Was that fuller hit a penalty?

[botfly10]

The problem is that refs are throwing flags based on *perceiving* what *might* have happened, rather than throwing flags based on what they actually saw.

That shouldn't have been a flag, because he didn't hit him in the head. And the ref couldn't have seen him hit him in the head, because he didn't.

the broadcasters were sitting there talking about how Fuller hit him in the head and neck WHILE watching a slow motion replay. And I'm sitting there looking, just like what the fuck are you even talking about?

 

[Bearly]

I think that the WR was already giving himself up had something to do with how he ultimately got hit and the refs making the call. There is only so much you can anticipate as a player and the current rules don't leave a margin for error. That Fuller is sideways here and not clearly 'trying' to spear the guy lets you know he wasn't intentionally head hunting but there's no question he wanted to rock the guy as hard as could within the rules. Just so happens he hit him higher than intended. Shit happens. If he didn't hit his head here, it would have kicked to the right on impact but instead it stayed very stable, indicating the head was hit simultaneously with the body.

 

[Visionman]

View attachment 7714
I think that the WR was already giving himself up had something to the refs making the call as well. There is only so much you can anticipate as a player and the current rules don't leave a margin for error.

Obviously you’ll only see what you want you see. Why though ...I have no idea.

 

[dennehy]

There is clearly no launching or 'forcible strike' to the head or neck, or whatever the term is in the rule book. What Fuller did appears to be the opposite of launching. I also don't think the receiver was defenseless at the time of the hit.

It's obviously a judgement call though.

 

[Bearly]

I just used that rule to show you how it WASNT a penalty...lol

But you’re too dug in on your point to see it...

Using the fine print in launch, LOL.

 

[Visionman]

Using the fine print in launch, LOL.

The wording is there for a purpose. Why post the actual rule and then procede to argue that it doesn’t really matter? Lol

 

[Bearly]

The wording is there for a purpose. Why post the actual rule and then procede to argue that it doesn’t really matter? Lol

Then look it up and read the entire rule;
(3) “Launching” (springing forward and upward) into a defenseless player, or otherwise striking him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player’s neck.

The initial quote was to answer a question about which rule was possibly violated, not a to argue the minutia.

I don't like it either but there's what happened.

 

[DeerBrinker34]

Horrible calls on the Fuller hit, the PI on Fuller and the PI on Johnson at the 1. Frankly, I'm getting really fucking sick and tired of these officials screwing the Bears over every single week this season.

With that said, Al Riveron and the NFL could give two shits about my opinion.

 

[dennehy]

The PI on Fuller was pretty obviously PI, it just got me agitated because of the non-call PI on Robinson which was equally as obvious.

 

[Visionman]

Then look it up and read the entire rule;
(3) “Launching” (springing forward and upward) into a defenseless player, or otherwise striking him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player’s neck.

The initial quote was to answer a question about which rule was possibly violated, not a to argue the minutia.

I don't like it either but there's what happened.

He did not FORCIBLY strike the player, as has been proven repeatedly to you, even though you went out of your way to find the ONE angle (in a still shot) that seems to show it, when other angles, and the video, show the truth. But like I said...continue in your fantasy land.
Did the Bears cost you a fantasy win and make you angry? Lol

 

[Bolek]

I thought it was a perfectly legit, hard shoulder to shoulder hit. With that said, it looked pretty vicious real time and K Fuller has been laying these for the last 2 or 3 weeks. Maybe he is pissed no one is passing his way?

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Horrible calls on the Fuller hit, the PI on Fuller and the PI on Johnson at the 1. Frankly, I'm getting really fucking sick and tired of these officials screwing the Bears over every single week this season.

With that said, Al Riveron and the NFL could give two shits about my opinion.

Riveron is terrible, why he's the guy for review is a mystery.

 

[Bolek]

The Fuller hit is here at about 4:12:

It's really tough to tell if the receiver's head is contacted by any part of Fuller. If it was it wasn't more than a brush imo.

It was clearly shoulder to shoulder contact, with helmet of neither player touching anything. I dont know what you guys are watching

 

[Bolek]

The call. What else would we be talking about?
Unnecessary roughness.

h) If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver’s head or neck area—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver’s neck.

League doesn't want guys to square up and launch at defenseless WRs still in the process of catching a ball. It's a different game than 10 years ago. Like I said, I also think the protections have gone too far but they play by the rules.

So which is it, helmet to helmet or hitting a defensless receiver? You seem to be flip flopping on this (and wrong on both accounts btw).

 

[Bearly]

He did not FORCIBLY strike the player, as has been proven repeatedly to you, even though you went out of your way to find the ONE angle (in a still shot) that seems to show it, when other angles, and the video, show the truth. But like I said...continue in your fantasy land.
Did the Bears cost you a fantasy win and make you angry? Lol

I stilled the same vid everyone has used. Took 30 sec to screen capture a paused vid. How am I angry? I'm clearly less intense about this than you are and said I'd prefer if that wasn't called. I'm clearly not the one wound up about this, just trying to supply actual evidence as to why it was called. Don't know why you're making a mountain out of that mole hill of actually doing more than just talking out my ass. As long as you quote me and imply all sorts of bullshit about my motives, I'll reply. I'm simply reinforcing my opinion with evidence as opposed to opinion or talking innuendo. I'm fine if you disagree but you got aggressive and emo about it before you even knew which play was in question. Don't expect me to roll over just because you come at me with that bullshit.

 

[Bearly]

The PI on Fuller was pretty obviously PI, it just got me agitated because of the non-call PI on Robinson which was equally as obvious.

This. No officiating crews are identical in their takes but consistency in games is important. My point in this instance was always that this was in the realm of an acceptable call but I sure get that consistency is a big issue this year.

 

[Bort]

This thread is annoying because @Bearly is the only one who seems to understand the rule.

If you launch yourself at a defenseless receiver, and there is any contact whatsoever to the receiver's head or neck area (even if incidental, even if 99% of the contact is shoulder-to-shoulder) it is a penalty. Fuller made contact with the WR's head/neck area, so it's a penalty.

I don't like the rule, especially because receivers often tuck their heads down initiate the contact with their head/neck areas, but that's the rule.

 

[remydat]

I would add that this is not like last week. Last week, the WR was not defenseless because he took a third step which in effect is a football move. Thus, he had already secured the catch under the rules so can't still be defenseless. Hence why the flag was picked up and it was ruled a fumble.

In the vid above, Fuller hits him just after the 2nd step so technically he is not out of the defenseless WR rule because he has yet to make the third step that would be considered a football move.

In short, Fuller is a hair early in this hit as compared to last week's. If he had taken the 3rd step then I think like last week, it would be deemed a catch, fumble and no penalty.

 

[Bearly]

And none of us would have complained if it went uncalled. Close one but we understand. Can't blame Fuller for anything there and why it the rule kinda sucks. He was in a position where there were no great choices. It happens.

 

[IBleedBearsBlood]

That's the bottom line. Any jarring hit is probably getting flagged. The only two possible strategies on this for defenses:

1) Do it anyway and don't let it impact how you play the game.
or
2) Hit a guy so low that an argument can't possibly be made that it was an illegal hit.

I can see #2 becoming the norm and resulting in A LOT of lower-body injuries.

Or three, don’t hit him hard and just wrap him up. It will be harder to tackle and he may slip out but that’s the tackle the NFL wants. Anything hard hit, even legal, will get a flag for hitting a defenseless player.