Hamlin Ejection

[Rochesterfan]

28 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

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.

 

They do expect collision - the NFL has just started correctly dictating where you can collide.  With a defenseless WR the collision is very targeted what you can do.  
 

The defender is initiating the contact has must ensure the contact stays lower in the event the WR tries to protect himself by ducking.

 

Hamlin did 90% right - used his shoulder, didn’t launch himself, targeted the ball as it arrived, but the hit was up around the upper chest/shoulders and Meyers saw it was coming and ducked and the hit went through the shoulders to the head and exactly as it should it was flagged.

 

I still believe the ejection had more to do with the crew tying to maintain control in a blow-out rather than risk escalation.

 

The NFL continues to grow in popularity while legislating more and more restrictions on hitting, blocking, tackling, and formations because it has kept more QBs, WRs, and DEs healthy and able to play throughout the year.

 

Scoring increases, number of plays increase, offensive talent increases and the game gets more fans every year watching more games and spending more money - there is no reason for the NFL to go back to the way it was done.

 

 

[Doc]

Getting back to an earlier point, has anyone seen a player get ejected for a hit like that anytime recently? I can’t say I have and I’ve seen quite a few games.

[HappyDays]

8 hours ago, billsbackto81 said:

Is he just supposed to just let him catch it?

 

By rule, yes. This line of questioning doesn't make sense in context with the modern rules. There are a lot of plays where if the DB doesn't let the WR catch it, it's a penalty. Just like you can't ever tackle a WR early before they have a chance to try and catch the ball, you can't ever lay a violent hit on the WR's head. To avoid possible penalties like that you have to be in a better position to make a play on the ball or undercut the pass. That doesn't mean Hamlin did the wrong thing in the moment, just like there are CBs that will intentionally interfere with their WR because they know they're about to be beat for a deep TD. It's still a penalty.

[CoudyBills]

20 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

He definitely played the body.

It is still tackle football, right?

[JoshAllin]

Hamlin has been known to show up with the big hits when the games are out of hand and won. I believe he did the same with the steeler qb when he slid 

[mjohns85]

So what’s the rule, any hit on a defenseless player equals an ejection??

[BananaB]

10 minutes ago, motorj said:

Hamlin has been known to show up with the big hits when the games are out of hand and won. I believe he did the same with the steeler qb when he slid 

Kid plays tough and hits hard, doesn’t matter what the score is. 

[JoshAllin]

3 minutes ago, BananaB said:

Kid plays tough and hits hard, doesn’t matter what the score is. 

Would have loved to have seen him make a big hit on that 43 yard td early on though

[BananaB]

Just now, motorj said:

Would have loved to have seen him make a big hit on that 43 yard td early on though

Yeah me too

[Billz4ever]

12 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

They do expect collision - the NFL has just started correctly dictating where you can collide.  With a defenseless WR the collision is very targeted what you can do.  
 

The defender is initiating the contact has must ensure the contact stays lower in the event the WR tries to protect himself by ducking.

 

Hamlin did 90% right - used his shoulder, didn’t launch himself, targeted the ball as it arrived, but the hit was up around the upper chest/shoulders and Meyers saw it was coming and ducked and the hit went through the shoulders to the head and exactly as it should it was flagged.

 

I still believe the ejection had more to do with the crew tying to maintain control in a blow-out rather than risk escalation.

 

The NFL continues to grow in popularity while legislating more and more restrictions on hitting, blocking, tackling, and formations because it has kept more QBs, WRs, and DEs healthy and able to play throughout the year.

 

Scoring increases, number of plays increase, offensive talent increases and the game gets more fans every year watching more games and spending more money - there is no reason for the NFL to go back to the way it was done.

 

 

Claiming the NFL has grown by restricting hitting is a stretch.  Even before the changes to hitting, most injuries that caused a lot of time missed weren't the result of big hits on the field. They were things like ACL tears just like they are today.  Correlation does not imply causation.

[PatsFanNH]

21 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?

 

The penalty was deserved, the injection I think was too much.  I agree I thought Epenesa was going to get flagged for that suplex of Jones. It’s almost always called when a defender does that to a QB. 

[Victory Formation]

21 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?

 

If he doesn’t hit him that’s a touchdown.

[Scott7975]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I thought it was probably the right decision. 

 

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. 

 

I disagree with the ejection part.  Ejection should be used for people that are clearly targeting aka head hunting.  This is not what happened.  He clearly wasnt going for the head.  The receiver purposley positioned himself to get hit in the head.  Now, I can live with it anyways because it was a bang bang play and thats tough to see live as a ref, I am sure.  For ejection I think they should look at replay.

 

The rule itself I am crossed on because i understand why it exists.  Players can get killed out there.  At the same time, it makes it very difficult to play defense if you cant hit the receiver until he makes a move after catching the ball.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Scott7975

[NewEra]

21 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

Claiming the NFL has grown by restricting hitting is a stretch.  Even before the changes to hitting, most injuries that caused a lot of time missed weren't the result of big hits on the field. They were things like ACL tears just like they are today.  Correlation does not imply causation.

He didn’t say that. But pretend he did and make that the premise of your post.  
 

To you point, they aren’t worried about ex players knees long term.  They are worried about their brain.  

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Scott7975 said:

 

I disagree with the ejection part.  Ejection should be used for people that are clearly targeting aka head hunting.  This is not what happened.  He clearly wasnt going for the head.  The receiver purposley positioned himself to get hit in the head.  Now, I can live with it anyways because it was a bang bang play and thats tough to see live as a ref, I am sure.  For ejection I think they should look at replay.

 

That is NOT the way the NFL rule is written though. Targeting is a college rule. The NFL rule does not require targeting. Just contact to the head of a defenseless receiver that displays excessive force (in the view of the official). I think "flagrant" is the actual wording. 

 

By the terms of the NFL rule I think it was the right call. 

7 minutes ago, Victory Formation said:

If he doesn’t hit him that’s a touchdown.

 

That is true. But it also isn't a relevant consideration in the ejection decision.

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

That is NOT the way the NFL rule is written though. Targeting is a college rule. The NFL rule does not require targeting. Just contact to the head of a defenseless receiver that displays excessive force (in the view of the official). I think "flagrant" is the actual wording. 

 

By the terms of the NFL rule I think it was the right call. 

 

That is true. But it also isn't a relevant consideration in the ejection decision.

Except it wasn’t flagrant because he was going for the ball and succeeded in separating it from him.  Which made it the right plate to make regardless of the resulting penalty and ejection.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Doc said:

Except it wasn’t flagrant because he was going for the ball and succeeded in separating it from him.  Which made it the right plate to make regardless of the resulting penalty and ejection.

 

It was the right play. It can still be flagrant use of excessive force. I think the was right to make the play. But I think ejection was probably the right call by the letter of the law.

[Scott7975]

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That is NOT the way the NFL rule is written though. Targeting is a college rule. The NFL rule does not require targeting. Just contact to the head of a defenseless receiver that displays excessive force (in the view of the official). I think "flagrant" is the actual wording. 

 

By the terms of the NFL rule I think it was the right call. 

 

You are correct.  The word used is "flagrant."  I don't know what they are trained and what flagrant means to them.  What I do know is these hits happen all the time and I very rarely see players get ejected for them. There have been 3 total ejections for this, this season.  That includes Hamlins ejection.  This happened to Diggs and it wasnt even flagged.  Last season there was 1 ejection for this type of foul.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Scott7975

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Scott7975 said:

 

You are correct.  The word used is "flagrant."  I don't know what they are trained and what flagrant means to them.  What I do know is these hits happen all the time and I very rarely see players get ejected for them. There have been 3 total ejections for this, this season.  That includes Hamlins ejection.  This happened to Diggs and it wasnt even flagged.

 

That hit is normally flagged. And I'd say 60% ejections.

 

Of course there is some subjectivity. But I think they just about made the right call. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by GunnerBill

[Scott7975]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That hit is normally flagged. And I'd say 60% ejections.

 

Of course there is some subjectivity. But I think they just about made the right call. 

 

I dont think you are right.  Are you telling me that in 192 games this season that this type of hit has only happened about 6 or 7 times and 3 ejections from it?  I see these hits a lot more than 6 or 7 times. 

[Billz4ever]

37 minutes ago, NewEra said:

He didn’t say that. But pretend he did and make that the premise of your post.  
 

To you point, they aren’t worried about ex players knees long term.  They are worried about their brain.  

Make the brain the premise of your post even though I've repeatedly said targeting the head should be a no-no and is.  Hitting a receiver to separate them from the ball should be perfectly fine unless you're hitting them in the head.  

 

And FYI, he most certainly did say that.

 

Quote

The NFL continues to grow in popularity while legislating more and more restrictions on hitting, blocking, tackling, and formations because it has kept more QBs, WRs, and DEs healthy and able to play throughout the year.

 

I don't know what post you were reading, but that certainly does imply exactly that.  That clearly says that the NFL has grown in popularity due to its restrictions on hitting, which keeps players "healthy".

 

If you're going to come at me, at least come at me correct.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Billz4ever

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

I dont think you are right.  Are you telling me that in 192 games this season that this type of hit has only happened about 6 or 7 times and 3 ejections from it?  I see these hits a lot more than 6 or 7 times. 

 

I don't think you do. 

[Scott7975]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think you do. 

 

Just watching our team alone I've seen at least 2 that didnt even get flagged.

 

There have been 7 players fined this season for hit on a defenseless player.  There are more for roughing the passer.  There are more for late hit.  There are more for hit to the helmet.  There have been 3 ejections for those type of hits.  

 

I dont agree with the ejection.  What makes Hamlins hit "flagrant" and worthy of ejection and the other 2 players that got ejected?  What was not "flagrant" in the other 5 hits?  There are more too.  Diggs hit was clearly this same call and ejection.  Wasnt flagged, wasnt an ejection or suspension, and I dont even know if it was fined.  These hits happen without any penalty at all more often than just 3 times.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

Just watching our team alone I've seen at least 2 that didnt even get flagged.

 

There have been 7 players fined this season for hit on a defenseless player.  There are more for roughing the passer.  There are more for late hit.  There are more for hit to the helmet.  There have been 3 ejections for those type of hits.  

 

I dont agree with the ejection.  What makes Hamlins hit "flagrant" and worthy of ejection and the other 2 players that got ejected?  What was not "flagrant" in the other 5 hits?  There are more too.  Diggs hit was clearly this same call and ejection.  Wasnt flagged, wasnt an ejection or suspension, and I dont even know if it was fined.  These hits happen without any penalty at all more often than just 3 times.

 

Nah I am sorry they don't. Not hits like that where the full force of Hamlin's body to the head and neck area. 

[Scott7975]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Nah I am sorry they don't. Not hits like that where the full force of Hamlin's body to the head and neck area. 

 

Agree to disagree. Diggs had that happen where he was already being tackled and another guy came late and launched into his head.  No call

[Rochesterfan]

2 hours ago, Billz4ever said:

Make the brain the premise of your post even though I've repeatedly said targeting the head should be a no-no and is.  Hitting a receiver to separate them from the ball should be perfectly fine unless you're hitting them in the head.  

 

And FYI, he most certainly did say that.

 

 

I don't know what post you were reading, but that certainly does imply exactly that.  That clearly says that the NFL has grown in popularity due to its restrictions on hitting, which keeps players "healthy".

 

If you're going to come at me, at least come at me correct.

 

 

Nope - Popularity has increased even with the league legislating out the big hits of the players you mentioned.
 

Changing the hits has allowed many players to stay healthy and continuing to play, which was something the fans liked and actually demanded, but the popularity has risen exponentially and created more exposure.
 

The injuries like ACLs still happen, but watch QBs like Kelly get killed standing in the pocket.  Watch the WRs get knocked out going across the middle.  Watch the DE’s that used to get cut by OL all game long.

 

They have purposely legislated the game to prevent massive hits because even if you don’t hit them in th head - the whiplash effect of a player braced for a hit to an unsuspecting WR or a blind side block can cause the same damage.  So no I don’t think a player hitting someone to separate the ball should automatically be legal.

 

The NFL gives a ton of leeway - but hits like Hamlin's should 100% be illegal.  He hit him high around the shoulders and as Meyers ducked there was contact with the head.

 

People constantly complain about the NFL becoming a flag football league (just as people complain about Hockey and less fighting) and people keep saying they will stop watching and yet it’s popularity is going up ever year.

 

 

[NewEra]

3 hours ago, Billz4ever said:

Make the brain the premise of your post even though I've repeatedly said targeting the head should be a no-no and is.  Hitting a receiver to separate them from the ball should be perfectly fine unless you're hitting them in the head.  

 

And FYI, he most certainly did say that.

 

 

I don't know what post you were reading, but that certainly does imply exactly that.  That clearly says that the NFL has grown in popularity due to its restrictions on hitting, which keeps players "healthy".

 

If you're going to come at me, at least come at me correct.

Lol.  You’re so clueless and lack reading comprehension.  But we already knew that. Good bye.

[Billz4ever]

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

Nope - Popularity has increased even with the league legislating out the big hits of the players you mentioned.
 

Changing the hits has allowed many players to stay healthy and continuing to play, which was something the fans liked and actually demanded, but the popularity has risen exponentially and created more exposure.
 

The injuries like ACLs still happen, but watch QBs like Kelly get killed standing in the pocket.  Watch the WRs get knocked out going across the middle.  Watch the DE’s that used to get cut by OL all game long.

 

They have purposely legislated the game to prevent massive hits because even if you don’t hit them in th head - the whiplash effect of a player braced for a hit to an unsuspecting WR or a blind side block can cause the same damage.  So no I don’t think a player hitting someone to separate the ball should automatically be legal.

 

The NFL gives a ton of leeway - but hits like Hamlin's should 100% be illegal.  He hit him high around the shoulders and as Meyers ducked there was contact with the head.

 

People constantly complain about the NFL becoming a flag football league (just as people complain about Hockey and less fighting) and people keep saying they will stop watching and yet it’s popularity is going up ever year.

 

 

Quote

Changing the hits has allowed many players to stay healthy and continuing to play

There it is again.

 

I would love to see the injury data from 20 years ago that shows there's any truth to this whatsoever. I don't ever recall a Kelly-led Bills team ever being as injured as this team has been this year.

 

And I never said hits like Hamlin's should be legal.  

 

I said hits that are not targeting the head should be legal if they are to separate the receiver from the ball.

 

Expecting DBs to simply allow receivers to catch the ball is ridiculous, especially considering every rule already in effect right now is designed to give the advantage to the receivers because the league likes scoring. Might as well make DBs play with one arm tied behind their back if the ball is literally the only thing they can play in the secondary.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Billz4ever

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, Billz4ever said:

There it is again.

 

I would love to see the injury data from 20 years ago that shows there's any truth to this whatsoever. I don't ever recall a Kelly-led Bills team ever being as injured as this team has been this year.

 

And I never said hits like Hamlin's should be legal.  

 

I said hits that are not targeting the head should be legal if they are to separate the receiver from the ball.

 

Expecting DBs to simply allow receivers to catch the ball is ridiculous, especially considering every rule already in effect right now is designed to give the advantage to the receivers because the league likes scoring. Might as well make DBs play with one arm tied behind their back if the ball is literally the only thing they can play in the secondary.

 

Just take 2 seconds to listen to the players - my god don’t be dumb.

 

They would literally take players that got knocked out - give them smelling salts and put them back in the game.  That guy is out 1-2 weeks minimum now because of the past injury and CTE suits.

 

Kelly talks all the time about getting hit in the Super Bowl and playing for over a Quarter and having no recollection because of a concussion.  The offensive players knew he was concussed because he was struggling to even get proper plays out.  He isn’t alone - all around the league guys would “get their bell rung” and be expected to not miss time.  
 

The outrage for what happened to Tua never occurred in the past - literally guys with active concussions would be put right back into the game.  DB’s and Safeties would head hunt WRs - guys like Atwood would just destroy guys with shots around the head.  

 

It isn’t even a question about whether there were more - the guys that played took and gave hits that would be illegal and players played with concussions and other injuries because of the manhood code and the fact that missing games meant a chance at losing your job when the money wasn’t enough to retire on.  The stories are all over - if you listen and the NFL points out all the time the reason for changes.

 

If you go back to the late 90’s and early 2000’s with rules like “in the grasp” they were trying to reduce QB injuries as the league was seeing many teams lose starting QBs to injury do to hits both high and low.  They started to afford extra protections and allowed QBs to throw the ball away outside the pocket as owners wanted to protect assets. 
 

Then came more WR protections and defenseless WR rules and DE protections by eliminating chop and cut blocks especially on engaged rushers.  The NFL followed that up with RB protections on lowering the helmet to hit or when running to protect players.  Are you suggesting they put these rules in place without data on injury history and concussion data?  The NFL made huge money on the hits of players like Lott and Atwater, but realized the fans did not leave as they removed those plays and the increased scoring added fans.
 

No one is expecting DBs to allow a catch - the target zone is just smaller than it used to be.  If Hamlin hits the WR in the mid section with his shoulder - he is probably fine, but that is not what he did.  Big hits still happen, but the NFL is using penalties and ejections to move those hits lower - once they stop the high shots - you will see them legislate against more shots at the knees or below - just as they did with QBs and then blocking.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Rochesterfan

[Irv]

The thing I don't understand his how he was "defenseless".  He ducked to protect himself.   Isn't that a form of defense?   IDK.   

 

On another note, I do think the league has made some good rule changes.  How many times in the old days did you see a DL sack a QB, lift his arms up as they were going to the ground to put his total weight on the QB as they landed.  That was meant to injure.  No doubt.  Glad that is gone. 

[JohnnyBuffalo]

On 12/2/2022 at 6:48 PM, Buffalo_Stampede said:

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

 

 

What bothers me is the receiver lowers HIS head before contact making the contact with his head more prominent….should not be an ejection for targeting.    If it’s still a penalty…ok, maybe.    Similarly to a guy in hockey turning his back at the last second and getting hit from behind into the boards.    Not much you can do but the intent is vastly different and ejection is not needed.   
 

In any case….hit the friggin guy as hard as you can and make him pay for going for the ball!   
 

Go Bills!

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Irv said:

The thing I don't understand his how he was "defenseless".  He ducked to protect himself.   Isn't that a form of defense?   IDK.   

 

On another note, I do think the league has made some good rule changes.  How many times in the old days did you see a DL sack a QB, lift his arms up as they were going to the ground to put his total weight on the QB as they landed.  That was meant to injure.  No doubt.  Glad that is gone. 

 

I agree and that's why I called it a questionable call.  Especially since Hamlin also ducked to (try to) avoid hitting him high.  The ejection was ridiculous and the league seemingly agrees since they're apparently not going to suspend him.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Doc

[MAJBobby]

I don’t know. I was at the game and NE fans also said it was a BS call. The replay clearly showed Hamlin lead with and make contact with his SHOULDER not head. 
 

so they went with the defenseless WR BS 

[ngbills]

Hamlin tossed but the phi player is not? 

[Tanoros]

On 12/2/2022 at 3:48 PM, Buffalo_Stampede said:

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

 

 

Thanks for sharing. Wow! That hit is worse than I thought. Full shoulder to the head. Yet, what choice does he have in that situation? It’s either let up, or aim as best as you can and hope for a good call when making the hit. That’s such a hard split second decision to make. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

1 hour ago, Tanoros said:

Thanks for sharing. Wow! That hit is worse than I thought. Full shoulder to the head. Yet, what choice does he have in that situation? It’s either let up, or aim as best as you can and hope for a good call when making the hit. That’s such a hard split second decision to make. 

That’s why I believe in eye for an eye rule in these situations. You can come back if the player you hit is able to return.

 

Hamlin actually prevented a TD and forced a FG. That’s his job. And it wasn’t leading with his head. Not much more he could do besides just allowing the catch.

[Tanoros]

5 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

That’s why I believe in eye for an eye rule in these situations. You can come back if the player you hit is able to return.

 

Hamlin actually prevented a TD and forced a FG. That’s his job. And it wasn’t leading with his head. Not much more he could do besides just allowing the catch.

Let’s say there was an, “eye for an eye” rule and a Bills player let up due to not wanting to deliver the hit and thus be removed from the game. How would you feel about that? I know I would be furious, especially if it allowed a td. 
 

It seems like there isn’t really a good solution for a situation like Hamlins. He definitely didn’t try to take the Pats players head off. 

[Beck Water]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:26 PM, Rochesterfan said:

Just take 2 seconds to listen to the players - my god don’t be dumb.

 

They would literally take players that got knocked out - give them smelling salts and put them back in the game.  That guy is out 1-2 weeks minimum now because of the past injury and CTE suits.

 

Kelly talks all the time about getting hit in the Super Bowl and playing for over a Quarter and having no recollection because of a concussion.  The offensive players knew he was concussed because he was struggling to even get proper plays out.  He isn’t alone - all around the league guys would “get their bell rung” and be expected to not miss time. 

 

FWIW this is still going on today

 

https://nypost.com/2022/10/06/bengals-joe-burrow-ive-forgotten-parts-of-games-after-hits/

 

Quote

Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow said he’s blacked out and lost memory of parts of games after taking hard hits.

 

The 25-year-old made the scary revelation in an appearance on “The Colin Cowherd Podcast” this week as the NFL comes under scrutiny following high-profile concussion incidents.

 

“You start to ring a little bit,” Burrow said. “I’ve never had any lasting effects from a concussion. I’ve been hit and forgot the rest of the game before. That’s happened a couple times.”

 

[nucci]

There were numerous hits on Sunday that were much worse and no player was ejected from the game. Eagles hit on Burks TD is a good example.

[Gugny]

26 minutes ago, nucci said:

There were numerous hits on Sunday that were much worse and no player was ejected from the game. Eagles hit on Burks TD is a good example.

 

I think the Hamlin hit was worthy of a flag; but not of an ejection.

 

I'm just happy that his ejection didn't last longer than four hours.