You have got to be kidding me

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...fl-officials-says-hit-kevin-huber-was-illegal

Note this part of the report:

"Even though he's pursuing the play, he still gets defenseless-player protection. You can't hit him in the head or neck, and you can't use the crown or forehead parts of the helmet to the body."




Some of the comments:

Completely dirty hit, Garvin went blind side head hunting and should be suspended for games. How the refs didnt flag....unreal. If that hit was on a QB on INT return, guy would banned 8 games.

On a kickoff I can see how a crew of six might miss something with 22 guys running at full speed in all directions, but while the punter was face down for three minutes they could have gone under the hood and then thrown a flag, which would have brought the return back to the point of the foul. That of course could have changed the outcome of the game.

He Should Be Suspended For The Season, Pittsburgh Is Full Of dirty Players Always Have Been

The league needs to fine this organization heavily. They have a chronic history of cheap shots and illegal play. It's systemic to the Steelers. A nice $25 million salary cap hit for 3 years ought to enlighten the organization this won't be tolerated...and set them back a decade, which very few people would be sad about.

 

I don't agree with what they are saying, however, were I vocal about that point I would automatically be dismissed since I am a Steelers fan. As for the comments, well, they speak for themselves. Jealousy is a terrible thing but seems to run rampant in most football fans.

 

If he needs to be fined, then so be it. I am just beside myself regarding the rules...and that a player in position to make a tackle would ever be considered "defenseless."

 

A few statements:
The punter WAS TRYING to stay on the play and probably make a tackle
There SHOULD be no defenseless player who is pursuing to interfere on its progress (making a tackle, as an example)
If Garvin doesn't block him, he would have interfered on the play

Yes, it was a brutal hit. But Garvin didn't lead with his head, wasn't aiming at the opponent's head, the opponent wasn't out of the play... and most important: this is football, and hits are part of the game.

If under the current rulebook that's a flag, it's a shame. Shouldn't be a flag, shouldn't be a fine.
Let those people whine all day long, they'll always complain about what happens to the Steelers.
Remember last season's game vs NYG, when Clark was fined for a legal hit on Cruz? Well, that's what I call a reputation flag. I can remember a few days after that, the league's office said it was a clean hit, 3 days later and after that penalty costed us a TD (which they scored after getting a new set on downs, since that play happened on 3rd down and should have settled for a FG).

Our team seams to draw a lot of reputation flags /fines this days.

This issue really gets me mad at the current rulebook, and the current commissioner's policy.
I was a little bit surprised with Coach T's comments on this matter, but probably he's still under some scrutinity since the sideline issue.

 

Probably just a bengal fan cant pay him no attention

 

I believe the verbage of the rule should be changed. I agree it was an illegal hit because you can't hit anyone in the head and neck area. But to say he's "defenseless" is absurd. He's out there to make a tackle.

The point is he can be blocked but not hit in the head and neck area when you block him.

If that is not the case, punters should kick the ball and run straight to the sideline and get out of the play.

But that would leave the team one player short on punt and kickoff returns.

 

New protective gear for kickers and QB's

 

I can completely understand when they're in the act of kicking. But away from that, in the field of play, do they really have extra protection? Not a leading question, I'm just struggling to see how the rule works.

After all, if they do have extra protection from being hit - why not just have your punter line up on ordinary plays in the WR or C position, so every time he's hit you get a flag?

 

I just don't get how a player looking to make a tackle can ever be defenseless. having said that it looks pretty clear to me he stuck the crown of his helmet into that punters jaw. That kind of hit might me illegal against any player.

 

I can understand making punters and QBs after an interception "defenseless" to prevent other players from head hunting them away from the play.

But as others have said, if they are going to be "defenseless" no matter what, then they should have distinct markings on their uniform (or a bell around their neck) so that people know quickly that they have to be blocked or tackled with more care.

I'm curious about the rule interpretation. Suppose Huber had a clear shot at Brown, and the crown of Brown's helmet ended up hitting him in jaw (due to poor tackling technique). Would that be a penalty on Brown, since only the punter is defenseless? Or do those rules only apply to the tackler (or blocker), and not the person being tackled/blocked?

 

Very appropriate that comedy central replayed the "Sarcastiball" episode Mon. night. QBs are going to be wrapped in bubble pack and now...............punters????????

 

The defenseless player is a really stupid rule, I mean what are you supposed to do tip toe around the guy while he is in the midst of chaos on the field. If the punter is truly defenseless and the idea is he should be protected then a rule should be put forth that the punter has to leave the field of play after punting the ball...leaves the kicking team w/one less guy, but hey that's the breaks if he is truly someone who should be protected

 

The NFL sucks. I spend more time on MB than watching the terrible product they're putting on the field each week.

 

I'm old enough to remember when, on a kick off, there was a guy who's sole job it was to immediately take out the kicker.

 

So i guess he should have went low and taken out his knees and ended his career instead of just the season, right Roger? Then of course he'd still be called a dirty player so does it really matter? The pace is way to fast to turn around and rule on everything looking at it in slow motion. I imagine almost every hit could be subject to discipline if you scrutinize it with slow motion replay. The legal "window" to make a tackle or hit on a guy is about the size of Goodells brain...which obviously is very small.

 

Ummm... what?

 

The rule is the rule but those comments are ridiculous.

 

But as others have said, if they are going to be "defenseless" no matter what, then they should have distinct markings on their uniform (or a bell around their neck) so that people know quickly that they have to be blocked or tackled with more care.

How in the heck are players supposed to keep track of who is the punter or kicker on chaotic plays like returns? Unless they make them wear orange vests or something like that, this rule is impossible to follow by the players. And on a field goal, I guess there would be two of these players, as the holder is often the punter. Who thinks up this garbage anyway?

 

If they are going to make QBs and punters defenseless than they should allow those players to be held to compensate the D as well as make them wear different colored jerseys to differentiate them from real players. It's asking way to much to ask these guys to make decisions like who to hit and how hard to hit them at the speeds they play. Football as we know it is dying a very slow death under GODdell and his safety minions.

 

They don't need distinct markings. Just don't hit anyone in the head/neck area and the problem is solved.

Not sure how it's hard to keep track of a kicker.

 

The rules are the rules, and it's clear as a bell. Punters & Kickers are considered defenseless for the duration of the play... that doesn't mean you can't hit them, it means you can't use the crown of your helmet and hit them in the head area. Sheesh people, this is not that complicated. QB's get the same defenseless player protection after an INT, you can't hit them in the head area, PERIOD. QB's and kickers are generally not the physical specimens as Linebackers. Right, wrong or otherwise, they made the rules for player safety and are explicitly written in the rules.

It's not like anyone can really argue that he didn't use the crown of his helmet, the cameras show a perfect angle for the hit, and he did end up with a broken jaw.

It should be pretty common sense by now, try to avoid hitting any players in the head.

 

Actually if Garvin hit any player on the field the way he hit Huber it would have been illegal, Garvin will be fined that's not even questionable: If they had thrown a flag like they should have that runback TD would have been wiped out and possibly could have changed the outcome of the game: Garvin should be reminded of that fact by the coaches: It seems there is always a questionable call, or non call in every game the Hochuli crew is officiating in.........

 

1. I could argue that he didn't "lead" with the crown of the helmet. He led with the shoulder--or tried to. But given the angle he took, the helmet hit H
Huber in the throat/chin area at the same time the shoulder hit the chest.

2. "The rules are the rules." Garvin didn't hit him in the head. he did what he could to NOT hit him in the head, because he lowered his target. But let's just go with the outcome, and that the crown of the helmet hit Huber in the chin. All right. Fine him. Whatever.

3. The enormous elephant in the room is this, and this is where I am having a problem: You can't sit here, as a league, and say you're about player safety when Colts punter Ryan McAfee is allowed to do this:

[video=youtube;aN-KhRp1lhI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN-KhRp1lhI[/video]

And when Jimmy Smith is allowed to do this:

[video=youtube;lse67uHdF5I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lse67uHdF5I[/video]

I see an enormous difference between those two hits and what Garvin did. Garvin aimed for the chest, his shoulder pad out. In the hits I have shown, the defender completed led with the crown of the helmet, no other body part was was being used. But for McAfee and Smith: perfectly legit in the eyes of the NFL. For garvin: an illegal play based on an obsure rule. THIS IS A PROBLEM. Period.

 

Tell that to Ryan McAfee and Jimmy Smith in the clips I have just posted. The NFL is adding more and more rules to its rule book, to the point that none of it makes sense anymore.