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?
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 ™.I'm turning blue over here, probably should not have held my breath.
Surely they have reviewed the hit and decided on the punishment by now, which appears to be nothing.
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?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.
So...uh yes? Is that how we do this?“Article 8. Initiating Contact with the Crown of the Helmet
It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players are clearly outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle to tackle and from three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or tackler against an opponent shall not be a foul.”
Can you please point out to me the “bang bang” exception for that rule? I’m not seeing it. As a note, the word “bang” does not appear in the NFL rule book, much less the words “bang bang”.
Additionally, the only uses of the phrase “line up” I see in the NFL rule book are those regarding the line of scrimmage. I cannot find the passage you are referring to that absolves Shazier.
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.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".
No that's right. No question about that.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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!Lost in all this is the dickishness of the steelers and Tomlin losing control of his coaches. I can't believe Munchak was not thrown out for pulling the hair of an opponent.
Brown is such a determined faker that he's going to miss this week's game.Adam Jones goes as far as to claim that Antontio Brown was winking at him.
Totally. He might get a Grammy AND a Tony before all is said and done.Brown is such a determined faker that he's going to miss this week's game.
Because Rooneys.No fine for Shazier. So I guess the NFL is saying the hit was legal.
"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."No fine for Shazier. So I guess the NFL is saying the hit was legal.
He's going for the EGOT
Looking forward to Pacmans apology.
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."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.
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.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.
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.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.
I'm confused - on the Burfict hit, he was moving at a different angle than the defender."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/
You still expect the NFL to take consistent, logical positions that hold up to scrutiny?I'm confused - on the Burfict hit, he was moving at a different angle than the defender.