They had a bunch of chances. That play didn't end the game.
[Reply]

What if you had three wheels?

You'd be a tricycle
[Reply]

Personally, I think calling helmet to helmet when you are diving or ducking really low is stupid. At that point you make that the most forward target, and really now you are using your helmet as a weapon as well.

My opinion on that I know doesn't match the rules, but I have felt this way since they changed the rule. I also understand they want the defender to keep their heads up, but defenders also want to get their head on the ball to knock it free, which I'm guessing what Dan was doing there.
[Reply]

Helmet to Helmet isnt the issue. The issue was that he LEAD with his helmet. And that on top of being Illegal is extremely dangerous for DD and for HIggins. It could of resulted in Sorensen breaking his own neck.
[Reply]

Was not the offensive player doing the same? That is my point. If it is illegal for one it should be for both, especially when going that low. I know not everyone is going to agree, that is fine.

Also wasn't one of our lineman pulled down by his jersey twice on that same play, they call that and it is a wash.
[Reply]

You see running backs do it all the time. They drop their head and plow ahead.
[Reply]

Exactly! Why is only one considered dangerous...

Again, they can play what if on this play all they want, I believe their was a huge holding call not called on the OL that should have brought the play back. So the what if machine could have called both penalties, it would have been a wash...
[Reply]

The being pulled down twice will be brushed off as, "happens every play"...
[Reply]

Sure, it was obviously a penalty after-the-fact. But it's not reviewable and those are difficult to call in the bang-bang nature of the sport, especially at the goal line when the ref is focused more on whether he got in or not and whether and when the ball was jarred loose.

Browns fans complaining over something like that are pathetic.
[Reply]

That doesn’t make fans pathetic. I’m sure if we go back we can find calls against the Chiefs where Chiefs fans feel they were done wrong. Why is that 1 different?
[Reply]

You turds couldn’t even capitalize on getting to play the Chiefs without Mahomes for most of the second half and you want to what-if this play.
[Reply]

Because that is an extremely difficult penalty to call in real time given the aforementioned circumstances.

It's not like the refs screwed you. That's one of the things that just happens over the course of the game, just like uncalled holds and whatever other stuff losers want to complain about. Refs don't catch everything.
[Reply]

We were pathetic and traumatized back then... that's the point.
[Reply]

Yep.

They were watching the ball, the runner, the goal line, and the pylon. They missed the helmets, it happens.
[Reply]

Seems extreme.... he wasn't laying out a defenseless player for the sake of laying him out. There was no intent to injure, no reckless play.

I totally get the league is obsessed about it (which was your first point), but the guy's doing everything in his power to prevent a touchdown in a bang-bang play..... it's still a contact sport, and if you tell players to not make diving plays like that, it seriously might as well be two hand touch.

And I know that sounds extreme, but come on... is he supposed to just let him score there? Let up a little to make sure there's no helmet contact, even if that means giving up the touchdown?

As much as I dislike the usual slippery slope arguments, there has to be a line somewhere that says you can still make football plays, even if there's potential injury involved.... the NFL's obsession with calling a penalty every time a defender's hand touches a QB's helmet doesn't necessarily make it right, nor does it mean they should call it on plays like that.

And if roles were reversed, I'd think the same, even if a Chiefs receiver was hurt on the play (I also haven't complained about the headlock on Mahomes, CEH's injury despite others saying it was dirty, etc... it's football, there's contact).
[Reply]