Why do Shazier apologists immediately reference the "Defenseless Receiver" Rule, 12-2-7 when...

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

...it is not the Rule he violated (including the NFL apologists regarding the hit)??? Seems rather odd and a clear obfuscation imho. The Rule he violated is the prohibition against "Spearing" which is referenced specifically in Rule 12-2-8 and in action "i" under Rule 12-2-6 "Unnecessary Roughness". I also find the excuse that Shazier simply couldn't avoid dropping his head at the last second and delivering it intentionally into Bernard's head to be laughable. Had he simply continued to "run through and wrap up" Bernard with his "head up", rather than drop his helmet at the last second - which is IN FACT the illegal portion of his hit, there is no way he knocks Bernard unconscious.....nor is his hit remotely as dangerous. Dropping his head such that the crown of his helmet was the first part of his body to impact Bernard in the head is SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED as the illegal portion of his hit in Rule 12-2-8 and to claim that it was "necessary" for Shazier to drop his helmet such that the crown of his helmet was the first part of his body to contact Bernard is just plain silly -- beyond silly really. Again, the action of dropping your head INTENTIONALLY such that the crown of your helmet becomes a weapon is the very wording of the NFL Rule that Shazier quite clearly violated, Rule 12-2-8, so it is rather silly to claim that the hit was "legal" given Shazier's actions which were in direct contravention of Rule 12-2-8 - a rule that has existed for decades as an illegal "Personal Foul", dangerous, unnecessary and "cheap shot" hit.

 

[Alphalion75]

And the purpose of this exercise? The game is over. Every single football game played has some controversial call(s). Get over it already.

 

[Westcoast24]

...it is not the Rule he violated (including the NFL apologists regarding the hit)??? Seems rather odd and a clear obfuscation imho. The Rule he violated is the prohibition against "Spearing" which is referenced specifically in Rule 12-2-8 and in action "i" under Rule 12-2-6 "Unnecessary Roughness". I also find the excuse that Shazier simply couldn't avoid dropping his head at the last second and delivering it intentionally into Bernard's head to be laughable. Had he simply continued to "run through and wrap up" Bernard with his "head up", rather than drop his helmet at the last second - which is IN FACT the illegal portion of his hit, there is no way he knocks Bernard unconscious.....nor is his hit remotely as dangerous. Dropping his head such that the crown of his helmet was the first part of his body to impact Bernard in the head is SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED as the illegal portion of his hit in Rule 12-2-8 and to claim that it was "necessary" for Shazier to drop his helmet such that the crown of his helmet was the first part of his body to contact Bernard is just plain silly -- beyond silly really. Again, the action of dropping your head INTENTIONALLY such that the crown of your helmet becomes a weapon is the very wording of the NFL Rule that Shazier quite clearly violated, Rule 12-2-8, so it is rather silly to claim that the hit was "legal" given Shazier's actions which were in direct contravention of Rule 12-2-8 - a rule that has existed for decades as an illegal "Personal Foul", dangerous, unnecessary and "cheap shot" hit.

Let it go guy.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

And the purpose of this exercise? The game is over. Every single football game played has some controversial call(s). Get over ithe already.

Well the NFL is their own worst enemy by allowing absurd "anti player safety", unnecessary hits such as this (especially when the "act" is specifically called out not only in its own specific rule, but also in the "Unnecessary Roughness Rule, 12-2-6" as one of the specific unnecessary roughness acts in item "i" of the rule). The NFL's chickens are coming home to roost and it is unquestionably the fault of absurd officiating which has failed to protect player safety and has allowed hits called out as "unnecessary roughness" and dangerous for far too long - Shazier's hit was bad enough, but then to launch into a defense of the unnecessary actions of Shazier (e.g., "glorify them") is just absurd on the part of people allegedly representing the best interests of the NFL - they're doing nothing of the kind with lame, disingenuous defenses of clear rules violations that are unnecessary, beyond dangerous, intended to take players out of the game, hurt them, etc...

 

[ping724]

Well the NFL is their own worst enemy by allowing absurd "anti player safety", unnecessary hits such as this (especially when the "act" is specifically called out not only in its own specific rule, but also in the "Unnecessary Roughness Rule, 12-2-6" as one of the specific unnecessary roughness acts in item "i" of the rule). The NFL's chickens are coming home to roost and it is unquestionably the fault of absurd officiating which has failed to protect player safety and has allowed hits called out as "unnecessary roughness" and dangerous for far too long - Shazier's hit was bad enough, but then to launch into a defense of the unnecessary actions of Shazier (e.g., "glorify them") is just absurd on the part of people allegedly representing the best interests of the NFL - they're doing nothing of the kind with lame, disingenuous defenses of clear rules violations that are unnecessary, beyond dangerous, intended to take players out of the game, hurt them, etc...

OMG the game was Saturday right? Move on !!

 

[rjg82]

I agree the rule is ambiguous

The rule was put into effect to protect "defenseless" players and to make sure the defensive player doesn't line up the offensive target and then lead with the crown. Typically the bang bang plays aren't called. I think only a few have been called since the rule into effect in 2013

Also leading with the crown is legal within the tackle box

But I do agree this goes against what the NFL preaches and the ongoing concussion issues.

 

[Alphalion75]

Well the NFL is their own worst enemy by allowing absurd "anti player safety", unnecessary hits such as this (especially when the "act" is specifically called out not only in its own specific rule, but also in the "Unnecessary Roughness Rule, 12-2-6" as one of the specific unnecessary roughness acts in item "i" of the rule). The NFL's chickens are coming home to roost and it is unquestionably the fault of absurd officiating which has failed to protect player safety and has allowed hits called out as "unnecessary roughness" and dangerous for far too long - Shazier's hit was bad enough, but then to launch into a defense of the unnecessary actions of Shazier (e.g., "glorify them") is just absurd on the part of people allegedly representing the best interests of the NFL - they're doing nothing of the kind with lame, disingenuous defenses of clear rules violations that are unnecessary, beyond dangerous, intended to take players out of the game, hurt them, etc...

...and on and on and on he goes.

 

[mtnlion]

 

[john4psu]

It's because Shazier is a Steeler. In many Steeler fans' minds a Steeler can do no wrong. Same applies at Pitt and for Ohio State. I do not subscribe to that line of thinking.

 

[91Joe95]

I missed it, did Shazier get fined or suspended?

 

[dbsteel]

Clean hit.

 

[wslee1]

This from Mike Florio, NBC Sports:

"First, Bernard had the ball long enough to become a runner. As a runner, he wasn’t defenseless. Since he wasn’t defenseless, he could be hit in the head or neck area, and with Shazier’s helmet.

Indeed, the fact that Bernard had the ball long enough to complete the catch and make his loss of possession a fumble means that Bernard had become a runner.

Second, the ban against use of the crown of the helmet doesn’t apply in a bang-bang situation. It requires the person delivering the blow with the crown of the helmet to “line up” the target. While close, that’s not what happened between Bernard and Shazier.

So Shazier rightly wasn’t flagged, and he should be omitted from the coming flurry of fines. Bengals fans may not like that, but it reflects a correct interpretation of the rules."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/11/shazier-non-call-was-the-right-call/

Just sayin, there are different opinions on this hit.

 

[dwiz]

Just sayin, there are different opinions on this hit.

Yeah, his (and his 7 different threads about his wrong opinion) and then everyone else in the world.

 

[manofsteel200]

I'm a die hard Steelers fan. Shazier should have been flagged. And while the two hits are separate issues, I think the Burfict hit is way more dangerous and the punishment is deserved.

I was shocked Shazier didn't get flagged.

 

[Thorndike2012]

I must admit that I too was surprised that there was no flag. Not because the hit was illegal (it clearly was not), but because this seems to be just an automatic call anymore.

News flash! People have heads! And when two people run into each other they very often bump heads! I know this will come as a shock to some of you...

 

[Obliviax]

There are a couple of major differences between the various calls. Shazier's hit was a "football hit" in that the player had the ball and was advancing the ball. He saw the hit coming and had the opportunity to prepare himself.

As for Shazier, he comes in and hits the player square. He DOES lower his head and hit with the crown, which is a penalty. However, that is a very "bang-bang" play and it is often called. Its also often not called. So it is something of a 50-50 call. Had they thrown the flag, I'd have had no problem with it. I also don't have a problem with the not throwing a flag on it.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I agree the rule is ambiguous

The rule was put into effect to protect "defenseless" players and to make sure the defensive player doesn't line up the offensive target and then lead with the crown. Typically the bang bang plays aren't called. I think only a few have been called since the rule into effect in 2013

Also leading with the crown is legal within the tackle box

But I do agree this goes against what the NFL preaches and the ongoing concussion issues.

The "Defenseless Player" Rule is 12-2-7 and was established in 2013, but it has zero to do with Spearing being illegal under its own rule, 12-2-8 and named as an illegal act (act "i") in the "Unnecessary Roughness Rule", Rule 12-2-6i. Spearing has ALWAYS been illegal at all levels of football including the NFL and the "No Spearing Rules" named above long pre-date the "Defenseless Receiver Rule" established in 2013 (any hard "blind-side" hit qualifies under the Defenseless Receiver Rule, 12-2-7, not just the illegal acts named under the "Unnecessary Roughness Rule", 12-2-6, which have always been "Personal Fouls".). Again, SPEARING BEING ILLEGAL has zippo to do with the Defenseless Receiver Rule established in 2013 and long pre-dates it. As far as "spearing being legal in tackle box", the only reason this exemption exists is because OL and DL line up helmet-to-helmet so when they both surge at the snap, of course the crowns of their helmets could collide as they knock each other into each other....however, there is no "momentum vector" that goes into those impacts as there is in an open-fleld INTENTIONAL SPEAR like Shazier's. OL and DL helmets hitting from a foot apart has a fraction of the Momentum and Force (a momentum vector in physics which is equal to mass X velocity.....force is mass X acceleration) that an open field hit like Shazier's has and is many times less dangerous in regards to player safety; hence, the exemption for "tackle box", because it would be impossible to block on the interior without the exemption.

 

[irncty]

What's the difference between Shazier's hit and many of the hits that occur on a run play between the tackles? The only difference is that Shazier's hit happened in open space. If that same play happened between the tackles nobody would be complaining. Bottom line, the Bengal's guy caught the ball and established himself as a runner. Steelers were robbed of a TD on that play.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

This from Mike Florio, NBC Sports:

"First, Bernard had the ball long enough to become a runner. As a runner, he wasn’t defenseless. Since he wasn’t defenseless, he could be hit in the head or neck area, and with Shazier’s helmet.

Indeed, the fact that Bernard had the ball long enough to complete the catch and make his loss of possession a fumble means that Bernard had become a runner.

Second, the ban against use of the crown of the helmet doesn’t apply in a bang-bang situation. It requires the person delivering the blow with the crown of the helmet to “line up” the target. While close, that’s not what happened between Bernard and Shazier.

So Shazier rightly wasn’t flagged, and he should be omitted from the coming flurry of fines. Bengals fans may not like that, but it reflects a correct interpretation of the rules."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/11/shazier-non-call-was-the-right-call/

Just sayin, there are different opinions on this hit.

Your full of $hit, there is no exemption in the rule for a "bang-bang" hit. The only determination in regards to "Spearing" in the rule is if you INTENTIONALLY hit with the crown of your helmet and the rule clearly states that the determination in identifying "intention" is if you DROP YOUR HEAD just prior to impact and direct the crown of your helmet as the "initiating" factor of your hit UNNECESSARILY. You have some seriously thick "Stillers" googles on if you don't think Shazier absolutely did do all of the things that the RULE STATES qualifies the hit as "Spearing" and an illegal act which constitutes a "Personal Foul" violation under both the specific "No Spearing Rule", 12-2-8,AND the Unnecessary Roughness Rule, 12-2-6i, under named act "i" of the rule.

Your long preamble about the "Defenseless Receiver Rule", 12-2-7, which has nothing to do with the multiple Anti-Spearing rules stated above and was only established in 2013, is telling....very telling. I never said Shazier violated Rule 12-2-7 -- he violated Personal Foul Rules 12-2-8 and 12-2-6i which long pre-date Rule 12-2-7 and have been in place at all levels of football since the advent of the "modern era" when the "Unnecessary Roughness" Personal Foul Rules were established.

 

[bkmtnittany1]

The refs also screwed up in blowing the play dead. Shazier picked up the ball and was NEVER touched by a Bengal. Last time I checked a fumble is a live ball. It actually should have been a Steeler TD.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I must admit that I too was surprised that there was no flag. Not because the hit was illegal (it clearly was not), but because this seems to be just an automatic call anymore.

News flash! People have heads! And when two people run into each other they very often bump heads! I know this will come as a shock to some of you...

You're absolutely wrong, Spearing has been illegal under both Rule 12-2-8 and act "i" of Rule 12-2-6i since the "Unnecessary Roughness - Personal Foul Rules" (often called the "player conduct rules") were established at the advent of the "modern era" of football.

 

[Alphalion75]

Your full of $hit, there is no exemption in the rule for a "bang-bang" hit. The only determination in regards to "Spearing" in the rule is if you INTENTIONALLY hit with the crown of your helmet and the rule clearly states that the determination in identifying "intention" is if you DROP YOUR HEAD just prior to impact and direct the crown of your helmet as the "initiating" factor of your hit UNNECESSARILY. You have some seriously thick "Stillers" googles on if you don't think Shazier absolutely did do all of the things that the RULE STATES qualifies the hit as "Spearing" and an illegal act which constitutes a "Personal Foul" violation under both the specific "No Spearing Rule", 12-2-8,AND the Unnecessary Roughness Rule, 12-2-6i, under named act "i" of the rule.

Your long preamble about the "Defenseless Receiver Rule", 12-2-7, which has nothing to do with the multiple Anti-Spearing rules stated above and was only established in 2013, is telling....very telling. I never said Shazier violated Rule 12-2-7 -- he violated Personal Foul Rules 12-2-8 and 12-2-6i which long pre-date Rule 12-2-7 and have been in place at all levels of football since the advent of the "modern era" when the "Unnecessary Roughness" Personal Foul Rules were established.

What is the purpose of this discussion. As I noted earlier, every football game has controversial calls. The game is over and the calls are not going to be overturned. You need to move on.

 

[Westcoast24]

What is the purpose of this discussion. As I noted earlier, every football game has controversial calls. The game is over and the calls are not going to be overturned. You need to move on.

He will still be bringing this up five years from now. It's what he does. It's entertaining at least.

 

[Thorndike2012]

I'm not wrong at all.

One man's job was to be the runner, the other man's job was to stop the runner. During their workplace interaction the two men bumped heads. One man was, unfortunately, injured as a result. The play can only be perceived as 'spearing' in super slow motion, through a biased lens glazed with preconception, disappointment, hatred.

 

[Alphalion75]

Rule 60-T0-HE11 states that once 48 hours has past, discussion of controversial plays must cease.

 

[mtnlion]

I think the bengals have a forum. He can go on there as Burfect-Restores and go into one of 50 different topics on "why the steelers beat us again".

 

[bvillebaron]

What is the purpose of this discussion. As I noted earlier, every football game has controversial calls. The game is over and the calls are not going to be overturned. You need to move on.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but if Shazier's hit was "legal" this is ridiculous. Unless I am mistaken, it is illegal for a RB to lower his head and hit a would be tackler with the crown of his helmet. Shazier clearly lowered his head and hit the Bengal player with the crown of his helmet. Anyone who doesn't think this is a dangerous play is crazy.

I also see that one of the Bengals players got suspended for 3 games for his hit (which was illegal and dangerous too) and I understand he has a past history. On the other hand, the same weekend Beckham got suspended (deserved) an OL (Wallace I think) for the Steelers lowers his head and hits an approaching player AFTER the whistle ostensibly because he was pissed that one of the players on the other team joined in on the tackle of the Pittsburgh RB (aggressive for sure but legal and before the whistle). Last I checked this guy was not only not suspended but not even fined. Go figure.

 

[Marylovesthelions]

And the purpose of this exercise? The game is over. Every single football game played has some controversial call(s). Get over it already.

To show the Steelers had at least one fan on the field. That blown call led to all of ensuing violence. The NFL is a joke that I seldom watch when I have a choice.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

To show the Steelers had at least one fan on the field. That blown call led to all of ensuing violence. The NFL is a joke that I seldom watch when I have a choice.

No doubt, it led to an escalation of dirty play - especially Shazier's classless celebration of his dirty, illegal hit as Bernard lay motionless on the ground. Freaking disgusting that the NFL has made no comment on the blown call or the behavior that ensued following it. Unreal, the NFL is their own worst enemy in regards to eliminating COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY ILLEGAL VIOLENT HITS and thug behavior yet again and they wonder why the "chickens are coming home to roost" in regards to bad PR related to head injuries, etc....

 

[wilbury]

...it is not the Rule he violated (including the NFL apologists regarding the hit)??? Seems rather odd and a clear obfuscation imho. The Rule he violated is the prohibition against "Spearing" which is referenced specifically in Rule 12-2-8 and in action "i" under Rule 12-2-6 "Unnecessary Roughness". I also find the excuse that Shazier simply couldn't avoid dropping his head at the last second and delivering it intentionally into Bernard's head to be laughable. Had he simply continued to "run through and wrap up" Bernard with his "head up", rather than drop his helmet at the last second - which is IN FACT the illegal portion of his hit, there is no way he knocks Bernard unconscious.....nor is his hit remotely as dangerous. Dropping his head such that the crown of his helmet was the first part of his body to impact Bernard in the head is SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED as the illegal portion of his hit in Rule 12-2-8 and to claim that it was "necessary" for Shazier to drop his helmet such that the crown of his helmet was the first part of his body to contact Bernard is just plain silly -- beyond silly really. Again, the action of dropping your head INTENTIONALLY such that the crown of your helmet becomes a weapon is the very wording of the NFL Rule that Shazier quite clearly violated, Rule 12-2-8, so it is rather silly to claim that the hit was "legal" given Shazier's actions which were in direct contravention of Rule 12-2-8 - a rule that has existed for decades as an illegal "Personal Foul", dangerous, unnecessary and "cheap shot" hit.

The Shazier hit was the dirtiest hit of the entire game. It was 100% illegal and should have been called that way. The fact that it wasn't called correctly led to most of the late game nonsense by the Bengals. That doesn't justify what the Bengals did, but the Steelers skated on this hit and the Joey Porter issue, no denying.

 

[mtnlion]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-...-Shazier-takes-down-Gio-Bernard-causes-fumble

you must not be talking about this play. It was so "dirty" it gets a spot on NFL.com site as a big play highlight. Man, look at there are at least 2 Bengal assistant coaches on the field. I wonder why no Steelers ran over and punched them?

 

[ping724]

4 days later now we are blaming someone's poor behavior on somebody else. Yea that's the reason they lost the game, nothing else. 0 for what in the playoffs? How many years without a playoff victory? Sounds like Bengal fans and players have that little brother syndrome thing going on with Pittsburgh.Just Sayin, and I'm a Bears fan LOL.

 

[Thorndike2012]

THE RULE: A ban on a ball carrier initiating contact with the crown of his helmet in the open field or by a defender while making a tackle.

What the rule changed: A 15-yard penalty was called if a runner or a tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players clearly are outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle-to-tackle and from 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team's end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or a tackler against an opponent was not to be deemed a foul.

Why the change was made: The NFL was trying to avoid concussions at all costs, so this rule made it illegal for players to use their helmets as weapons. Using the helmet on hits against receivers already was illegal, so this marked the next logical step.

The reaction: Although NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell backed the rule, current and former players, such as Chicago Bears running back Matt Forte and Hall of Fame running back Marshall Faulk, criticized it. However, NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported that the rule passed by a 31-1 margin, with only the Cincinnati Bengals voting against it.

The impact: Despite controversy upon approval, the penalty was called fewer than a dozen times during the regular season. NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino said in October he was pleased with how players had accepted the safety rule. "We are very encouraged with the results so far," Blandino said. "We have not seen a lot of examples of that throughout the first (five) weeks of the season."

ONE TEAM voted against this ruling: The Bungles.

 

[SkilletHead2]

The rule regarding a defender hitting a running back with the crown of the helmet is limited to the situation where the runner is outside the tackle box and at least three years downfield. Bernard was not three yards downfield -- he was only about a half yard beyond the line of scrimmage.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

The rule regarding a defender hitting a running back with the crown of the helmet is limited to the situation where the runner is outside the tackle box and at least three years downfield. Bernard was not three yards downfield -- he was only about a half yard beyond the line of scrimmage.

Your full of sh!t and making stuff up -- the rule ACTUALLY states the diametric opposite of what you're claiming. Here is a link to the Official NFL Rulebook and here is the applicable rule, Rule 12-2-8:

**************************************************************
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.

Note: The tackle box no longer exists once the ball leaves the tackle box.

Penalty: Loss of 15 yards. If the foul is by the defense, it is also an automatic first down. The player may be disqualified if the action is flagrant.
**************************************************************

The "note" listed in the rule says the diametric opposite of your claim - e.g., "the tackle box no longer exists once the ball leaves the tackle box" and that's a freaking quote directly from the NFL Offficial Rulebook. Demonstrates the thickness of the hopelessly biased "Stillers" fan's googles - you're now making up bull$hit, claiming it is part of the rule (e.g., "outside tackle box and at least 3 yards downfield") when the ACTUAL NFL Rule says the diametric opposite - "tackle box no longer exists once ball leaves tackle box"!!

 

[SkilletHead2]

Your full of sh!t and making stuff up -- the rule ACTUALLY states the diametric opposite of what you're claiming. Here is a link to the Official NFL Rulebook and here is the applicable rule, Rule 12-2-8:

**************************************************************
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.

Note: The tackle box no longer exists once the ball leaves the tackle box.

Penalty: Loss of 15 yards. If the foul is by the defense, it is also an automatic first down. The player may be disqualified if the action is flagrant.
**************************************************************

The "note" listed in the rule says the diametric opposite of your claim - e.g., "the tackle box no longer exists once the ball leaves the tackle box" and that's a freaking quote directly from the NFL Offficial Rulebook. Demonstrates the thickness of the hopelessly biased "Stillers" fan's googles - you're now making up bull$hit, claiming it is part of the rule (e.g., "outside tackle box and at least 3 yards downfield") when the ACTUAL NFL Rule says the diametric opposite - "tackle box no longer exists once ball leaves tackle box"!!

I'm thinking maybe decaf, Franklin.

The rule says precisely what I said it says. Let's review.

If a runner is outside of the tackle box and at least three yards downfield, he can no longer be hit with the crown of the helmet. Bernard was outside the tackle box, but he was not three yards downfield. Hence, he was legit to be hit with the crown of the helmet. The note stating that once the ball leaves the tackle box, it no longer exists, simply means, rightly, that you can't go back into the tackle box once out of it and expect to be protected.

I'm a Giants fan, and have no interest in what the Steelers or Bengals do.

And thanks for putting up the actual rule. Saves me looking it up! Legal hit. IMO, ought not to be, but was.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I'm thinking maybe decaf, Franklin.

The rule says precisely what I said it says. Let's review.

If a runner is outside of the tackle box and at least three yards downfield, he can no longer be hit with the crown of the helmet. Bernard was outside the tackle box, but he was not three yards downfield. Hence, he was legit to be hit with the crown of the helmet. The note stating that once the ball leaves the tackle box, it no longer exists, simply means, rightly, that you can't go back into the tackle box once out of it and expect to be protected.

I'm a Giants fan, and have no interest in what the Steelers or Bengals do.

And thanks for putting up the actual rule. Saves me looking it up! Legal hit. IMO, ought not to be, but was.

Again, you're completely full of $hit - the rule says nothing about being "at least 3 yards downfield" and says the diametric opposite "Note: The tackle box no longer exists once the ball leaves the tackle box.". Your attempt at changing the wording of the rule to fit your agenda speaks volumes as to your allegiance.

Again, the rule AS WRITTEN says the diametric opposite of what you wrote - e.g., the rule applies AS SOON AS the ball leaves the "tackle box" and the ball clearly left the "tackle box" in the play being discussed as you readily admit and attempt to explain away via an "exemption" that DOES NOT EXIST WITHIN THE ACTUAL NFL RULE. IOW, your self-created bull$hit exemptions have nothing to do with the ACTUAL NFL RULE AS WRITTEN.

 

[Woodpecker]

I'll try to resolve this peaceably (I have no rooting interest in either side). The rule defines the takle box as "an area extending from tackle to tackle and from three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line". Skillethead, try to imagine a box with those boundries. Now, if a player (Bernard) is outside that box, essentially outside the tackles or beyond 3 yards downfield, he is outside the tackle box and not able to be struck with the crown of a tacklers helmet. I hope I have cleared this up.

 

[irncty]

Who cares... if a penalty was called maybe the Bungles go down and score. Then Roethlisberger likely doesnt get hurt to close the 3rd quarter. Without the injury, Bungals likely lose because the Steelers would have had offense in the fourth quarter.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I'll try to resolve this peaceably (I have no rooting interest in either side). The rule defines the takle box as "an area extending from tackle to tackle and from three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line". Skillethead, try to imagine a box with those boundries. Now, if a player (Bernard) is outside that box, essentially outside the tackles or beyond 3 yards downfield, he is outside the tackle box and not able to be struck with the crown of a tacklers helmet. I hope I have cleared this up.

Furthermore, the rule very clearly states that AS SOON AS the ball leaves the outside area defined by the tackle on either side, the "tackle box no longer exists" -- only a massive lame-brain would claim that the ball did not leave the "tackle box" as very clearly defined by the rule on this play.