I haven't seen this discussed.  I found this to be one of the wildest roughing the passer penalties I have ever seen.  

 

My question is this: Is there an intent element to these penalties?  If not, should there be?  

 

I mean, imagine for a moment an offensive lineman throws his guy into the quarterbacks knees.  Would the rusher still get a penalty? I feel like this is essentially what happened to Milano.  I understand accidents--such as your free hand striking a quarterbacks head--but this was more than an accident, Milano did a complete flip. This was completely unavoidable on his part.    

 

Refs have too many rules to follow and are suffering from over reactionism.

 

 

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

22 hours ago, May Day 10 said:

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

 

Was that the one where TWO Titans lined up next to eachother both false started, and Murphy (?) was flagged? I was much more furious about that than the Milano PF. Same with the blantant hold on the edge that helped spring Henry for a 20+ yard run. Those plays were literally right in front of the officials, yet they "missed" them. Same with a facemask to Allen non call. 

[Alphadawg7]

This debate is still going on?  

[DrDawkinstein]

46 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

This debate is still going on?  

 

No, we "won" it in the first 3 pages. The rest are just people who havent read the thread. ?

[Alphadawg7]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

No, we "won" it in the first 3 pages. The rest are just people who havent read the thread. ?

Bahaha, I wish I could give you more than one emoticon of the trophy, beer mug and laughing.  

[Doc]

The call was wrong and also should have drawn a tripping penalty on the Titans player.

[TigerJ]

What it boils down to is it only matters how the QB is affected in the roughing penalty.  How he got affected that way does not matter in the least.  Milano hit Mariota low.  That's a penalty.  I suppose if Milano had been blocked into him, there might be case for appealing the ruling (or complaining about it since there is no appeal.  In this case, Milano was blocked low and his momentum carried him to Mariota's feet.  Does not matter.  Go to the rules committee and make you case that the rule should be written, but as the rule is written, it was correctly enforced.