Why am I the only one outraged by the obvious helmet to helmet hit on Bell?

Like seriously. That was absolutely ridiculous. He was actually hit in the head by TWO ravens who were leading with their HEADS. And then they take away the touchdown? **** the NFL and the Baltimore Ravens.

 

Thank you for continuing to educate our posters.

 

A defender still cannot lead with and hit an offensive player in the head with their helmet!

 

It's outrageous. The rule was meant to protect the player with the helmet off not penalize him.

That simple and it cost us the game IMO

 

unfortunate, but clean play.

 

It's just one of those plays where you see the unintended consequences of the rule. There really needs to be some discretion or something with the refs in a situation like that. It wasn't like he was gonna go running 40yds for a td. The play was over and they didn't let it continue for like a literal tenth of a second.

 

legal or not. Someone got fined a lot of money for the Steelers on another hit that the whole NFL was up in arms about!

There'd better be a suspension!

 

I didn't like the hit or the call, but seems that both were called right.

 

would have cost the game, IF they never scored a TD. But, they did score.

 

The hits are fair game that's not the prob. The problem is a legal TD was taken away period.

The previous time the rule was applied the runner lost his helmet, ran for 15 yards or so and they called it back where the helmet came off. That's fine. He was on his feet.

But it's not like a person is going to stop midair, put his helmet back on, then fall over the goal line. In that situation it should be applied where you land. Not where it occurred in mid air.

 

We literally lost Velasco because that touchdown was called back.

 

I agree, but that isnt how the rule is. Its where the ball is when the helmet comes off.

 

I disagree, it took away the momentum going into the 2 pt conversion. It forced us to repeatedly do it all over again.
It's hard enough scoring in the NFL on the goalline, never mind making us do it again then again for 2.

 

your trying to use a crystal ball here. no one knows what would have happened. The 2 point play could have gone the same way it did.. no one will ever know.

 

And thus, why I'm complaining about the rule! This should have been though of before it was put in place. They'll say they didn't think of this situation and I say that is a problem. There are always unintended consequence when you institute rules with a wide brush.

Regardless, I hope that kid is alright because he gave everything for the TD and I think we'll here some commentary of disbelief that that TD was taken away

 

HUH? Well, we know it was a TD at that point.

 

ok.. they get the TD 1 play sooner then the did. What does that change about the 2 point play? If you have an answer for that.. its just speculation.

 

Ok I have to ask this because the wife asked me and it is a valid point. If they don't whistle the play dead when he loses his helmet do they maintain possession? Bell was knocked out and lost the ball in the endzone and it was recovered by Baltimore. So as much as the call burns us up it at least helped them maintain possession.

 

Bell held on to the ball though didn't he? Also I've wondered what would happen if the ball came loose on a play what would happen.

 

Probably lost a little time on the clock and can't remember if there was one or two time outs used for injuries there? Could have been what we needed to get the ball back since the onside kick didn't work. Maybe not though.

 

We're done.

 

if the play wasnt called dead with losing the helmet.. it would have been a TD because the ball crossed the plain of the goal line before he lost the ball.

 

Sure hope the kid is OK. That was a vicious hit and a helluva an effort by Bell.