I think Higgins is allowed to recover it for a TD.
[Reply]

Yes. He would have also had to have done some Olympic level gymnastics to recover that ball in bounds. Not only would he have had to get up from the hit, he would have had to run back in bounds and then recover the ball. All of that before any Chiefs player made his way over. Odds of that happening?
[Reply]

People thought Dan should be suspended?

:-)
[Reply]

Right? Why one Earth would they think he would be suspended for that hit?
[Reply]

With the rules in place. If the rules weren't there and say this is Mike Jones tackling Kevin Dyson to win the super bowl for the Rams... What would stop Dyson from making a heads up play to fumble on purpose? Why wouldn't the WR reach for the pylon every single play where the chance of Defense recovery is very low.
[Reply]

Your logic is dumb.

What in the fuck would Kevin Dyson have gained by fumbling on purpose? Everyone already reaches for the pylon.
[Reply]

Your coach specifically tells his players not to reach.
[Reply]

I actually watched a little of GET UP this morning

One guy talked about the end zones being sacred and there are different rules around sacred space. That I get.

again-almost the same thing happened to us with holmes-he fumbled out of the end zone. That is the rule.


I still say sorenson was protecting the end zone line, not hitting the player
[Reply]

What if the zebras didn't call the BS crack back block which pushed the Chiefs out of FG range? What if the zebras called a few more penalties on the Browns O Line? What if the zebras called Kareem Hunt for putting his helmet down and using it as a weapon?

It's a bang bang play, if you slow it down in super slow motion, it does look like he pulls his arms back and puts his head down. This is all happening so fast that saying it was intentional is difficult. That said, Dan does have something of a reputation of trying to finish plays by hitting hard. I'm not sure how anyone can say what his intentions were without asking.

I'm sure every fanbase feels the same way; I've seen a lot of critical calls go against the Chiefs so excuse me if I have little sympathy for a fan crying about a bang bang play when I could say that the Browns defender going high on Mahomes was an intent to injure him. I don't believe that however I don't know his intent.
[Reply]

On the last play of the game where you're stopped short of the goal line? Before the rule was in place there are many examples in history of teams intentionally batting the ball forward for cheap yards.

And players are specifically coached not to reach for the end zone. Check out every bellichick player on Twitter. They all cringed.
[Reply]

In one ear and out the other.
[Reply]

A fumble out of bounds, but is there a use-of-helmet foul
A pass to receiver Rashard Higgins ends with Higgins fumbling the ball at the 1 into the end zone. By rule, this is a touchback, which is a long-standing rule to reward the defense for successfully defending their goal.

The ball was jarred loose from a hit from Daniel Sorenson. Was this a legal hit?

At first, the "helmet to helmet" rule does not apply, because Higgins is not in a defenseless posture.The other rule is "use of the helmet" (or UOH) which requires the defender to lower the helmet to initiate contact. The word "to" is operative. The force of the blow must be delivered by contact lead from the top (crown) of the helmet, and the rule is to avoid the transfer of the blow by compressing the defender's spinal column. So, there must be a distinct lining up with the head and the eyes averted to the ground.
Sorenson does initiate the attack with his shoulder, and any shoulder-to-shoulder contact is going to involve helmet contact as well. Sorenson does lower and turn his helmet when contact is imminent, which gives the appearance of avoiding contact. There is simultaneous contact with the shoulder and helmet, so the question is how forcible is the head contact? Had the head not turned about a quarter second before contact, and there was a front-on attack that was helmet-to-helmet, there would not be a foul, but a more violent collision.

The UOH is independent of where the defender's helmet lands, so the fact that the contact is to Higgins' helmet is irrelevant.

There is a clear consensus from those who worked on the field that this is a UOH foul. There is also a clear consensus that an official watching the sideline and goal line in play cannot also be able to catch the UOH from the defender.

But the question is, are we allowing the replay to distort the time element? Was the initial or simultaneous contact from the shoulder, thereby reducing the forcible element of the head hit? Is there more contact from the emblem side of the helmet than the top?

So, we go back to the live play and make those determinations. In my estimation, when viewing the live play, it is not abundantly clear that we had a UOH call; it was only when the pylon camera angle his our screens that we moved off the touchback ruling and then into the UOH. There is no doubt that there was helmet contact in the play, but there are a lot of considerations that do not make it an automatic foul.

http://www.footballzebras.com/2021/0...wns-at-chiefs/
[Reply]

Despite the mans nickname I believe it was a clean hit. Not much else could have been done to prevent the TD that I could see and he got about as low as you could get considering the angles.
[Reply]

That whole Cleveland drive at the end of the half was kept alive with ticky tack penalties, including the one against Sorenson a couple of plays earlier when he was covering Hunt. The fumble through the end zone was karma for the rest of the ref bs that occurred on that drive.
[Reply]

What if the refs didn't call a penalty for Chris Jones pinky grazing Brady's facemask in the AFCCG 2 years ago?

Refs are universally trash for everyone. That crackback penalty was just as egregious.
[Reply]