Defenseless receiver call on the N. Paul hit

then Rueben Randle was defenseless in the endzone.

not processes. Hence, when a guy gets decked and lies motionless, its a flag regardless of how it occurred. That's bs, as it was clearly a clean hit with current rules.

the receiver ducked into the hit, but the DB has to aim lower.

I don't think the Randle INT in the end zone was within the spirit of the rule either, that crew was really anal at times.

In comment 11885464 chris r said:

Quote:

not processes. Hence, when a guy gets decked and lies motionless, its a flag regardless of how it occurred. That's bs, as it was clearly a clean hit with current rules.

^ react, not result.

at full speed I thought it was a great hit and felt it would probably be flagged.

Slo-mo confirmed this for me.

The only potential for flag I could see was Demps leading with his helmet (which is absolutely a flag and maybe what was called in this case - so defenseless vs leading with his helmet - who cares both 15 yd personal fouls), but if that's the case it should be off-setting fouls since Paul used the crown of his helmet too.

Calling it a hit on a defenseless player is wrong.

Maybe the NFL needs to make these plays reviewable.

And before everyone complains about the refs who I agree were bad, the Giants were the beneficiaries of one of the weakest "roughing the passer hit to the head" penalties I've ever seen, if the defender hit Eli's head/neck he barely grazed it.

In comment 11885464 chris r said:

Quote:

not processes. Hence, when a guy gets decked and lies motionless, its a flag regardless of how it occurred. That's bs, as it was clearly a clean hit with current rules.

Agree Chris. I only saw it on an old TV set but I thought the receiver received an accidental helmet to helmet shot. I'd like to see it again in slow motion. It absolutely wasn't a "defenseless receiver" though.

IMO, a "defenseless receiver" is a player with his arms so far away from his body that his torso is exposed. Or even a receiver trying to make a play and not seeing an opponent about to nail him. In this case, the receiver doesn't have the opportunity to protect himself.

In comment 11885463 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

then Rueben Randle was defenseless in the endzone.

I think Randle was. I'm not sure of your point, however.

He clearly turns his entire body and leads with the shoulder. Any head contact was either incidental or occurred between the two Giants.

Paul didn't keep his head up and he ran into some heavy artillery.

Penalty was given for the viciousness of the hit and resulting injury. Whatever justification they want to give, that's what it was about.

but the ref had to make the call in real time. He can't decide that based on replay.

he just aimed too high and crashed face-first into Paul.

defender came in low, ballcarrier lowered his head and shoulder into him.

In comment 11885500 JonC said:

Quote:

he just aimed too high and crashed face-first into Paul.

Hey Jon- hope all is well with you.

Sarcastic or not, this is one of those he ran into my fist plays.

The receiver certainly lowered his head which led to the helmet to helmet hit, but I couldn't tell that in real time...looks like the officials couldn't either. But perhaps that's giving them too much credit; maybe they'd have called it a penalty regardless.

that the Demps penalty and the Randle non-TD seemingly contradict each other.

Paul caught the ball and the pass was called complete because he completed a football move. Well if he completed a football move (taking at least a step or two after the catch) how is he by definition defenseless? Especially when looking at the replay and seeing Demps went in low and Paul ducked into him.

Randle's non catch was upheld because he didn't complete a football move. So am I being off base by saying by definition if a player isn't under control to complete a football move he's in a defenseless position? And the ball was jarred loose because he was speared. So hitting/spearing a defenseless player is ok because it wasn't helmet to helmet?

at best a hit to the head if that, but it's the receiver who lowers his head



but the refs don't have the benefit of replay

Sucks, and people who have said this are right, this type of play draws a flag for the result and viciousness of the hit

In comment 11885490 ray in arlington said:

Quote:

In comment 11885463 Britt in VA said: Quote: then Rueben Randle was defenseless in the endzone. I think Randle was. I'm not sure of your point, however.

My point is, he was no more defenseless than Randle was in the endzone (I did not think Randle was defenseless). Point being, the both caught the ball, made the same football move, and got hit.

In comment 11885504 glowrider said:

Quote:

In comment 11885500 JonC said: Quote: he just aimed too high and crashed face-first into Paul. Hey Jon- hope all is well with you. Sarcastic or not, this is one of those he ran into my fist plays.

Hey glowrider, good to see you posting. We totally agree, in fact he leads with the shoulder.

on Antrell Rolle.

both on the field and off, that perception and image outweighs facts and details.

It's why the Ray Rice situation was a far bigger deal once fan reaction was included, and why those two calls that are bothering Giant fans from last night were interpreted as they were.

Did Randle have both feet down and control of the ball in the endzone? Yes. By the rules we all know it should be a touchdown at that point. But the league has decided that you need to not just catch it, but absorb any hits to prove control. Longer control makes it "feel" more like a TD. That's not the spirit of the rule...they like it visually so that's how ref's are taught to enforce it.

Was Paul a defenseless receiver? No, he was running and putting his head down as he did so. However, was a helmet to helmet hit that looked bad, he got hurt, and it happened immediately after he was a defenseless receiver. Again, that's how the ref's are instructed to call that play, because it just "feels like" a penalty.

b/c he was still in the process of making the catch when he lost control of the ball. If he was still in the process of making the catch, then he was a defenseless receiver, hence the flag.

On review, the play was changed to a completion, but I'm pretty sure they can't change flags on review (except for procedural things like 12 men IIRC). Which means there was no option to pick up the flag at that point.

But the broadcast showed the endzone view where Demps even more clearly shifts his entire body. Paul stuck his head between both Demps and Rolle.

That was dumb though I get trying to protect yourself. Sometimes protection is counterintuitive.

In comment 11885528 Gene said:

Quote:

So hitting/spearing a defenseless player is ok because it wasn't helmet to helmet?

Just spoke to Brian Dawkins on the phone. He said yes.

In comment 11885534 JonC said:

Quote:

In comment 11885504 glowrider said: Quote: In comment 11885500 JonC said: Quote: he just aimed too high and crashed face-first into Paul. Hey Jon- hope all is well with you. Sarcastic or not, this is one of those he ran into my fist plays. Hey glowrider, good to see you posting. We totally agree, in fact he leads with the shoulder.

That's what has me so livid last night. He actively turned his body to make a legal hit. He never squared up or lunged. He lead with his shoulder.

If Paul popped up thereafter, no penalty.

would have been if two Giants were the ones hurt?

I'm guessing a no call, which is what it should have been in the first place.

At full speed, when Paul hot hit and the ball appeared to fall incomplete, there might have been a bsis for calling a hit on a defenseless receiver. Once they went to replay and determined the pass to be complete because Paul caught the ball and got both feet down (and that he made a "football move" by lowering his head), then they should have picked up the flag since he apparently was a runner/ballcarrier, not a defenseless receiver. The Redskins should have gotten one or the other (reception or penalty), not both.

In comment 11885560 FJ said:

Quote:

At full speed, when Paul hot hit and the ball appeared to fall incomplete, there might have been a bsis for calling a hit on a defenseless receiver. Once they went to replay and determined the pass to be complete because Paul caught the ball and got both feet down (and that he made a "football move" by lowering his head), then they should have picked up the flag since he apparently was a runner/ballcarrier, not a defenseless receiver. The Redskins should have gotten one or the other (reception or penalty), not both.

FJ, totally agree and was barking at Mike Carey on TV last night as his call was identical to the eventual on-field call.

In comment 11885560 FJ said:

Quote:

At full speed, when Paul hot hit and the ball appeared to fall incomplete, there might have been a bsis for calling a hit on a defenseless receiver. Once they went to replay and determined the pass to be complete because Paul caught the ball and got both feet down (and that he made a "football move" by lowering his head), then they should have picked up the flag since he apparently was a runner/ballcarrier, not a defenseless receiver. The Redskins should have gotten one or the other (reception or penalty), not both.

Penalties are not reviewable, once it went to replay, nothing good was going to happen for the Giants on that play. They can't pick up the flag after viewing the replay, as far as I know.

If a guy tucks in the ball and lowers his head for contact his obviously isn't defenseless.

not one of the talking heads on CBS had the guts to call the play as it really happened.

With full control of it (as Paul did) are not called defenseless, especially if they lower their head, trying to smash through - bad call.

Randle caught the ball at the one yard line, took two steps then crossed the plane of the end zone. TD (another bad call)

I would like an explanation from the league as to what a players is supposed to do in that situation? Not hit him? It's a tough game. That call irked me last night. I also thought the Randle call was BS as well. Over the line, possession and 2 feet down.

Quote:

A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player.

And here's the kind of contact forbidden when a player is in a defenseless posture:

Quote:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and (2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

both of them should have dove for his knees?

Randle caught the ball in the end zone.

I'll take the flag. The receiver didn't get back into the game and the hit is on tape for next week's opposing receivers to have a good look at.

As a Giants fan, of course that wasn't a flag.

But, you know, if that was Cruz who got lit up like that, well, maybe I would see things from another angle.


Regardless, the Washington team got their asses handes to them in their own house. That's not a beating their likely to forget.

be somewhat angry at the Giant for lowering his head which would have led to the concussion.

On the replay, it doesn't look that way, but that call would of made more sense.

Randle would of been better off catching the ball on the one yard line and backing into the endzone. The criteria on what is a catch in the endzone has become ridiculous. Bill Polian was on the Opening Drive this morning with Bob Papa. Bob asked about the Randle play and Polian basically said that it was too hard for refs to make a different call in the endzone than in the field, so they keep the criteria for a catch the same.

Neither Rolle nor Demps went down or left with a concussion.

the players body tense up and brace for the hit. That negates any idea that he was defenseless.

In comment 11885493 glowrider said:

Quote:

He clearly turns his entire body and leads with the shoulder. Any head contact was either incidental or occurred between the two Giants. Paul didn't keep his head up and he ran into some heavy artillery. Penalty was given for the viciousness of the hit and resulting injury. Whatever justification they want to give, that's what it was about.

Exactly. Demps didn't lead with his helmet

by a millisecond. But Demps will get the fine.

There is a single thing that is called corrctly.

And kudos to #57 for doing what he does best.

which to me it looked as if the penalty should have been called on Rolle for helmet to helmet if anything. I am not even sure Demps hit his helmet.

he had the ball clean for at least 2 or 3 yards,demps led with his shoulder and he lowered his head causing the helmet to helmet hit,no way you can penalise the defender when the reciever lowers his head and instigates the impact like that

it was the force of rolle slamming the almost stationary reciever against demp that actually knocks the ball out
if anything it should be a catch and fumble

in the replay booth who can radio the ref,and the ref can ask the replay official for advice before making any call why dont they do this already?

Because I think the bad calls generally even out and the idea that the officials are out to get your team is homerism at its worst

That said, the Randle and Paul calls were two of the worst I have ever seen. The Paul call was obviously political in the sense that the NFL is reacting to all the negative press about CT and concussions

The Randle call was ludicrous. He had taken three steps in the end zone and the ball came out because Randle relaxed, knowing that he had a TD.

What is troubling, though, is that the officials in the booth are backing up bad calls so as not to make their peers on the field look bad. If there is a clear violation of the rules, the booth will overturn the call. But when it is a judgment call they won't. Even when it is egregiously wrong like the Randle TD

In comment 11885969 oipolloi said:

Quote:

Because I think the bad calls generally even out and the idea that the officials are out to get your team is homerism at its worst That said, the Randle and Paul calls were two of the worst I have ever seen. The Paul call was obviously political in the sense that the NFL is reacting to all the negative press about CT and concussions what about the phantom roughing the passer, blow to the head on Eli's 1st completion? The Randle call was ludicrous. He had taken three steps in the end zone and the ball came out because Randle relaxed, knowing that he had a TD. What is troubling, though, is that the officials in the booth are backing up bad calls so as not to make their peers on the field look bad. If there is a clear violation of the rules, the booth will overturn the call. But when it is a judgment call they won't. Even when it is egregiously wrong like the Randle TD

I missed the Giants first drive, so not sure what you are referring to

Not considered "defenseless", otherwise, almost half the hits on RBs would be a penalty.

The GIF above clearly shows Paul catching the ball and "running" with it (2 steps according to my count after he secures the ball).

The call doesnt make any sense.

And if they had called it helmet to helmet, it would've been wrong too. Rolle and Demps both lead with their shoulders.

In comment 11886036 oipolloi said:

Quote:

I missed the Giants first drive, so not sure what you are referring to

Eli completed a pass, Skins called for roughing the passer. It was a ticky tack call. The Skin player's hand barely grazed his helmet, ref called it a blow to the head.

obviously he goes to the ground to make the catch and the ball pops out; but somehow he's down by contact - just a very, very, very bad call. along with him lowering his head to take on the defender. and the randle call even worse; the refs are just wusses who have no guts to change the wrong call. if it was a td, it would have stayed a td. you get two feet down, it's a td. that's it. no football move necessary in the endzone.

That makes it even more convincing.

I do recall him taking two steps with the ball in firm grasp - that's a "football move" anywhere; TD, no matter what happens a micro-second afterward.

That guy did show the primitve spinal reflex associated with complete concussion. The refs let emotion get in the way.

In comment 11886075 Geomon said:

Quote:

And if they had called it helmet to helmet, it would've been wrong too. Rolle and Demps both lead with their shoulders.

This is one of the better angles I referred to above. It is absolutely clear as day that was clean as a whistle. Vicious hit, but legal.

In comment 11885969 oipolloi said:

Quote:

Because I think the bad calls generally even out and the idea that the officials are out to get your team is homerism at its worst That said, the Randle and Paul calls were two of the worst I have ever seen...

I disagree. Think back to the regular season game in 2011 vs. Green Bay. That was such lousy officiating, many people were sure the game was fixed no matter how far fetched that might sound. There were 3-4 totally bad calls that led directly to the Packers win. They weren't debatable at all like the 2 bad calls Thursday night.


How soon we forget.