OK, this really bothers me. Browns fans are arguing that this was a game changing call and that one called back TD was the difference in a 5 point win. OK, fair point. Not calling helmet to helmet may have been a miss.
The biggest game changer as we all know wasn't the fumble, it was mahomes getting injured. Mahomes was throttling the browns and probably would have kept doing it. Would mahomes have still gotten a concussion if the browns scored? I mean, cmon.... Probably not. Here's a more likely scenario. If browns score 7, chiefs get the ball back and score 3.chiefs go into halftime 19 - 10. Browns down 9 (instead of 16) have to claw from behind
Unless people think the browns run the same exact plays in that scenario, baker throws that same exact pick, then the Chiefs run the same exact plays with the same exact outcome its very unlikely mahomes gets knocked out of that series. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mav:
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.
Originally Posted by Mav:
One might say that getting speared in the head might of led to him fumbling the ball. But, what do i know.
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]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
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).
Yeah, agreed. A lot of that is intent. Usually if you're taking a kill shot over a routine tackle or pass breakup it's to send a message. Sorensen was making the best football play he could make. The intent wasn't to knock higgins out. It was to get higgins out of bounds. That being said, I get the complaint. But its very different because it's hard to call this hit dirty. [Reply]
I will never feel bad about being on the better side of a shitty call for the rest of my life.
I mean, that call was just so, so bad. Made worse by the fact that, IIRC, that douche ref was supposed to have retired but the league gave him this last game on his way out. And he makes that call. Unbelievable.
Plus the Chris Jones roughing the passer for slapping Brady's shoulder.
Nah, we've had more than our share of botched calls going against us. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mav:
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?
We were pathetic and traumatized back then... that's the point. [Reply]
Is there really anything else that Sorenson could have done? He was trying to keep the Browns player, who was going low, out of the end zone. I personally think that he made a great play. I get player safety. But I still like the play. [Reply]
Watched the replays a few more times and I do get the point to a larger extent... of course, when you slow a play down and watch it several times, it's not the same bang-bang play, but I get the complaint.
He was of course trying to get low and did lead with his helmet, more so than I was thinking before... I still think it's a stretch to call a penalty on such a play though. He could have tried punching the ball out, but again, watching on replay and in hindsight.
Originally Posted by jjchieffan:
Is there really anything else that Sorenson could have done? He was trying to keep the Browns player, who was going low, out of the end zone. I personally think that he made a great play. I get player safety. But I still like the play.
It's just a dumb fucking argument. Two guys going at the same point like missiles. Shit happens in a contact sport. I bet if you ask Dan what his "intention" was on that play, he would say that it was to get his head on the football. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jjchieffan:
Is there really anything else that Sorenson could have done? He was trying to keep the Browns player, who was going low, out of the end zone. I personally think that he made a great play. I get player safety. But I still like the play.
Also a lot to be said about making a play with a tiny strike zone. Harder to fault a pitcher for throwing a ball to a crouching hitter like Ricky henderson. That was the only play he could make. The one thing he could have done differently was use his arms. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiTown:
It's just a dumb fucking argument. Two guys going at the same point like missiles. Shit happens in a contact sport. I bet if you ask Dan what his "intention" was on that play, he would say that it was to get his head on the football.
And he has 2-3 strides after the reception to figure it out.
Slow down the game to quarter speed on youtube and play 20/20 hindsight in slow-mo, but unfortunately Sorensen doesn't have the benefit of calling a timeout and weighing his options first. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jjchieffan:
Is there really anything else that Sorenson could have done? He was trying to keep the Browns player, who was going low, out of the end zone. I personally think that he made a great play. I get player safety. But I still like the play.
Apparently Dan should have just been nice and let him score the TD.
You know, the same thing all competitive football players would have done in a similar situation facing similar circumstances. [Reply]
When an offensive player gets penalized for lowering and leading with his helmet to blow through someone I just might start to care but at the moment I just can't be asked to give a fuck. [Reply]
What gets missed here is that it was a heck of a drive by CLE, a great piece of QBing by Baker, a great effort by Higgins, and a tremendous play by DD.
All of that got erased by the FF, the idea that it might've been a technically illegal hit (which is stupid, because just what else was Sorenson supposed to do there?), and the fumble through the EZ, which resulted in the touchback.
It's like that whole series vanished into thin air, to be replaced by this one play in it's own discrete bubble, separate from the rest of the game. [Reply]
I've never really understood why that is a touch back and the ball goes to the other team. You can't fumble forward right? So if that happened at the 50 and the ball went out at the 47 you get the ball at the 50, right? So why does the end zone change everything? [Reply]
