Hamlin Ejection

[BFLO]

19 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

Because the penalty is a hit on a defenseless receiver; that's how the rule is written and enforced

 

 

It doesn't matter if it's helmet to helmet. It can be forearm to helmet, shoulder to helmet, elbow to helmet, whatever.

So now imagine the same hit, but on a player established as a runner. Same body parts hitting in the same spots with the same force as in the Halmin ejection. 

 

It's not even a penalty. But it's the exact same damage to the players in both cases.

 

If it was really about safety it would be a penalty in both cases. 

 

[Simon]

17 minutes ago, BFLO said:

So now imagine the same hit, but on a player established as a runner.

It generally doesn't happen because a runner can protect himself whereas a guy catching a pass cannot.

If I've got the ball and you're looking to take my head off, I can prevent that by juking (a passcatcher can't), changing my pad level (a passcatcher can't), protecting my head with my shoulders (a passcatcher can't), etc.

It's about protecting the heads of guys when they're vulnerable and can't protect themselves.

[CircleTheWagons99]

It was a BS DQ, I was fine with the flag because he did hit him in the head. 

[BFLO]

4 minutes ago, Simon said:

It generally doesn't happen because a runner can protect himself whereas a guy catching a pass cannot.

If I've got the ball and you're looking to take my head off, I can prevent that by juking (a passcatcher can't), changing my pad level (a passcatcher can't), protecting my head with my shoulders (a passcatcher can't), etc.

It's about protecting the heads of guys when they're vulnerable and can't protect themselves.

It is more likely to happen during a catch than to a runner, I never argued otherwise. But that's not what I've been talking about. 

 

I'm saying what about the hits where the runner wasn't able to protect himself? Is a hit to the head where the guy could have protected himself but didn't, any less dangerous or damaging than a hit to the head where the guy couldn't protect himself? The answer is no, it's the same. 

 

Yes, you're right that it's less likely to happen, but it still happens all the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Michael1962]

FWIW, J.Murphy and Tasker (I think) thought it was a lame DQ

 

[Orlando Tim]

I understand they are calling that play tightly, whether I like it or not but I believe they have to look at the video to determine the DQ and it is ridiculous he was sent off. 

[Bubba Gump]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

why wasn't that a catch?  I don't understand the catch rule nowadays....

 

Neither do the officials

[Andy1]

The ejection was stupid. If the officials were following the rule, the rule needs to be changed. In this instance, Hamlin had no time to change is point of impact and he hit with his shoulder.

[mikemac2001]

Maybe league looked at it as a chance to eject someone for “players safety” knowing it wouldn’t impact an outcome.

 

 

[Goin Breakdown]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Honestly, he’s supposed to avoid the contact all together. If you can’t play the ball don’t make contact.

 

There was a play in the Lions game Diggs took a shot to the head late. No call. I was fuming.

There was a play lastnight where Diggs was brought down and on the way up (I'll assumes Jackson) kneed or kicked diggs the helmet. I'll admit that it could have been unintentional but I've seen less get called and it just didn't look good. Kinda got me yelling at the screen. 

[1ManRaid]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

There was a play in the Lions game Diggs took a shot to the head late. No call. I was fuming.

 

Was that the one where he was just sitting on the ground after the play was over, and some goon just came out of nowhere and drilled him back into the ground again?

[Rubes]

3 hours ago, Irv said:

I’m a total Bills fan and homer.  I ask myself how I would feel if Diggs took the same hit Hamlin laid on Meyers?  No. I wouldn’t like it. But what is he supposed to do?  Go for the knees?  No.  Was he able to lower his head into the mid-section?  I don’t know.  On the second half thread there was some disagreement last night.  You can’t just let the receiver go untouched.  Right?  This is football for cripes sake.  
 

I thought Epenesa’s sack was vicious.  Should he have been ejected?  Hard to figure out.  What do you think?

 

 

Epenesa's sack was pretty vicious. I was waiting for the flag on that play for intentionally slamming the QB to the ground.

 

[Doc]

The call was borderline but the ejection was college quality.  If Hamlin doesn't hit him (legally) then it's a TD.  So good thing he did.

[Beck Water]

 

[QLBillsFan]

5 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

If it looks bad they react to the crowd and call it.

 

Simple as that.

 

Hamlin did his job and separated the WR from the ball with the shoulder.

 

Oh well.

And no TD. Great play .. take the ejection even if debatable. 

[Bferra13]

6 hours ago, Buffalo ill said:

I think in an effort to prevent concussions (a worthy cause) they will one day convert it into a flag football league.

It would be an absolute last resort because number 1 thing NFL cares about is $$$$$. Go to flag football and there's a TON of people who will stop watching. That will kill the golden goose.

[ehfeuh57]

It doesn't have to be helmet to helmet to get ejected. You can be ejected for anything and this qualified.

 

Like unnecessary roughness can be for anything and at a higher degree of egregiousness can turn into an ejection. The ref does not have to prove it was a Legal or Illegal hit. That's why he did it so fast without even reviewing because he no longer cared whether the hit was legal. He just deemed it unnecessary to a high degree on the spot.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

7 hours ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

Was that the one where he was just sitting on the ground after the play was over, and some goon just came out of nowhere and drilled him back into the ground again?

Yes it was. I couldn’t believe it wasn’t called. It was Hutchinson.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Buffalo_Stampede

[Manther]

10 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

He didn't play the ball?

 

From what I see, he's looking at the ball and he hits the ball with his arm. Hamlin knocked the ball out.

 

The rule is the rule and it's a penalty by rule. Can't really argue that.

 

Maybe if he had a split second longer he could've gotten lower and it wouldn't look so bad.

The receiver was very low.  Hamlin couldn’t have got any lower.  Hamlin stopped a TD.  He couldn’t of done anything else.

 

He had to hit him and couldn’t get lower.  Didn’t like the ejection.  Sure call a penalty (I don’t like it), but, the ejection is not warranted to me.

10 hours ago, pennstate10 said:

Copy pasted this from last nights thread. 
 

“Just rewatched the Hamlin hit in end zone. 
 

By rule, the roughness call may be correct. But ejection was a bad call. 
 

Here’s what happens. 
Pat WR catches ball in air, returns to ground. 
Then, he lowers his head, as he is anticipating Hamlin hit. 
So he’s NOT really defenseless. Makes a move to protect himself by getting lower. 
 

Problem was, by getting lower, he ducks his head right into Hamlins shoulder pad. 
 

If he hadn’t ducked, Hamlin shoulder would have hit his chest, not his head. 
 

Hamlin didn’t lead with helmet. 
Hamlin didn’t launch. 
Bad call. “

Exactly, well said!

[billsbackto81]

11 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

If it looks bad they react to the crowd and call it.

 

Simple as that.

 

Hamlin did his job and separated the WR from the ball with the shoulder.

 

Oh well.

Exactly! What if that was the go ahead gaming winning score in that situation? Is he just supposed to just let him catch it? The hit wasn't early, it wasn't helmet to helmet and he was playing the ball. RG3 tweeted that it would have been praised 20 years ago when football was actually, you know football. I understand it but don't agree just like the Poyer INT. 

[NoSaint]

10 hours ago, BFLO said:

It is more likely to happen during a catch than to a runner, I never argued otherwise. But that's not what I've been talking about. 

 

I'm saying what about the hits where the runner wasn't able to protect himself? Is a hit to the head where the guy could have protected himself but didn't, any less dangerous or damaging than a hit to the head where the guy couldn't protect himself? The answer is no, it's the same. 

 

Yes, you're right that it's less likely to happen, but it still happens all the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you mean the rule doesnt fix all safety concerns in the nfl, just some of the more common and egregious?

30 minutes ago, billsbackto81 said:

Exactly! What if that was the go ahead gaming winning score in that situation? Is he just supposed to just let him catch it? The hit wasn't early, it wasn't helmet to helmet and he was playing the ball. RG3 tweeted that it would have been praised 20 years ago when football was actually, you know football. I understand it but don't agree just like the Poyer INT. 

he could’ve had better position in coverage to make a play on the ball, or gone lower 

[Doc]

6 hours ago, DrDare said:

It doesn't have to be helmet to helmet to get ejected. You can be ejected for anything and this qualified.

 

Like unnecessary roughness can be for anything and at a higher degree of egregiousness can turn into an ejection. The ref does not have to prove it was a Legal or Illegal hit. That's why he did it so fast without even reviewing because he no longer cared whether the hit was legal. He just deemed it unnecessary to a high degree on the spot.

 

How many players have you seen ejected because of a tackle?  At best it was a PF but in no way deserved ejection.

[MarlinTheMagician]

I played some safety in high school, back when they invented fire (full-time corner).  You live for a shot like that - nail the receiver, save the touchdown.  I did not have a problem with Hamlin's hit.  Looked to me like he led with his shoulder, and Myers dipped his head at the moment of contact.  If you can't light up the receiver to knock the ball out anymore, without head-hunting or going for the knees, I don't like the rule.  I thought it was a clean play, and a great one, but I was not surprised at all that they threw the flag.  Glad he stopped the touchdown anyhow!  I thought Hamlin looked pretty good vs. Pats.

[Shaw66]

I've read some of this thread, and I think people simply need to get in touch with reality.  Receivers get injured, sometimes seriously, when they take big hits just as they're making plays on the ball.  It's been a reality in pro football since the Raiders and others figured out that big-time violence as the ball arrives causes incompletions.      The league finally got to the point in the past few years where it's said the dangerous hits will stop, and it's done so by putting in place the current rule.  The current rule essentially is that dangerous hit will be punished with penalties, ejections, and fines.  Faced with penalties like that, players will change their behavior, just like they changed their behavior about hitting QBs in the head.   

 

Forget the technicalities about whether the guy was hit in the head or whether he was actually defenseless.  Forget that.  The league has been clear that they're going to penalize dangerous hits.

 

We've all seen dangerous hits on receivers and we all know what they look like.  Hamlin's was one of those.  It was obvious.   The receiver could have been severely injured.  There was no question a flag was coming, and there was little question an ejection was coming.   The way the rule is being enforced is that they are over-penalizing until everyone stops with the dangerous hits.  That's just the reality.  

 

A really quick-thinking football player put in Hamlin's situation, knowing that the hit was probably going to get flagged, would have made the hit just like Hamlin did.  I don't know if Hamlin actually thought about it - I hope he did.   It was the only way to stop the touchdown, and stopping the touchdown was important at that point in the game.   As it turned out, it ended the game.   Pats stalled, ran some more time off the clock, then kicked the field goal.  

 

And, yes, for those of you who are saying they're ruining football, turning it into flag football, all of them, wake up.   This has been going on for twenty years, people whining about rule changes to make the game safer, but the NFL's popularity keeps increasing.   Fans have not stopped watching games because defenders have stopped breaking the bones and scrambling the brains of quarterbacks and receivers.  

[Peace Frog]

14 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

He’s not playing the ball. It’s a shoulder to the body hit the whole way. 

 

 

 

Replace that receiver with Travis Kelce and now you're talking!

[Sargent Hulka]

15 hours ago, Irv said:

I’m a total Bills fan and homer.  I ask myself how I would feel if Diggs took the same hit Hamlin laid on Meyers?  No. I wouldn’t like it. But what is he supposed to do?  Go for the knees?  No.  Was he able to lower his head into the mid-section?  I don’t know.  On the second half thread there was some disagreement last night.  You can’t just let the receiver go untouched.  Right?  This is football for cripes sake.  
 

I thought Epenesa’s sack was vicious.  Should he have been ejected?  Hard to figure out.  What do you think?

 

Go back and check out the play where Poyer intercepted the pass. The Patriots RT, number 77, deliberately tried to take out Epenesa's knees. That was a dirty play.

[RangerDave]

14 hours ago, stevestojan said:

Until a Gregg Williams type coach sends in his practice squad DB to take out Diggs. 

Or some scrub wide receiver is touched by Tre White and claims an injury to DQ White.  Too many ways this could go bad.

[wjag]

Falsely accused..  Fradulantly fined (I presume)

[Billz4ever]

15 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Honestly, he’s supposed to avoid the contact all together. If you can’t play the ball don’t make contact.

 

There was a play in the Lions game Diggs took a shot to the head late. No call. I was fuming.

Rules have gotten out of hand.  I can understand helmet to helmet contact being a no-no, but defenders are taught to separate the receiver from the ball.

 

Hall of Fame DBs like Ronnie Lott and Steve Atwater would never have survived in today's NFL.

[T master]

There are many grey area's in the game the INT that Poyer had, The Epenesa sack where he threw the QB to the ground i thought for sure was going to be a flag because of whipping him over top of him & slamming him into the ground which is usually a flag .

 

That said the Hamlin hit was not with the crown of his helmet the WR did have possession of the ball when he hit him & the hit was delivered with his shoulder pad as the leading hit the head contact was incidental so i don't see how the commentator said he was defenseless if that be the case they are all defenseless if they catch the ball and have a collision after the catch .

 

The NFL needs to look at some of their rules because they seem too fit the situation & in some cases little consistency .

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Hamlin hit was a bang-bang play, but a slowed down replay shows he led with his shoulder.  Understandable that the refs reacted with a penalty, but the alternative was letting the ball be caught for a TD.  It was a fierce play, but not dirty, and it certainly didn't warrant an ejection.  Bet the league doesn't impose a fine.  

Dane Jackson could have used that kind of help over the past few games, where he had tight coverage but the receivers still made great catches.  

 

[simpleman]

I agree that it was a penalty. I also agree that he did the right thing. He took one personally for the team. I do not fault him at all. I believe he tried to not him that high, he just couldn't do his job and get his form perfect in that time frame. Few are perfect.

 

Edited December 3, 2022 by simpleman

[hondo in seattle]

As an old-timer, Hamlin's hit looked like a good, praise-worthy football play to me.   It's a violent game and Hamlin did his job: separate the receiver from the football.

 

But with so many players suffering lingering injuries (CTE, etc), the league had to pass rules protecting the players. 

 

I have mixed feelings about this one.  

[BigAl2526]

18 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

Yeah, maybe. 

 

I don't fault Hamlin, though. He has to make that hit, prevent the TD, and live with the penalty.

Yeah, his hit looks like the difference between an incompletion and a touchdown.

[Rochesterfan]

18 hours ago, Scott7975 said:

Penalty was correct.  I didnt like the ejection because Hamlin wasnt head hunting.  Not even close to head hunting.  Also dont like, just like most NFL rules, that this call isnt consistent from in the game, across the games, every week.

 

Agreed - hate the ejection.  

 

The truth is I think the ejection had more to do with the timing in the game.  With so little time left and a big score discrepancy- I get using the ejection to ensure that no-one goes after Hamlin and if removes a potential trigger.

 

You saw during the Bills kneel downs how the Refs really had to get in between quickly to make sure nothing escalated.  I think it was similar - you remove Hamlin at a point that it will not effect the outcome - it calms some of the anger over a big hit and it removes a retaliation potential on the next few plays that could spark something worse.

 

So although I do not think the play warrants an ejection - I was not totally surprised to see that call at that point.  

[Rochesterfan]

3 hours ago, Billz4ever said:

Rules have gotten out of hand.  I can understand helmet to helmet contact being a no-no, but defenders are taught to separate the receiver from the ball.

 

Hall of Fame DBs like Ronnie Lott and Steve Atwater would never have survived in today's NFL.

 

Correct - but they are a huge part of why the league had to adapt.  
 

The league does not want those players to make or survive today and that is the correct choice for the future of the NFL.

 

Tons of HOF type players couldn’t survive in todays NFL.  A crazy guy like Conrad Dobler or Deacon Jones with his head slaps, or even a cheap artist cutting o-line like Mark Schlerth are the reason the rules have been made and they all would struggle in todays NFL and that is not a bad thing to me.

 

 

[TampaBillsJunkie]

19 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

This one toes the line. Yeah, technically it's a hit to the head and neck area on a defenseless receiver. 

 

But the hit has to be made. He didn't launch himself and he didn't lower his helmet into the player. It was a textbook shoulder tackle.

 

If he doesn't make that hit, it's a TD.

Yup, I made that play hundreds of time playing safety and we were taught to bring even more contact and flags were never thrown. It's a different game. I'm all for safety, but you've got to play the game.

[Billz4ever]

14 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Correct - but they are a huge part of why the league had to adapt.  
 

The league does not want those players to make or survive today and that is the correct choice for the future of the NFL.

 

Tons of HOF type players couldn’t survive in todays NFL.  A crazy guy like Conrad Dobler or Deacon Jones with his head slaps, or even a cheap artist cutting o-line like Mark Schlerth are the reason the rules have been made and they all would struggle in todays NFL and that is not a bad thing to me.

 

 

Football is a collision sport.  You should expect collisions and as long as long as they aren't targeting the head, DBs should be allowed to try and separate the receiver from the ball.

[GunnerBill]

I thought it was probably the right decision. 

1 hour ago, simpleman said:

I agree that it was a penalty. I also agree that he did the right thing. He took one personally for the team. I do not fault him at all. I believe he tried to not him that high, he just couldn't do his job and get his form perfect in that time frame. Few are perfect.

 

 

Yea he knows as he is making that hit that he is at risk of being ejected. He is bound to contact the helmet of a defenseless receiver. If you do that and the ref judges it is excessive force then you are going to be ejected. But he has to do it to prevent a TD. 

 

Hamlin is right to make the hit. It is a definite foul. And I think the ejection on balance was the right call. Put it this way I said "ejection" the moment I saw the collision. Whether you like the rule or not that hit is gonna result in ejection more often than not. 

[HappyDays]

19 hours ago, Simon said:

It's a penalty because they have to protect guys' heads, but throwing a kid out of a game for that is flat out wrong.

You going to eject a guy in the middle of the AFC championship for playing clean but hard in his own endzone?

 

I could be wrong but I don't think the ejection was meant to be a punishment and I don't think he would have been ejected in a game that still mattered. Sometimes officials use their discretion to stop a play like this from snowballing into a worse conflict. They would never come out and say this was the reason why he was ejected, but taking him out of the game stops any thoughts of retaliation from the Patriots. Especially in a game between division rivals where things already have a tendency to get chippy. This is a somewhat hidden role that the officials have, they're supposed to keep games from getting out of control.