The hyde hit

[JESSEFEFFER]

Near as I can tell, this hit by Basham in week 1 did not get a fine.  It was late, helmet to helmet and he launched to get there.

[Golden*Wheels]

Way to take care of your receivers Sam.

[JESSEFEFFER]

11 hours ago, NewEra said:

Looked to me like he pulled his head back to lessen the blow. 

 

Yes.  Head pulled away and shoulder was to the sternum with initial contact.  Maybe a penalty after the initial contact due to the whiplash.  Often the concussion happens when their head hits the turf.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

the hit was not only legal, it was an awesome defensive tackle/hit, he led with his shoulder as I saw it. it did not deserve a flag and this "defenseless player" bs just shows how soft the league has become. I understand protecting players but if you want to do that, be consistent with the calls/non calls.

 

you want a dirty hit on a defenseless player,  this right here is an example of it and # 53 is a scumbag for doing it.

 

 

is this incidental contact or using the helmet to knock the opponent out?

 

 you make the call.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by A Firm Tree Does Not Fear

[NoSaint]

12 hours ago, gobills404 said:

I'm no expert but to me that looks like Hyde leading with his shoulder into Perrimans chest.

a shoulder to the head/neck area is still a penalty. It’s not just helmet to helmet contact. Your photo is the definitive shot of it actually being a penalty.

[nucci]

45 minutes ago, Golden*Wheels said:

Way to take care of your receivers Sam.

exactly...

[Golden*Wheels]

Listening to Boomer on WFAN...he said he thought it was a clean hit.

[nucci]

12 minutes ago, Golden*Wheels said:

Listening to Boomer on WFAN...he said he thought it was a clean hit.

it was...he caused an incompletion...just a few years ago it would have been called a great play. Darnold gave him a  "buddy pass."

[TigerJ]

It would not have been hard for Hyde to get a little lower.  Three inches lower, and there would have been no questionable contact.  There were some ticky tack calls in the game, but I'm OK with the call on that play.

[Saint Doug]

I’m not sure if it was a clean or illegal hit. It’s borderline either way. I do know one thing though. It needed to happen. We could not let that ball be caught. I would have him do the same thing over and over if needed, and our secondary should not be shy about delivering such contact. 

[dickleyjones]

i do not care if it was legal or not. don't care about the penalty either.

 

this hit was my favourite play of the game, this is what we need, our defense to stop taking punishment and start dealing it out themselves!

[ngbills]

They call this all day now. I dont like it but it is there to protect the players. And they called it defenseless receiver not helmet to helmet. The rule is so subjective - if it is not a big hit you can hit the received to make him drop the ball, but if it is a big hit then you cant. 

[TroutDog]

3 hours ago, NoSaint said:

a shoulder to the head/neck area is still a penalty. It’s not just helmet to helmet contact. Your photo is the definitive shot of it actually being a penalty.

So what does he do there? Simply let the completion be made?

 

What’s so frustrating to me is how some are called and others aren’t. So subjective...as evidenced by the hit on Josh above and countless other hits we all see. 
 

I stand by my earlier comments: it looked questionable at the time but, once they rolled the replay, I thought it was clean. No helmet to helmet, didn’t hit his head or neck but chest. How is that not legal?

Edited October 26, 2020 by TroutDog

[Real McClappy]

50 minutes ago, TigerJ said:

It would not have been hard for Hyde to get a little lower.  Three inches lower, and there would have been no questionable contact.  There were some ticky tack calls in the game, but I'm OK with the call on that play.

And when a playoff game is on the line for the Bills and say this happens would you be happy with the call?

[NoSaint]

2 minutes ago, TroutDog said:

So what does he do there? Simply let the completion be made?

 

What’s so frustrating to me is how some are called and others aren’t. So subjective...as evidenced by the hit on Josh above and countless other hits we all see. 
 

I stand by my earlier comments: it looked questionable at the time but, once they rolled the replay, I thought it was clean. No helmet to helmet, didn’t hit his head or neck but chest. How is that not legal?

the branding of “helmet to helmet” is leading you astray. 
 

it’s a tough game and not every play is going to give a player a great option. That’s why the get paid a lot.  In this case Hyde has to get lower or be ok with the penalty risk. I’m not mad at him or the nfl. 
 

and if your standard is perfectly calling these across all kinds of crews, angles, games, it’ll always bug you. We aren’t being singled out here. 

3 minutes ago, Real McNasty said:

And when a playoff game is on the line for the Bills and say this happens would you be happy with the call?

it’s the right call.

 

i wouldnt be thrilled but I wouldn’t be able to say we were jobbed either 

[TroutDog]

24 minutes ago, Real McNasty said:

And when a playoff game is on the line for the Bills and say this happens would you be happy with the call?

Meaning it’s called on the other team?

22 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

if your standard is perfectly calling these across all kinds of crews, angles, games, it’ll always bug you

My complaints about refs is typically, “Give me a break”. I don’t let it bug me. 
 

This one is different, though. It was a good football play in my judgment. 

[Logic]

I don't know whether it was legal or not. It certainly didn't seem malicious or intentional. It's pretty hard to play DB in the league right now with the way the rules are written.

All that being said, it may well have stopped the Jets from scoring a TD in the waning moments. Instead of a 20+ yard gain and some momentum, it went down as a 15 yard play (which the Bills got 10 of back on an ensuing holding call) and Perriman leaving the game.

[DrDawkinstein]

Late to the thread, and yall wont like hearing it, but it was a penalty and not a great hit.

 

"Eyes through the Thighs" is how you properly tackle. Hyde had the time and room to line him up correctly with proper technique but chose not to. So he gets the flag.

 

You cant launch your shoulder into a guys chin. Just cant do it.

 

Defenders, especially Safeties, should be well aware of the league trying to get rid of this human-missile, poor form, dangerous tackling technique. He could have had a big hit there legally too. That's on Hyde.

[PaoloBillsFanFromItaly]

Just now, DrDawkinstein said:

Late to the thread, and yall wont like hearing it, but it was a penalty and not a great hit.

 

"Eyes through the Thighs" is how you properly tackle. Hyde had the time and room to line him up correctly with proper technique but chose not to. So he gets the flag.

 

You cant launch your shoulder into a guys chin. Just cant do it.

 

Defenders, especially Safeties, should be well aware of the league trying to get rid of this human-missile, poor form, dangerous tackling technique. He could have had a big hit there legally too. That's on Hyde.

 

Agreed, coming with such perfect angle and perfect timing Hyde would have been separated the ball from the receiver without hitting the receiver face.

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

12 minutes ago, Logic said:

I don't know whether it was legal or not. It certainly didn't seem malicious or intentional. It's pretty hard to play DB in the league right now with the way the rules are written.

All that being said, it may well have stopped the Jets from scoring a TD in the waning moments. Instead of a 20+ yard gain and some momentum, it went down as a 15 yard play (which the Bills got 10 of back on an ensuing holding call) and Perriman leaving the game.

 

This hit is really not subjective, and with the way the rule is written this hit is a blatant penalty. There's a reason 3 flags came flying in from 3 different refs right after the hit. This is the exact type of play the NFL wants to remove from the game. 

[Meatloaf63]

5 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Boy you fans have rose coloured glasses......

 

It was a penalty no ifs ands or buts and if that happened to a Bill you'd be screaming suspension.  

 

You can hear the helmets hit!!!

 

Now conversely one can argue it saved the Bills 7 yards, knocked out a receiver and momentum.

 

 

Yes these helmets are banging👍

[TigerJ]

1 hour ago, Real McNasty said:

And when a playoff game is on the line for the Bills and say this happens would you be happy with the call?

I believe it is possible to play hard and play clean at the same time.  If I see a play where the Bills player is playing hard and clean, and hurts a guy, then gets called for a penalty, then I'm mad at the official.  When a player is being edgy and gets called for a penalty,  I'll be irritated at the player for giving the official an excuse to call it.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

1 hour ago, Real McNasty said:

And when a playoff game is on the line for the Bills and say this happens would you be happy with the call?

No, I would be patching dry wall because of a call like that in the playoffs. 

[Ta111]

5 hours ago, NoSaint said:

a shoulder to the head/neck area is still a penalty. It’s not just helmet to helmet contact. Your photo is the definitive shot of it actually being a penalty.

But you also have to keep in mind the receiver is bending down with the ball. If he was in an upright position it would have been all chest. Hyde actually bends down in an effort to hit him lower but the receiver bends down at the same time. Not a good call in my opinion.

[NoSaint]

34 minutes ago, Ta111 said:

But you also have to keep in mind the receiver is bending down with the ball. If he was in an upright position it would have been all chest. Hyde actually bends down in an effort to hit him lower but the receiver bends down at the same time. Not a good call in my opinion.

that doesn’t make a difference here though. 

[DrDawkinstein]

47 minutes ago, Ta111 said:

But you also have to keep in mind the receiver is bending down with the ball. If he was in an upright position it would have been all chest. Hyde actually bends down in an effort to hit him lower but the receiver bends down at the same time. Not a good call in my opinion.

 

No he really doesnt. He never gets anywhere close the correct breakdown stance of proper tackling technique.

 

He dips his shoulder a bit, but is still running straight up.

 

That's a flag.

[Teddy KGB]

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Late to the thread, and yall wont like hearing it, but it was a penalty and not a great hit.

 

"Eyes through the Thighs" is how you properly tackle. Hyde had the time and room to line him up correctly with proper technique but chose not to. So he gets the flag.

 

You cant launch your shoulder into a guys chin. Just cant do it.

 

Defenders, especially Safeties, should be well aware of the league trying to get rid of this human-missile, poor form, dangerous tackling technique. He could have had a big hit there legally too. That's on Hyde.

perrimans chin is on his chest ? 

[DrDawkinstein]

56 minutes ago, TigerJ said:

I believe it is possible to play hard and play clean at the same time.  If I see a play where the Bills player is playing hard and clean, and hurts a guy, then gets called for a penalty, then I'm mad at the official.  When a player is being edgy and gets called for a penalty,  I'll be irritated at the player for giving the official an excuse to call it.

 

Absolutely.

 

And these Professionals really have no excuses. I only have 8 years of little loop and high school experience, and a couple years playing Rugby, and somehow know far better tackling technique than they do.

 

It's sad that they are more concerned with making it "look cool" than actually doing it properly (and therefore, safely). The crazy part is, they can still have HUGE, awesome looking hits on the highlight reel by doing it right and driving through the guy. It also saves them from the embarrassment when the ball carrier bounces off their shoulder hit and keeps going down the field.

[muppy]

all my thoughts have been expressed in this thread already so to summarize my thoughts cohesively"

 

1. Yes it was a penalty based on the part of the rule regarding "defenseless receiver" and that he lead with his shoulder and not his helmet isn't the point.

2. Did I like the call at the time? NOPE. I thought it was a clean hard hit and since he didn't lead with his helmet thought there was no foul committed.

3. Could Hyde have lowered his angle of hit to go lower? Maybe but these are live play conditions and his intent was NOT to injure.

4. Would I feel the same way if a Bills receiver was hit that way and No penalty called? Of course Im biased but would like to think Id still think of it as questionable.

 

I think this "defenseless receiver" penalty is in itself questionable. No Im NOT for players being injured but calls like we saw yesterday I think are borderline at best. Lets see how many receivers begin to take dives in hopes of drawing such a call if the ball is dislodged during a tackle and then we can discuss this further.

 

The pussification of NFL football? An attempt to protect players? Both. It is what it is.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Teddy KGB said:

perrimans chin is on his chest ? 

 

Scroll up 7 posts. His shoulder is into the bottom of his facemask.

[BuffalOhio]

It was the correct call.  I just don't know what the DB is supposed to do differently there.  Let him catch it?

 

Here's a name for y'all: Daryl Stingley.

 

There's a reason they have to protect receivers.

[MJS]

Really fun hit to watch, though. Hyde came in like a missile.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

It was the correct call.  Intent has nothing to do with the penalty.  

[Matt_In_NH]

I find fans reactions to these plays fascinating.  I wish there was an alternate reality where we could see the exact same play except the roles are reversed.  Diggs playing the roll of Perriman and a Jets safety delivering the blow and then putting the forum reaction of both side by side.  I dont doubt for a second the opinions would be a complete 180.

[NoSaint]

4 hours ago, Muppy said:

all my thoughts have been expressed in this thread already so to summarize my thoughts cohesively"

 

1. Yes it was a penalty based on the part of the rule regarding "defenseless receiver" and that he lead with his shoulder and not his helmet isn't the point.

2. Did I like the call at the time? NOPE. I thought it was a clean hard hit and since he didn't lead with his helmet thought there was no foul committed.

3. Could Hyde have lowered his angle of hit to go lower? Maybe but these are live play conditions and his intent was NOT to injure.

4. Would I feel the same way if a Bills receiver was hit that way and No penalty called? Of course Im biased but would like to think Id still think of it as questionable.

 

I think this "defenseless receiver" penalty is in itself questionable. No Im NOT for players being injured but calls like we saw yesterday I think are borderline at best. Lets see how many receivers begin to take dives in hopes of drawing such a call if the ball is dislodged during a tackle and then we can discuss this further.

 

The pussification of NFL football? An attempt to protect players? Both. It is what it is.

it’s been the rule for awhile and not really been gamed by receivers 

[muppy]

18 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

it’s been the rule for awhile and not really been gamed by receivers 

good to know thanks. I hate divers.

[Markaf431]

Anyone talking about the poor tackling think maybe Hyde hit him that way on purpose? Trying to force the incompletion instead of giving up the catch which was going to be more yards than the penalty? Unless I’m wrong it’s not a spot foul penalty so the incompletion takes the 15 from the original LOS.