I missed most if the game so I don't know where in the sequence of events this took place, but shouldn't the fact that a coach pulled the hair of an opposing player be getting a little more press? Can you imagine if Belichick did such a thing?
2015 Bengals: Nobody's Burfict
- Thread starter Rudy's Curve
- Start date
According to sources, having gauged the public's righteous indignation level, league officials have deemed the hit to fall within the parameters of AFC NORTH TOUGH ™.
Uh no.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/11/shazier-non-call-was-the-right-call/
And now back to this forum's tedious rantings when it comes to all things Steelers.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/11/shazier-non-call-was-the-right-call/
And now back to this forum's tedious rantings when it comes to all things Steelers.
Oh well, if one person says no, then I guess that settles it. Shall I post a link that says it should have been a penalty? With or without condescending comment?
From the comments:
So...uh yes? Is that how we do this?
OK, here's a second opinion from Mike Pereira.
http://www.thebig920.com/onair/the-rich-eisen-show-55516/mike-pereira-says-referees-got-all-14264346/
And I'm not even sure Bernard was out of the tackle box as I believe the hit was within three yards of the line of scrimmage.
Any more brilliant Internet comments to post?
Edit: The line of scrimmage was the 23 yard line and Bernard was hit at the 22 so that's not "clearly outside the tackle box".
http://www.thebig920.com/onair/the-rich-eisen-show-55516/mike-pereira-says-referees-got-all-14264346/
And I'm not even sure Bernard was out of the tackle box as I believe the hit was within three yards of the line of scrimmage.
Any more brilliant Internet comments to post?
Edit: The line of scrimmage was the 23 yard line and Bernard was hit at the 22 so that's not "clearly outside the tackle box".
Last edited:
One of the talking heads, on ESPN's NFL Insider on Sunday morning, was very adamant that Shazier's hit was textbook violation of Article 8.
The tackle box is also defined horizontally by the width of the tackles. Bernard may not have been far past the line of scrimmage but he was clearly well outside the tackles.
Wait, are you for or against posting one side of an argument based on something you read online that provides no definitive proof and then authoritatively declaring the subject closed? Now I'm confused.
The Pereira opinion adds something. You can make the tackle box argument. Even posting the Florio link is good for the view point.
But "Uh no"? Unnecessary garbage, and I'm calling you out for it. Discussion's over everyone, NYCSox says it's settled! And we're all whiny dumbasses for thinking otherwise!
The Pereira opinion adds something. You can make the tackle box argument. Even posting the Florio link is good for the view point.
But "Uh no"? Unnecessary garbage, and I'm calling you out for it. Discussion's over everyone, NYCSox says it's settled! And we're all whiny dumbasses for thinking otherwise!
A point that I hadn't heard or seen mentioned: Parry was also the referee for the week 14 matchup. Given all the shit talking in that game you think he would have had the crew even more on its toes than usual to keep control of the game (yes, I understand that it is not his usual crew).
Pereira said something along the lines of he would never have assigned Parry to that game. Just really interesting all around.
Pereira said something along the lines of he would never have assigned Parry to that game. Just really interesting all around.
And what were Nantz/Simms talking about (and there was even a clip of) regarding some show of referee presence during pre-game, that had been directed by the league? I was only half-watching/listening so I missed the details on that, but the gist of it seemed to be that the league anticipated this game might be so chippy that the refs created some sort of DMZ around midfield.
Last edited:
That is accurate. They covered this early in the game. The players were separated by the DMZ zone and they called it something that happens very rarely.
Having the same official on the field for this game after his failure to have any level of control over the previous meeting was stupid on the NFL's part. That guy has no credibility with these players, with that game so recent.
They had a little stupid assed show of force at the 50 yard line during warm ups to keep anyone from crossing that line and starting another scrum. Cute idea but didn't even slow down the onset of chippy.
And some of the earlier personal foul calls actually hurt the ref's ability to maintain control IMHO. Normally you see a foul called early in a game on something borderline as an expression of "that shit ain't gonna fly today" and players adjust. But some of the earlier PF calls were so ticky tack that it may have blown up in the ref's face, coming across as arbitrary for effect. Such as the Wheaton roughness or the call on Foster.
They had a little stupid assed show of force at the 50 yard line during warm ups to keep anyone from crossing that line and starting another scrum. Cute idea but didn't even slow down the onset of chippy.
And some of the earlier personal foul calls actually hurt the ref's ability to maintain control IMHO. Normally you see a foul called early in a game on something borderline as an expression of "that shit ain't gonna fly today" and players adjust. But some of the earlier PF calls were so ticky tack that it may have blown up in the ref's face, coming across as arbitrary for effect. Such as the Wheaton roughness or the call on Foster.
I think this is the worst of the bad acts that game. While not condoning what Shazier and Burfict and Jones did, I can understand it. Players playing a violent game get a little too worked up and lose their cool. An assistant coach pulling an opposing players hair? An assistant coach who works under the same head coach who purposely tripped an opposing kick returner. There's a pattern there and it's not good. Coaches should be held to just as high if not higher a standard than the players and the Tomlin regime pulls this chickenshit. While BB is tarred and feathered for putting a camera in the wrong place, the Pitt coaches are physically involved with the other teams players and its AFC North football baby!
"Regarding the 2013 rule preventing hits with the crown of the helmet, Blandino explained in a weekly officiating video that the play lacked the key element of the player “lining up” the opponent. Blandino said that, because the players were moving at different angles, Shazier wasn’t able to “line up” Bernard."
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/15/blandino-says-shazier-hit-was-not-a-violation/
Personally, I love how the league is all up in arms about concussions and everything they're doing to prevent them yet doesn't think twice about handing possession to the other team when a guy gets blown up, knocked out and fumbles the ball in the process.
The alternative would probably be a rule along the lines of "any player who is knocked unconscious and/or fumbles the ball immediately after a hit to the head is considered to be down (with possession) at the point that contact occurred. The ball carrier must be subjected to concussion protocol and may not return to the game regardless of the diagnosis."
The downside is that you would probably have some cases where a RB fumbles the ball and keels over in hopes that the fumble won't count. Personally I'd be okay with that given the alternatives, but I'm sure there would be some controversy.
Le'Veon Bell actually had a touchdown run taken away in 2013 against the Ravens because he was concussed on the play and his helmet came off. He was actually knocked out entirely but held onto the ball, but per ruling the play was dead the moment his helmet came off.
It would be humorous at first to see some LeBron or soccer level flopping by running backs, but it would get old quick. I do like your idea though. Ridley's concussed fumble comes to mind immediately.
Maybe just make it objective without an opportunity to flop: a hit to the head of the ball carrier by the helmet, shoulder, elbow, fist, knee, or foot of a defender negates any subsequent fumble.
(I put in the list of body parts so that incidental contact with arms, legs, or torsos during ordinary tackling would not count; this could probably be made more precise.)
I'm confused - on the Burfict hit, he was moving at a different angle than the defender.
You still expect the NFL to take consistent, logical positions that hold up to scrutiny?