So I noticed

[Handswarmer 645]

no one is talking about the Helmet to Helmet targeting of Sorenson on Higgins causing the fumble

Is it hometown vs what should have been called? Curious to hear your answers

Also, dumbest harshest rule in Football with ball going out of the endzone being given to the Defense. Totally killed Clev's momentum- would have made it 16-10 with getting the ball first in the 3rd qtr.

[Lamardirts 2,114]

6 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

no one is talking about the Helmet to Helmet targeting of Sorenson on Higgins causing the fumble

Is it hometown vs what should have been called? Curious to hear your answers

Also, dumbest harshest rule in Football with ball going out of the endzone being given to the Defense. Totally killed Clev's momentum- would have made it 16-10 with getting the ball first in the 3rd qtr.

It was helmet to helmet but the rules are the rules. Hope they change it in the off-season.  We’ve been screwed by more of those called than we’ve benefited but they missed it.   It would have still been 19-10 at half the TD would have stopped the clock giving Mahomes the same amount of time he needed to March down the field.  

[Docbarnabee 225]

Well everyone knows the rule.  Stupid or not.   Players are coached not to do it for that specific reason,  especially if the play results in a first down.  That was just a dumb play.  There was not a helmet to helmet and yes he was leading with the crown,  but it is pretty hard not too when you are diving.    It is pretty much the same with how the player diving at Mahomes (knocking him out of the game) did.   I really challenge you to put yourself in that position and see if you could do it any differently.  I think the call was proper.   This is a bang bang play where both players launched themselves. 

 

[Chiefmanzada 466]

Was a nice clean hit. The WR got up just fine. Great play by Dan. 

Hands, sounds like you wanted the Browns, a divisional foe. That’s weak. 

We have one rule that gives the defense the advantage and you want to take it away. Do you remember what team you root for? Lmao

[Spfdchiefsfan 621]

8 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

no one is talking about the Helmet to Helmet targeting of Sorenson on Higgins causing the fumble

Is it hometown vs what should have been called? Curious to hear your answers

Also, dumbest harshest rule in Football with ball going out of the endzone being given to the Defense. Totally killed Clev's momentum- would have made it 16-10 with getting the ball first in the 3rd qtr.

Surprisingly, Keyshawn Johnson of all people explained it well this morning, he said that because the guy was an active runner, and the hit was made so low, most times that is never going to be called.  If the guy had been in a defenseless position, like say in the air, it would have been called.  Hate the rule.  Hate it when it happens to us, but both teams have to play by the rules they are given, so it worked in our favor, but the "rule" was enforced correctly.  And yes, I would STILL be bitching about it if it was my team.  

[oldtimer 8,686]

1 minute ago, Docbarnabee said:

Well everyone knows the rule.  Stupid or not.   Players are coached not to do it for that specific reason,  especially if the play results in a first down.  That was just a dumb play.  There was not a helmet to helmet and yes he was leading with the crown,  but it is pretty hard not too when you are diving.    It is pretty much the same with how the player diving at Mahomes (knocking him out of the game) did.   I really challenge you to put yourself in that position and see if you could do it any differently.  I think the call was proper.   This is a bang bang play where both players launched themselves. 

 

^^ this

[Holmes4six! 968]

The rules are the rules. The hit itself was fine because it was not a defense less player. Leading with the crown? Well the intent of that part of the rule is combined with a defense less player. This is not the case. 
I guess this is what happens when you are defending champs and everyone including the commentators yapping about a rule that was enforced the way it is written. 

[reesebobby 5,662]

I would not have been mad of they called it.  But there was a lot going on for the official to think about. Did he cross the goal line first?  Was he in bounds? Then watching for a recovery.  The brain can only process so much. And as has been said, they both launched.  In real time it would take a NASA super computer to process all of it. 

[mex 65,581]

21 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

Is it hometown vs what should have been called?

Nice try

On this particular play, it was the Field Judge who had primary responsibility. That responsibility was:

*ensure the ball carrier stayed in bounds as the play developed

*determine position of the ball if/when it crosses the plane

*ensure ball carrier's position as in bounds the moment the ball crosses the plane

*determine the ball carrier as having possession as the ball crosses the plane

Now, it must also be pointed out that the helmet to helmet contact was not egregious in that both players were attacking the same position on the field (the pylon) with the FJ focusing on the goal line, the plane, the pylon, the football, and the ball carrier's feet.

All of this, in the course of 1.8 seconds.

And you're bitching because the Field Judge, in spite of his PRIMARY duties, wasn't able to determine the INTENT of the tackler, which is the spirit of the targeting rule.

Good luck with that.

 

[KC Warpaint 3,234]

I hate the defenseless player penalty, saw it in the late game where the offensive player decided to lower himself when the defensive player was coming in low ...end result makes it look like targeting when it was not.

[KC Warpaint 3,234]

1 minute ago, mex said:

Nice try

On this particular play, it was the Field Judge who had primary responsibility. That responsibility was:

*ensure the ball carrier stayed in bounds as the play developed

*determine position of the ball if/when it crosses the plane

*ensure ball carrier's position as in bounds the moment the ball crosses the plane

*determine the ball carrier as having possession as the ball crosses the plane

Now, it must also be pointed out that the helmet to helmet contact was not egregious in that both players were attacking the same position on the field (the pylon) with the FJ focusing on the goal line, the plane, the pylon, the football, and the ball carrier's feet.

All of this, in the course of 1.8 seconds.

And you're bitching because the Field Judge, in spite of his PRIMARY duties, wasn't able to determine the INTENT of the tackler, which is the spirit of the targeting rule.

Good luck with that.

 

that is what i said yesterday, i think the ref was watching more where the ball was and where it was going at the point of impact etc...hard to take in all that was happening at that moment. but i bet the rule gets checked out extensively this off season by the competition comittee

[mex 65,581]

1 minute ago, KC Warpaint said:

that is what i said yesterday, i think the ref was watching more where the ball was and where it was going at the point of impact etc...hard to take in all that was happening at that moment. but i bet the rule gets checked out extensively this off season by the competition comittee

It'll probably be allowed to go to replay

but that play was not targeting

furthermore, IMO the ball carriers ought to be charged for targeting if they put their head down in an attempt to bull through a tackler

in college football, the rule gives a huge advantage to the offense

if the NFL goes that route, there's gonna be a lot of pissed off fans

helmet to helmet contact is unavoidable when you have guys running a 4.4 in full contact

[oldtimer 8,686]

1 minute ago, mex said:

It'll probably be allowed to go to replay

but that play was not targeting

furthermore, IMO the ball carriers ought to be charged for targeting if they put their head down in an attempt to bull through a tackler

in college football, the rule gives a huge advantage to the offense

if the NFL goes that route, there's gonna be a lot of pissed off fans

helmet to helmet contact is unavoidable when you have guys running a 4.4 in full contact

yea like the game needs slowed down more

[KC Warpaint 3,234]

1 minute ago, mex said:

It'll probably be allowed to go to replay

but that play was not targeting

furthermore, IMO the ball carriers ought to be charged for targeting if they put their head down in an attempt to bull through a tackler

in college football, the rule gives a huge advantage to the offense

if the NFL goes that route, there's gonna be a lot of pissed off fans

helmet to helmet contact is unavoidable when you have guys running a 4.4 in full contact

Travis said it himself yesterday and it has been said a million times before that....This is a Violent Game!

[West 6,713]

mex,

Well done.

w

[moons314 2,463]

Complete bullshit.  Helmet to helmet was meant to protect receivers going over the middle from getting speared while going up for a pass.  Sorenson had perfect form, head in front, hit with the shoulder.  It wasn't targeting, targeting is the biggest bullshit call in sports, and I'd say the same thing if the tables were reversed.  It was a football play, period.

Killed Cleveland's momentum?  Maybe they shouldn't have fumbled the ball?  Using the logic that fumbling the ball out of the end zone shouldn't be a touchback, then if the offense fumbles out of their own end zone, it shouldn't be a safety?  Same logic, right?  This stuff has been a rule for decades.  This made up controversy from yesterday is stupid.  It's just a bunch of bs talking points because everyone wants to root for the underdog.  

[moons314 2,463]

25 minutes ago, mex said:

It'll probably be allowed to go to replay

but that play was not targeting

furthermore, IMO the ball carriers ought to be charged for targeting if they put their head down in an attempt to bull through a tackler

in college football, the rule gives a huge advantage to the offense

if the NFL goes that route, there's gonna be a lot of pissed off fans

helmet to helmet contact is unavoidable when you have guys running a 4.4 in full contact

Exactly.  The same people wanting to call helmet to helmet on Dirty Dan seem entirely okay with the multiple times that Chubb lowered his head and plowed into defenders.  Can't have it both ways.  

Targeting BS needs to be pared down to it's original intent, which was to protect receivers going over the middle from getting skewered by a Rodney Harrison type who coiled up and unloaded like a spring in the front end of a lowered Ford Mustang.  Every time a helmet grazes another helmet you can't throw a flag.  

[AFCWEST 1,238]

Receiver was stupid to reach the ball out. If he does not its 1st & goal at the one.

[Biggjliv4 1,292]

I don't want to see it go to replay, too many times slowing down a play game by frame screw with the perception on how the play actually occurred in real time.  Gives a false reality of what a player should or should not have been able to do in less than a second.  I get it of it's an egregious miss, but something that is borderline and debatable is a waste of time. 

[moons314 2,463]

1 minute ago, Biggjliv4 said:

I don't want to see it go to replay, too many times slowing down a play game by frame screw with the perception on how the play actually occurred in real time.  Gives a false reality of what a player should or should not have been able to do in less than a second.  I get it of it's an egregious miss, but something that is borderline and debatable is a waste of time. 

Instant replay has done more to hurt the game than help it.  Trying to remove human error from the game creates scenarios where humans are forced to over analyze plays slowed down almost to a frame by frame speed, and interpreting that is no different from human error.  It'll never happen, but axing replay would be a refreshing change for pace and flow. 

[Adamixoye 604]

The fumble rule is fine.  I don't like the argument that it's too steep a penalty for fumbling through the end zone vs. before the pylon.  Well, isn't a safety the same thing?  An inch of difference means you keep the ball vs. losing the ball + 2 points for the other team.

If we have replay, I kind of wish all things (like penalties) were reviewable, even if I don't like how it could affect / slow down the game.  But they're currently not so I don't see why we need to complain about that either; either fix it in the offseason or don't.

I don't think the Sorenson hit was as clean as some of you do, nor do I think it was as egregious as some of the announcers thought it was.  He did put his head down and there was helmet-to-helmet contact, but it also seemed to me that he was trying to go shoulder-to-shoulder.  An iffy no call, like reesebobby I probably couldn't have complained too much if it had been called, but I'm also not going to feel bad about it either.

[mex 65,581]

52 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

yea like the game needs slowed down more

meh... I don't mind a minute or three to make sure the right call is made... blown calls can change an entire game... personally I'd rather have them get it right than have them hurry through it and waste the ENTIRE game on one blown call

that said, the targeting rule needs to be done right... because it has the potential to give a HUGE advantage to the offense

Soerensen did NOT target the ball carrier... they both did their jobs... 90% of football is helmet-first and this is a perfect example

[mex 65,581]

22 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

The fumble rule is fine.

It's burnt us on more than one occasion

[oldtimer 8,686]

Just now, mex said:

meh... I don't mind a minute or three to make sure the right call is made... blown calls can change an entire game... personally I'd rather have them get it right than have them hurry through it and waste the ENTIRE game on one blown call

that said, the targeting rule needs to be done right... because it has the potential to give a HUGE advantage to the offense

Soerensen did NOT target the ball carrier... they both did their jobs... 90% of football is helmet-first and this is a perfect example

agreed but IMO there wasa verygood chance it would of been called "targeting" if reviewed.  I'm for reviewing plays but there becomes a time when enough is enough

[Adamixoye 604]

3 minutes ago, mex said:

It's burnt us on more than one occasion

I know, but that's why I don't care about it here.