POLL- Does Clowney get fined for the hit on Wentz?

[Mackeyser]

With all due respect @flv , If I knew how, I'd post a screen cap of Clowney lowering his head. The first point of impact is the crown of Clowney's helmet to the back of Wentz's helmet followed by Clowney's shoulder to Wentz's back.

As for reputation, Vontaze Burfict and James Harrison say hi. If anything, James Harrison's "reputation" got him calls that he truly didn't deserve. So that's a real thing.

As for past plays, you're correct that they don't bear on the call, but do show how a player executes a play and if it's consistent and yes, Clowney consistently leads with the crown on the helmet which is not only against the rules, but it is against all direction from the NFL.

Bottom line is this. The NFL doesn't want players to tackle like this at any time. There are already a ton of rules in place and more will be coming to ensure that this type of play is removed from the game.

The NFL isn't served when a starting QB goes out during a playoff game. It literally devalues the product.

Oh, and the "tie goes to the runner" is gonna be this: the emphasis will be on protecting the QB and reducing injury so hits like this will only be more harshly judged going forward.

 

[OldSchool]

You make it sound like its wentzs fault that clowney targeted his head.

My god can't you understand I've only said it a dozen times! It doesn't look like he targeted him in the head. I'm done with this.

 

[OldSchool]

With all due respect @flv , If I knew how, I'd post a screen cap of Clowney lowering his head. The first point of impact is the crown of Clowney's helmet to the back of Wentz's helmet followed by Clowney's shoulder to Wentz's back.

As for reputation, Vontaze Burfict and James Harrison say hi. If anything, James Harrison's "reputation" got him calls that he truly didn't deserve. So that's a real thing.

As for past plays, you're correct that they don't bear on the call, but do show how a player executes a play and if it's consistent and yes, Clowney consistently leads with the crown on the helmet which is not only against the rules, but it is against all direction from the NFL.

Bottom line is this. The NFL doesn't want players to tackle like this at any time. There are already a ton of rules in place and more will be coming to ensure that this type of play is removed from the game.

The NFL isn't served when a starting QB goes out during a playoff game. It literally devalues the product.

Oh, and the "tie goes to the runner" is gonna be this: the emphasis will be on protecting the QB and reducing injury so hits like this will only be more harshly judged going forward.

There have been gifs and video's of it posted many times here you don't need to post it again. We've seen those and seen it on the TV live. We do not agree that he lowered the head and attacked a guy with the intent to hurt. It's really simple.

 

[Mackeyser]

There have been gifs and video's of it posted many times here you don't need to post it again. We've seen those and seen it on the TV live. We do not agree that he lowered the head and attacked a guy with the intent to hurt. It's really simple.

Okay. I don't think it's a matter of agreeing, but no amount of disagreeing is gonna change the play or the NFL's reaction.

I hope he gets suspended because I'm tired of plays like this determining a team's entire season...

 

[XXXIVwin]

Yeah, we can agree to disagree, flv, and I mean that in a friendly way with all due respect.

Your point about being coached up to hit just as the carrier is nearing the ground— to provoke a fumble— is well taken.

From my perspective, though, I think of our ol pal Gregg Williams who infamously told his players (repeatedly), “Kill the head and the body will die.”

And yeah, IMHO Clowney’s previous examples of being fined for dirty hits to QB’s is of course relevant.

IMHO it doesn’t matter whether Clowney’s body was “spearing” or “launching” or whatever other word you want to use. What I see is a player deliberately using his helmet as a weapon in order to make violent contact with an opposing player’s helmet. Helmet to helmet contact with the intent to do so.

That’s what I saw. If you saw something else, that’s cool.

 

[Flint]

Guys used to do this all the time, usually to prevent the ball carrier from falling forward, guys also used to be able to really hit a guy who may have fallen on his own, but the league thinks these types of hits are hazardous.
If AD did that to Wilson I think he would of gotten flagged.

 

[Ramit]

My god can't you understand I've only said it a dozen times! It doesn't look like he targeted him in the head. I'm done with this.

Oh I understand what you have been saying. Heres what I've been saying, no disrespect intended: open your eyes oldschool! It's like this: a criminals momma sees the little boy in their grown man, and the fact that a grown man used to be a little boy doesnt change the reality of his crimes or the veracity of the judgement against him. We see two different things, okay! But why do we see two different things? That is what has really driven me to keep this dialogue going. Do you hate Wentz? Do you love Clowney? *gasp, covers mouth* your not a secret Seahawks fan incognito? Is it because we were raised in different eras of football so you dont see the thing that seems so obvious to me? Am I just wrong? Are you just right? Are opinions like assholes? Am I ok? Is this real life?

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

How can people not see him lowering his head so that the crown of his helmet makes impact? What does it matter if his helmet was first contact or not?

In rugby league players used to come in with a swinging arm and aim just above the chest. In those days unless intent could be shown the player could not be suspended. So once the arm hit above the chest momentum would take it up straight to the player's jaw. So many players got knocked out, broken jaws, cut heads, etc. So the league introduced new laws which included reckless and careless tackling to stop it from happening. Once players began being suspended for those type of tackles it was amazing how quickly it was eradicated from the game, pretty much.

The clowney tackle definitely comes under reckless in nature.

.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Interesting! Really respect your take on this, and now I’m more intrigued than ever.

Now I’m curious to know the rules re “legal and incidental” H2H contact vs “illegal” H2H contact. But I’m up late on my iPhone and I’m having trouble accessing the relevant lines in the rule book!

Does indeed seem that “lowering the head” and “initiating contact with crown of helmet” are important.

Meanwhile, here’s a grainy photo of the moment of Clowney’s initial contact, or maybe a tenth of a second before contact. Wentz is already down, and Wentz’s head has not yet moved in reaction to the Clowney hit. Meanwhile, Clowney is bearing down and it sure looks (to me) like Clowney is lowering his head and initiating contact with the crown of his helmet— which I believe is illegal under current 2019 rules.

But yeah, flv, if you think there’s some wiggle room regarding (a) was Clowney’s head lowered and (b) was the crown the initial contact point, I could understand that perhaps. (Might have been the “top right of helmet” as opposed to the “crown of helmet.”)

 

[Zaphod]

I was surprised Wentz went out, it didn't appear he gets it that hard. It was helmet to helmet, but they were both going the same direction and Wentz's head barely jerks after contact.

It wasn’t just the helmet to helmet, but the subsequent reverse direction after his head bounced off of the ground that caused the concussion. It makes sense if you imagine your brain bouncing around in the fluid inside your skull. We’re really just not designed to absorb that much impact.

 

[Zaphod]

Watching the game I didn’t notice it so much but I was surprised there wasn’t a penalty.

I notice a lot of argument about intent, but does it matter? To me it’s like playing hockey, you see some guy charging you in your peripheral and you lower your stick real quick to make it look like a pass or clearing attempt, but what you’re really trying to do is catch that guy under his pads with the butt of your stick. Dude drops, do you get a penalty? Incidental? He was charging you after all, been doing it all game, refs just weren’t calling it, or there wouldn’t be spearing, right?

Point is you’re watching people play who have amazing control over their bodies, and they make it a game of hiding intent, which can’t be proved. Eventually the NFL will move away from subjective officiating to objective. Intent doesn’t matter because you have to be in control of your own actions.

 

[JonRam99]

That was ugly. What a clown. QB or not, that was an ugly hit. I've seen lots of D players just push the guy down to make sure he was contacted but no more. Practically a late hit as well.
I get why he may not have qualified for a flag, because Wentz was a "runner" and therefore most any hit clown-ey can legally make is fair game, but the OP question is whether he deserves a fine. I think he clearly does.

 

[EastRam]

Well, with all due respect, the NFL has been crystal clear on their priorities, so be tired all you want, but the league has been clear for many years now.

Clowney has a history of specifically leading with the crown of the helmet. And yes, it would be a dirty hit on any ball carrier as he led with the helmet to the back of the opponent's helmet. You can't even legally hit the back of the head in MMA. That should speak to the level of danger.

On this play, he specifically dips his helmet to initiate contact. That 100% goes against the "Heads up, Wrap up" method of tackling the NFL is promoting and what they teach in Seattle where Pete Carroll has been on the vanguard. His previous fines ought to have been lesson enough. I'd be okay with a suspension because losing money hasn't been lesson enough.

And let's be clear.

Nearly 100% of the growth of the NFL fan base since 2000 has been from women. The male demographic has remained flat. That matters.

Many of the women, many mothers have a different perspective that the NFL WILL take into account...

Moms were holding back kids from youth football in record numbers. That's the beginning of a massive talent drain which the NFL has fought very hard to stem. Women weren't gonna stay fans and support domestic abusers. And we're seeing the NFL respond to that. Many fans, men and women aren't going to support dirty play. Twenty years ago, the hit woulda been on a highlight reel. Now, it's a big fine, possible suspension and depending on the extent, possible rule change.

So, while YOU and some others might be fine with the NFL of the 90s with Jacked Up and guys getting nearly decapitated to a soundtrack, the NFL and many fans, both men and women, want to focus on the sport, as inherently violent as it is, without the debilitation.

That's how it's gonna be going forward and none of us is gonna have a say about it beyond deciding to tune in or not.

As for me, I'm fine with it. It was more tiresome to realize that often the winner of the Super Bowl was the healthiest team as opposed to the most talented because the season was a capricious meat grinder and health was a function of luck or fate as opposed to skill, scheme or execution.

I'm sorry to be so contrary, but honestly, I'm tired of the "I'm tired" takes. I get tired, too, but at the end of the day, we have two choices...tune in or not.

Sure, vent if you like, as long as you and all of us understand that it's NEVER going back to what it was and if anything, MORE protections will be put in place.

Thanks for coming to my

Well, with all due respect, the NFL has been crystal clear on their priorities, so be tired all you want, but the league has been clear for many years now.

Clowney has a history of specifically leading with the crown of the helmet. And yes, it would be a dirty hit on any ball carrier as he led with the helmet to the back of the opponent's helmet. You can't even legally hit the back of the head in MMA. That should speak to the level of danger.

On this play, he specifically dips his helmet to initiate contact. That 100% goes against the "Heads up, Wrap up" method of tackling the NFL is promoting and what they teach in Seattle where Pete Carroll has been on the vanguard. His previous fines ought to have been lesson enough. I'd be okay with a suspension because losing money hasn't been lesson enough.

And let's be clear.

Nearly 100% of the growth of the NFL fan base since 2000 has been from women. The male demographic has remained flat. That matters.

Many of the women, many mothers have a different perspective that the NFL WILL take into account...

Moms were holding back kids from youth football in record numbers. That's the beginning of a massive talent drain which the NFL has fought very hard to stem. Women weren't gonna stay fans and support domestic abusers. And we're seeing the NFL respond to that. Many fans, men and women aren't going to support dirty play. Twenty years ago, the hit woulda been on a highlight reel. Now, it's a big fine, possible suspension and depending on the extent, possible rule change.

So, while YOU and some others might be fine with the NFL of the 90s with Jacked Up and guys getting nearly decapitated to a soundtrack, the NFL and many fans, both men and women, want to focus on the sport, as inherently violent as it is, without the debilitation.

That's how it's gonna be going forward and none of us is gonna have a say about it beyond deciding to tune in or not.

As for me, I'm fine with it. It was more tiresome to realize that often the winner of the Super Bowl was the healthiest team as opposed to the most talented because the season was a capricious meat grinder and health was a function of luck or fate as opposed to skill, scheme or execution.

I'm sorry to be so contrary, but honestly, I'm tired of the "I'm tired" takes. I get tired, too, but at the end of the day, we have two choices...tune in or not.

Sure, vent if you like, as long as you and all of us understand that it's NEVER going back to what it was and if anything, MORE protections will be put in place.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Dude. Relax.

I’m well aware of the other issues facing the NFL

You are assuming I prefer unnecessary and unsportsmanlike like hits.

Your assumption is wrong.

Vicious hits and Jacked up suck.

In my opinion the tackle by Clowney on the then RB Wentz was not outside of the current NFL rules.

 

[OldSchool]

View: https://twitter.com/tompelissero/status/1214547409113665538?s=21

 

[drasconis]

The newest rule on helmet contact....note it does NOT require the targeted player to defenseless nor does it limit it to head to head contact (the impact in theory can be anywhere).

ARTICLE 8. USE OF THE HELMET. It is a foul if a player lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent.


Penalty: Loss of 15 yards. If the foul is by the defense, it is also an automatic first down. The player may be

disqualified.

 

[OldSchool]

What's the penalty for lowering your shoulder to initiate contact? Cause that's what happened here.

 

[coconut]

What's the penalty for lowering your shoulder to initiate contact? Cause that's what happened here.

Tie goes to the helmet.

 

[OldSchool]

Tie goes to the helmet.

No such rule especially when reality doesnt support this having happened.