Offtopic: Helmet to helmet contact

[jason]

Did you guys see that hit!?!?! Explosive. Amazing. I agree that it's a clean hit, because the WR ducking his head when he sees the contact coming, but how many times have we seen a nearly identical play get called a penalty? I believe we've had a debate or two about the topic on this forum. There is no denying the helmets hit, and Phil Simms is a moron. That is precisely when we have seen the helmet-to-helmet penalty come into play. Over and over again.

 

It's a bogus rule, but if they're going to apply it, then effing apply it.

[BearSox]

It looked to me that it was shoulder pad to helmet.

[Bears4Ever_34]

It was helmet to helmet and the player should be fined.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

If we get Taylor Mays next year, be ready for a lot of that sh*t.

 

His hit in the Rose Bowl was pad-to-helmet just like that one but whatever.

[Bears4Ever_34]

If we get Taylor Mays next year, be ready for a lot of that sh*t.

 

His hit in the Rose Bowl was pad-to-helmet just like that one but whatever.

 

Unfortunately, he's staying in school another year....

[BearSox]

It was helmet to helmet and the player should be fined.

 

I'm almost positive it was mainly shoulder pad to helmet. Perhaps there was some helmet, but it was primarily shoulder pad. And it wasn't an illegal play. It's called playing hard. It was the last thing in Clarke's mind to do that. He wanted to make a big, legal hit, and that's what he did.

 

I'll double check it on my tivo, but it looked completely clean to me.

[DrunkBomber]

It looked like he was leading with his head but it didnt seem malicious. He will probably get fined because of the result of the hit though. Considering the Ravens were talking about how they put bounties on opposing players and that they had one on Mendenhall the game he got injured it makes it hard to sympathize with the Ravens.

[jason]

It looked to me that it was shoulder pad to helmet.

 

You clearly didn't see the slo-mo replay in which it was made plainly obvious that not only was it a helmet to helmet hit, but the first thing to hit were the two helmets.

[AZ54]

The rule is in place to stop players from leading with their helmet in helmet to helmet contact. The Steeler player was clearly leading with his shoulder and the way the RB leaned forward caused the helmet contact. Probably the league will fine him because this has become a game for soft players but IMO it was damn good hit.

[jason]

The rule is in place to stop players from leading with their helmet in helmet to helmet contact. The Steeler player was clearly leading with his shoulder and the way the RB leaned forward caused the helmet contact. Probably the league will fine him because this has become a game for soft players but IMO it was damn good hit.

 

I agree AZ...but that's exactly my point. I think it was an awesome hit. And I think it should be legal. The game is softer than it has been in the past, and they're protecting the players. But the problem is, they flag the exact same play the majority of the time.

[SoxFan1]

First off, it was a clean hit. He lead with the pads no doubt, but when they're forces converged, McGahee kind of wrapped around Clark's body, causing the helmet to helmet contact. That doesn't make it a malicious hit, and it doesn't mean that just because the helmets hit first it was intentional. The problem is, things get cloudy when refs have to decipher if players lead with their helmets, leave their feet, etc. I think Clark absolutely intended to lead with the pad, but the way McGahee reacted, it caused the head on collision. Is it really his fault that McGahee tucked his head in?

 

Second, I agree that refs need to be more precise with calls like these. What exactly is a violation and what isn't?

 

And finally, best wishes to McGahee. He went limp pretty fast and watching his arm all contorted and frozen like that was scary. I hope he's ok.

[canadianbear]

First off, it was a clean hit. He lead with the pads no doubt, but when they're forces converged, McGahee kind of wrapped around Clark's body, causing the helmet to helmet contact. That doesn't make it a malicious hit, and it doesn't mean that just because the helmets hit first it was intentional. The problem is, things get cloudy when refs have to decipher if players lead with their helmets, leave their feet, etc. I think Clark absolutely intended to lead with the pad, but the way McGahee reacted, it caused the head on collision. Is it really his fault that McGahee tucked his head in?

 

Second, I agree that refs need to be more precise with calls like these. What exactly is a violation and what isn't?

 

And finally, best wishes to McGahee. He went limp pretty fast and watching his arm all contorted and frozen like that was scary. I hope he's ok.

 

 

I believe the rule of leading with the helmet is that it is only a penalty or fine when the player is defensless, ie jumping for a ball. As McGahee took 2 steps and was lowering his shoulder for impact, I dont think there will be any fine.

 

It was however one of the most vicious impacts I have ever seen. I thought McGahee was dead.

[nfoligno]

I am not looking down at the rules, but is the rule simply about helmet to helmet, or does it also discuss leading w/ your helmet? I think it has to do more w/ leading w/ your helmet than simply two helmets hitting each other.

 

I this case, he lead w/ his pads and not helmet. The helmets hit, but it was a legal hit.

 

You say the same hit is made all the time, but flags are thrown. You go on to act like we should throw out the rule due to the inconsistency of the rule. I would argue you see inconsistency in every rule, whether it be a PI, leg whip, hold or whatever.

 

I have no problem w/ the rule. I agree refs need to do a better job differing a player leading w/ his helmet and one leading w/ his bad, but making helmet contact, at the same time, I do not believe that means we should throw the rule out.

 

Did you guys see that hit!?!?! Explosive. Amazing. I agree that it's a clean hit, because the WR ducking his head when he sees the contact coming, but how many times have we seen a nearly identical play get called a penalty? I believe we've had a debate or two about the topic on this forum. There is no denying the helmets hit, and Phil Simms is a moron. That is precisely when we have seen the helmet-to-helmet penalty come into play. Over and over again.

 

It's a bogus rule, but if they're going to apply it, then effing apply it.

[Bears4Ever_34]

I'm almost positive it was mainly shoulder pad to helmet. Perhaps there was some helmet, but it was primarily shoulder pad. And it wasn't an illegal play. It's called playing hard. It was the last thing in Clarke's mind to do that. He wanted to make a big, legal hit, and that's what he did.

 

I'll double check it on my tivo, but it looked completely clean to me.

Hmm I'd have to look at it again, at first glance it looked like helmet to helmet cuz he launched himself in there head first.

[BearSox]

Hmm I'd have to look at it again, at first glance it looked like helmet to helmet cuz he launched himself in there head first.

After watching the replay, Clarke led with his shoulder pads going for McGahee's chest area, and McGahee lowered his shoulders to try and give a hit to Clarke. When McGahee did that, their helmets collided. Nothing illegal about it, that was the last thing Clarke wanted to do.

 

Here's the youtube video of it (probably will be taken down soon):

 

[jason]

After watching the replay, Clarke led with his shoulder pads going for McGahee's chest area, and McGahee lowered his shoulders to try and give a hit to Clarke. When McGahee did that, their helmets collided. Nothing illegal about it, that was the last thing Clarke wanted to do.

 

Here's the youtube video of it (probably will be taken down soon):

 

 

And it's clear, at about the 1:05.5 mark, that the first things to hit are the two players' helmets. He may have lead with the shoulder pad, which is up for debate because to lead with the shoulder means that the helmet has to come along, but there is no debating the fact that the first contact is made by the two helmets blasting each other.

 

I guess the point of this topic is that I wish they'd just have a more stable application to the rule. In my opinion, it's much more inconsistent than any other call. With a play like this, where it's clear that he WR braces for the hit - and thereby causes the helmets to hit - it shouldn't be a penalty. This time it wasn't, but most of the time it seems that the refs call it a penalty. I can think of a few Mike Brown hits that were flagged, but I didn't think it was his fault. I thought it was essentially the same as this hit - the WR ducking for cover and ended up causing the helmet-to-helmet hit.

[adam]

It looks like Clark is actually moving upwards when he makes the hit and his arms are not even out like he is trying to make a tackle. The first view from the back of the end zone does look like he was leading with his shoulder, but every other view shows his head leading.

 

Also, McGahee didn't drop his head that much. Seems like a pretty clear helmet to helmet hit.

 

Here are a couple of screenshots in sequence:

 

 

[bowlingtwig]

It looks like Clark is actually moving upwards when he makes the hit and his arms are not even out like he is trying to make a tackle. The first view from the back of the end zone does look like he was leading with his shoulder, but every other view shows his head leading.

 

Also, McGahee didn't drop his head that much. Seems like a pretty clear helmet to helmet hit.

 

Here are a couple of screenshots in sequence:

 

 

 

 

After watching it several more times it doesn't pretty apparent that he was leading with his helmet. I don't think he did it intentionally but I think he should be fined for the hit regardless of weather or not he was leading with the helmet.

[bowlingtwig]

After watching it several more times it doesn't pretty apparent that he was leading with his helmet. I don't think he did it intentionally but I think he should be fined for the hit regardless of weather or not he was leading with the helmet.

 

 

I have a friend from work that is a Steelers fan and he says that that is payback for what Baltimore did to Mendenhall the first time they met.

[SoxFan1]

Are you kidding me? He's clearly tucking his right arm in, showing that he intends on leading with the pads. People are just too uptight about it and WANT to think he is leading with the helmet. It's a clean, non-malicious hit.

 

Look at how open his shoulder is (in regards to the helmet) in the 1st pictures compared to the 4th. When you slam your shoulder into a door or wall or a person, you don't lead with your head, you close it up against your neck to support the blow.

 

And the people saying he's going UP in progression could also be wrong, since McGahee is CLEARLy going down to try and absorb the blow or deliver a blow of his own. It's an illusion. Either way, Clark is going to be rising because of the positioning of his feet and also because he was trying to hit McGahee in the chest, which was higher than it originally was at the point of attack compared to the point of impact.

[jason]

Are you kidding me? He's clearly tucking his right arm in, showing that he intends on leading with the pads. People are just too uptight about it and WANT to think he is leading with the helmet. It's a clean, non-malicious hit.

 

Look at how open his shoulder is (in regards to the helmet) in the 1st pictures compared to the 4th. When you slam your shoulder into a door or wall or a person, you don't lead with your head, you close it up against your neck to support the blow.

 

FYI: You do the same thing when leading with your helmet. Condensed trap muscles and tightened neck help lessen the blow on the spine.

[SoxFan1]

FYI: You do the same thing when leading with your helmet. Condensed trap muscles and tightened neck help lessen the blow on the spine.

But if you spear someone, which is clearly leading with your head, you have your arms out. Clarks arms were tucked. The helmet to helmet contact (which I do not deny) is caused by McGahee's helmet coming down, now by Clark's helmet coming up.

[adam]

Are you kidding me? He's clearly tucking his right arm in, showing that he intends on leading with the pads. People are just too uptight about it and WANT to think he is leading with the helmet. It's a clean, non-malicious hit.

 

Look at how open his shoulder is (in regards to the helmet) in the 1st pictures compared to the 4th. When you slam your shoulder into a door or wall or a person, you don't lead with your head, you close it up against your neck to support the blow.

 

And the people saying he's going UP in progression could also be wrong, since McGahee is CLEARLy going down to try and absorb the blow or deliver a blow of his own. It's an illusion. Either way, Clark is going to be rising because of the positioning of his feet and also because he was trying to hit McGahee in the chest, which was higher than it originally was at the point of attack compared to the point of impact.

 

So you tuck your elbow in to show that you intend to lead with your pads? There is no way he can make that determination in a split second. He was running at the play and literally dove head first into McGahee. This wasn't a mid-level hit. I am sure he will be fined for it. At least no one got seriously injured.

[bowlingtwig]

So you tuck your elbow in to show that you intend to lead with your pads? There is no way he can make that determination in a split second. He was running at the play and literally dove head first into McGahee. This wasn't a mid-level hit. I am sure he will be fined for it. At least no one got seriously injured.

 

 

Have we heard how mcgahee is doing.

[DrunkBomber]

Have we heard how mcgahee is doing.

his spine is ok, he left the hospital today. It sounds like he is going to be fine.