Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Now this is helmet to helmet
This is from last year's GB/AZ playoff game in OT. This is a clear helmet to helmet hit as the AZ defender came full force, head down right into Rodger's head. It's a terrible no call. This one is obvious and blatant.
To Robs point that the NFL does not want Fox to create controversy by replaying it or talking about it and if they did they could lose their rights to broadcasting games, that's ridiculous. Fox showed three replays (two of which were directly meant to show the helmet to helmet hit on Rodgers) and Aikman says that, "Bertrand Berry could have called him there for helmet to helmet on Aaron Rodgers. He led with the crown of his head but they missed that one."
Robs is chasing another phantom with that claim.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Like I've said in previous posts, Jarmon was under control with his head up. He didn't use his helmet to spear Rodgers. This is a non-call 99% of the time, with the exceptions being a similar play against Manning or Brady.
If we can hit Manning the same way next Sunday, we could be looking at 4-2 when a bunch of people were thinking 1-6 after the Rams debacle. The Dolts are another one-dimensional offensive team that we seem to be able to defend well against. It will be interesting.
Hail 'Skins.
I'm not sure why you are disputing the idea that a network would lose out on one of the NFL TV rights contracts if it was constantly hammering the NFL for mistakes. That is just simple business.
What is your point? That the NFL would continue to give TV rights to a network even if they constantly are bashing the NFL?
Please, explain what point you are trying to make and where we disagree.
Deeps - I totally disagree on the "non-call 99% of the time" claim. If anything, people complain that there are too many helmet-to-helmet calls and roughing the passer calls. You have defensive players every week getting called for far less than what Jarmon did and then complaining about it.
Dude, one other point - they are pretty nonchalant about their "criticism" of the ref. Seeing how blatant this hit was and how understated they were in their comments you can see that TV commentators hold back quite a bit.
You are making the case for me that announcers are hesitant to criticize in key moments like this.
Robs,
Perhaps they were "nonchalant" because the non-call was consistent with the way they called the rest of the game. Perhaps they were reserved in their response because it was not a clear cut penalty as you are arguing it is. Maybe your point is moot because Jarmon didn't spear Rodgers or lead with his helmet.
I think you're making a bigger deal out of this than necessary. I doubt Jarmon gets fined for this hit. Rodgers' concussion is just an unfortunate result of a violent hit (or series of hits) in a violent game.
Here's a quote from the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinal (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/104732289.html):
"On normal speed television replay, it's easy to see why the referee didn't catch Jarmon's facemask hitting the top of Rodgers' helmet. The play happened fast and the contact wasn't blatantly intentional. Jarmon tried to pull up before hitting Rodgers, but he lowered his facemask as he slammed into Rodgers, knocking the quarterback on his backside.
It's unclear if the concussion occurred when the back of his head hit the ground or when he got hit by Jarmon."
Robs, if I remember correctly on our phone conversation, you said that they didn't even show the replay. That is incorrect. I just gave you proof that they showed the replay 3 times.
I agree with you that if there were broadcasters who were very emotional and hammered the refs and the league and so forth the NFL would not like that. But that is broadcasting 101. When have you ever heard an announcer fly off the handle on a play? It doesn't happen.
You say Aikman was pretty nonchalant about the call. The guy said that Berry "led with the crown of his head" and that the refs "missed that one." What do you want the guy to do? Do you want him to get all excited and hammer the refs and the call and start blowing a gasket? That is not going to happen for any broadcaster in any sport. You may get someone a little more animated in a locally broadcasted game where the color commentator may very well be a former player of the team being broadcasted (e.g., Laughlin for the Caps). However, in a nationally broadcasted game, no announcer is going to get all animated. I have never seen/heard Aikman get animated but I have heard him a number of times say that that was the wrong call.
He did it in the clip I just posted. He did it in last weekend's Redskin game talking about the non pass interference calls. He did it in a Bear/Patriot game talking about poor pass interference calls against the Pats. He speaks his mind but he doesn't have to go nuts about it. It's called professionalism.
You are funny. First you say they didn't show replays. That much you can admit you are wrong. Then you say that they didn't really criticize for fear of getting their contract with the NFL yanked. It's not true.
You're problem is that you admittedly cannot say when you are wrong. Just admit it here because it is clear and we can move on.
Robs,
Did you watch the game? At one point you said they didn't play the replay, then you say you didn't watch so you'd have to wait for the NFL Replay broadcast? Which is it?
I'm not making a big deal of this. It was a helmet to helmet hit. I saw it immediately on the replay.
If others didn't see it. So what?
All of a sudden, JKSD is bringing out every example he can think of and throwing every discussion we have ever had over the last 5 years on blown calls.
Deeps, I did not watch the Deadskin game but did watch late in the game and overtime after the Bears game was over. JKSD is talking about a conversation we had about the Packers-Cardinals game from last year. The replay issue was about something I said about the NFC Championship game - not this game.
Deeps - you are selectively quoting: Immediately before your quote was the following:
"As for how the concussion occurred, Flynn said he watched on tape the hit defensive tackle Jeremy Jarmon put on Rodgers and felt it was clearly helmet-to-helmet.
"It should have been called," Flynn said. "It was an illegal hit. It wasn't extremely clear on the film, but it looked like he lunged into his head.""
There is no reason to believe that the concussion did not happen on the play. Whether it was on the helmet-to-helmet hit, or when Jarmon landed on Rodgers after he knocked him down doesn't really matter.
We all agree that it was helmet-to-helmet. I suppose the only real disagreement is whether it was obvious or not. It seemed obvious to me. Reading through the blog response posts on the Packers link you sent it is clear that more Packers fans think it should have been called than otherwise. In Washington no one is really talking about it. No surprise there.
Of course Packers fans think it should have been called! Of course Flynn thinks it should be called! They're not exactly the most objective observers now, are they? I didn't include Flynn's quote because it's obvious that he was going to disagree with the refs. What else is he supposed to say?
The fact that the newspapers/blog writers thought that it wasn't obvious is telling. A Wisconsin paper admits that it wasn't a clear roughing penalty and that it isn't clear that the hit caused the concussion.
Let me be clear. I saw the play and I listened to Aikman and Buck. I was afraid a flag would be thrown because it was a hit on the QB. It didn't get thrown. There was no discussion that it should have been thrown. Game over. 'Skins win. It's a non-issue because the play was not a penalty nor should it have been.
OK Deeps, Packers fans are not objective, but you as a Redskin fan who was the beneficiary of a non-call are totally objective. I get it.
If the ref had called a helmet-to-helmet (which he should have in my opinion), it would have been the right call and it would have been indisputable.
It is what it is. Deadskins win (I've maintained that it was a fair win), Packers lose, and the Bears go up a game and a half in the North standings.
I have no reason to be biased in this matter. In fact, I believe my position is that of a realist. I said I was worried that a flag would be thrown because those types of hits get called all the time; however, the fact that it didn't get called isn't surprising to me because of the way Jarmon hit Rodgers. I maintain that the refs made the right call. The Wisconsin writer I quoted doesn't believe it was a botched call. The Packers coaches never complained about a botched call. Aikman and Buck never argued that a call was missed despite having strong opinions about previous pass interference plays that were missed.
No one other than Packers fans, the Packers back-up QB, and you are calling it a non-call. Some articles have been posted calling it a helmet-to-helmet hit. No one is disputing that is wasn't. But even those articles that I've seen don't raise the issue of a botched call. I can understand why the Packers faithful are upset, but I'm not sure why you're so dead-set on claiming the refs missed something.
A helmet-to-helmet hit on a QB who is throwing the ball is by definition a penalty.
If you agree that it was a helmet-to-helmet hit (which you do), then you must realize that Jarmon got away with one.
It isn't that complicated and I am not trying to be controversial.
Missed calls are part of the game and certainly the Packers had other chances to win. I have maintained from the beginning that I don't believe that the Redskins cheated or somehow didn't deserve to win.
You're oversimplifying the rule to make your argument. Jarmon did not use the top of his helmet to spear Rodgers' in the head His head was up and their face masks hit. That is not a penalty. It happens on just about every play in every game. That is why it was not called. That is why no one is saying this was a botched call except for the few people I noted in the previous post.
Deeps - you need to look at the rule. It seems obvious that your problem is that you don't know the rule.
Technically it was a helmet to helmet hit. However, it was not obvious. It seems to come down to a matter of opinion. Robs thinks it is obvious and Deepie and I don't. I watched the game and did not notice it until Robs brought it up the next day.
The ref is right there and he did not see it. Aikman and Buck, who clearly have no problem voicing their disagreement on calls, never said anything about the hit on instant replay. In fact, Aikman said that the INT was the direct result of a linebacker (Jarmon) getting in Rodger's face. There was no mention of helmet to helmet. If you watch the game, you will notice how often Aikman voiced his opinion on the officiating so there is no reason to think that he was trying to hide something on that call.
No players or coaches were ranting and raving on the play so it seems clear that it was not obvious. Robs, I sent you a list of posts from a Packer blogsite (www.packerchatters.com) taken shortly after the game and there were several comments and those individuals did not seem clear on the hit. You can say that there are Packer haters that post to that site and I wouldn't disagree with you. However, the tone of the messages leads me to believe that they weren't Packer haters. The comments were like, "NO WAY! CLEAN HIT!! YOU SUCK!!!" The comments all seemed respectful and intelligent which makes you think that they are all legit and realistic Packer (or at least football) fans. You can disagree with that if you want. We can hypothesize more and delve deeper into nuances and details but the only thing that seems obvious is that the hit was not obvious.
There was no outcry among broadcasters/analysts in the hours after the game. We are still waiting for the supposed fine/suspension that you think will/should be coming to Jarmon. It won't happen.
It's more clear now having the luxury of watching the film and slow motion instant replay it does appear technically that there was a helmet to helmet hit.
It just is not obvious during real time action.
Dude...I know the rule. Here it is if you don't understand it.
"Using any part of a player’s helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protect those players who are in virtually defenseless postures.”
Like I've been saying, Jarmon didn't use his helmet to spear, or butt, or ram into Rodgers' helmet. Their facemasks hit and there is no way it was done "violently or unnecessarily." He was under control and he clearly attempted to avoid contact in the way he came down on Rodgers.
Like I said, you're oversimplifying the rule to make your argument. The rule is clearly open to the refs' interpretation of the hit. It's not as cut and dry as you claim it is, which means they didn't botch the call. In fact, they called it correctly.
Made a mistake in my last post. When discussing the comments on the Packer blog site, I meant to say the comments WEREN'T like instead of the comments WERE like.
Deeps - you viewed it at incidental contact. I don't. It resulted in a concussion and I would say that many refs would have called it. I have seen far less called in plenty of games.
That is why I say Jarmon got away with it.
To me, it was clear - to you it wasn't - no big deal. Had they called it, I am assuming you wouldn't have been complaining because the replay would have shown it to be helmet-to-helmet. Or, maybe you would have been saying it was incidental. Then, you would have been mad instead of Packer fans.
Here is a link to show you that not all Redskin fans agree with you. There are certainly fans who saw the helmet-to-helmet hit.
In addition, here is what one Redskin beat writer said:
"This was one of the worst-officiated games I’ve ever seen. Calls that would have benefited both teams were missed. DL Jeremy Jarmon should have been flagged for a helmet-to-helmet hit on QB Aaron Rodgers on the overtime interception. Jarmon led with his head and connected, even though he lifted his hands to give the impression he was backing off. Considering Rodgers suffered a concussion on the play, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jarmon is fined this week."
See it here.
I don't really give a crap what others think. I know what I think. But, just so you guys can see that there are plenty of people who saw what I saw, I put these in.
I still expect a fine to be announced on Friday - we'll see.
I would have understood a flag on the play. Sure, it would have hurt because it would have kept their drive alive and gotten them closer to FG range but I could have understood the call.
HOWEVER, I still hold the position that it was not obvious. Again, I did not know about the hit until you brought it up to me. No player and/or coach made a big deal about it when it happened. The announcers didn't say anything. I watched post game commentary and highlight shows and I still didn't hear of any thing. It wasn't until the next day when we spoke that I knew about it. So it was not obvious to me and it would appear to many others.
I don't give a crap about one Redskin beat writer or other comments at this point. Sure, it is much more clear because it has been brought to light and we are all able to see the slow motion instant replay. I'm glad for you that it was obvious to you. Congratulations. I'll get you a lollipop. It was not obvious to me and most people when it happened. The comments I sent to you were posted shortly after the game had ended not days after the game when the hit was brought more into light. Every thing is easier in hindsight.
Again, I could have understood a flag on the play but I TOTALLY understand no flag because in my opinion it was not obvious.
Great.
You and Deeps have been saying no one but me and Packer fans think it was a missed call. I am showing you that isn't true.
Don't be so literal.
Many games have missed calls that are not obvious. I have no problem with the non call because it was not obvious.
If it was obvious, you would have seen/heard the outcry from players/coaches/boadcasters/analysts when it happened and immediately after the game in post game interviews and commentary.
I know what are saying. We disagree. But there are plenty of folks who don't share your view. That is opinion.
We know that there was helmet-to-helmet contact. That is a fact. It was a missed call. That isn't an opinion - it is a fact.
One blogger in Fredneckburg and a handful of 'Skins fans that saw the replay and are thankful a penalty wasn't called...Ok.
There's also a handful of people who think the world is going to end in 2012. They must be right.
It's alright. Your point is clear. You think it was clearly a penalty. I, like JKSD, say it wasn't as clear-cut as that. Replay shows their helmets hit so a call could have been made and there would have been little to dispute. The problem is, in real-time, it wasn't so clear AND in slow-mo it's not clear that it was spearing, butting, leading with the head.
Good no-call. It's exactly the type of non-call most football fans expect when they say the rules have softened the league too much.
Beat writer - not blogger.
I give up, Robs.
If you feel the need to speak any further, take it up with my arse because it is the only one who gives shat anymore.
Post a Comment