Bernard Pollard Hit

[HarleyDog]

Before I get started, let it be known I was pleased to see the Raven win the AFC Championship game. Not because I like the Ravens, yet only because they are representing the AFCN. With that said, tell me why I am wrong here. If you remember the Pollard hit on Ridley that caused a turnover, by NFL rules I am not sure I understand why it was ruled a fumble? For those who didnt see it? Here it is: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...d-pollards-hit

The way I see it, it was a helmet to helmet hit (personal foul) which caused the fumble. Why was not possession given back to the Patriots, with a 15yrd penalty assessed from the spot of the foul? After the hit and fumble and then going to commercial under review, I truly believed this was what we were going to hear when we returned from the commercial break. Yet, we heard turnover, Ravens ball! Did the refs get this wrong, or did they get it right?

[ibengals]

I agree with this 100%. I'm not sure what the rule says, but this has happened a few times in the past where a player gets knocked out and the ball comes loose, and it always results in a turnover. I don't think the hit should be penalized because it's so tough to go low at that speed, but the fumble shouldn't result in a turnover if the player lost consciousness. Seems like incentive to hit them to the head if anything.


I donno, I'm too tired right now to make sense of things. I'll post about this later

[junglester]

It is tough to call a penalty at full speed. I'm not sure you can access one during a review. Maybe the NFL needs to look into it.

[duke0476]

Originally Posted by HarleyDog

Before I get started, let it be known I was pleased to see the Raven win the AFC Championship game. Not because I like the Ravens, yet only because they are representing the AFCN. With that said, tell me why I am wrong here. If you remember the Pollard hit on Ridley that caused a turnover, by NFL rules I am not sure I understand why it was ruled a fumble? For those who didnt see it? Here it is: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...d-pollards-hit

The way I see it, it was a helmet to helmet hit (personal foul) which caused the fumble. Why was not possession given back to the Patriots, with a 15yrd penalty assessed from the spot of the foul? After the hit and fumble and then going to commercial under review, I truly believed this was what we were going to hear when we returned from the commercial break. Yet, we heard turnover, Ravens ball! Did the refs get this wrong, or did they get it right?

If it was ruled a personal foul I don't think the turnover should stand. To me it would be like making an interception AND getting called for PI.

That being said, watching the replay I don't think it should have been a penalty to begin with.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

Originally Posted by HarleyDog

The way I see it, it was a helmet to helmet hit (personal foul) which caused the fumble. Why was not possession given back to the Patriots, with a 15yrd penalty assessed from the spot of the foul? After the hit and fumble and then going to commercial under review, I truly believed this was what we were going to hear when we returned from the commercial break. Yet, we heard turnover, Ravens ball! Did the refs get this wrong, or did they get it right?

Upon futher review by Fan_in_Kettering:

The referees got the play one-third right: Stevan Ridley did lose possession of the ball, fumbled, and the Ravens recovered.

The referees also got the play two-thirds wrong: No flags were thrown and no personal foul penalty was assessed which was incorrect. However, after seeing the video a few times, I have concluded that the referees should have called a personal foul on Stevan Ridley. He lowered his helmet to collide with Bernard Pollard's helmet i.e. the helmet-to-helmet contact was initiated by Ridley, not Pollard.

However, since penalizing the Patriots for anything seems to be against the NFL referees' religion, it is what it is.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Fan_in_Kettering

Upon futher review by Fan_in_Kettering:

The referees got the play one-third right: Stevan Ridley did lose possession of the ball, fumbled, and the Ravens recovered.

The referees also got the play two-thirds wrong: No flags were thrown and no personal foul penalty was assessed which was incorrect. However, after seeing the video a few times, I have concluded that the referees should have called a personal foul on Stevan Ridley. He lowered his helmet to collide with Bernard Pollard's helmet i.e. the helmet-to-helmet contact was initiated by Ridley, not Pollard.

However, since penalizing the Patriots for anything seems to be against the NFL referees' religion, it is what it is.

I completely agree Ridley lowered his head and caused the helmet to helmet hit.

He couldn't even see Pollard because he hit Pollard with the crown of his helmet and knocked himself out cold before he even hit the turf.

Although I can't recall a single helmet to helmet penalty that has been called against an offensive player. Can anyone else?

[duke0476]

Originally Posted by Fan_in_Kettering

Upon futher review by Fan_in_Kettering:

The referees got the play one-third right: Stevan Ridley did lose possession of the ball, fumbled, and the Ravens recovered.

The referees also got the play two-thirds wrong: No flags were thrown and no personal foul penalty was assessed which was incorrect. However, after seeing the video a few times, I have concluded that the referees should have called a personal foul on Stevan Ridley. He lowered his helmet to collide with Bernard Pollard's helmet i.e. the helmet-to-helmet contact was initiated by Ridley, not Pollard.

However, since penalizing the Patriots for anything seems to be against the NFL referees' religion, it is what it is.

This

Pollard was doing nothing more than standing there and Ridley delivered the blow.

[BengaliJack]

Looked pretty nasty when I seen it during the game...they showed it enough on replay that I dont need a relook. I was wondering myself when it actually happened before reviews ect. if it was deliberate.

[duke0476]

Originally Posted by BengaliJack

Looked pretty nasty when I seen it during the game...they showed it enough on replay that I dont need a relook. I was wondering myself when it actually happened before reviews ect. if his knee was down when the ball started coming out. kind of looked that way last night anyway.

He knocked himself clean out, he deserved to lose the ball.

[goalpost]

This was close call but i think the official got it right. Ridley lowered his own head to create the helmet to helmet contact. It appeared to me that Ridley was perhaps down when he lost the ball, but the replay showed he lost control as the ball hit his knee just before he landed on the the ground. Bang bang play but in slow mo everything called seemed right.

[Blitzberg06]

This is why Running backs shouldn't be granted the privledge of lowering their head like this.

Glad he is ok..they showed him walking into the locker room.

[BmorePat87]

Half of these hits called personal fouls are in reality the offense player lowering his head and causing the defensive player (who is leading with their shoulder) to hit them helmet to helmet.

[duke0476]

Originally Posted by RavensLover69

Half of these hits called personal fouls are in reality the offense player lowering his head and causing the defensive player (who is leading with their shoulder) to hit them helmet to helmet.

Unless its the Steelers than it is obviously a dirty dirty hit lol.

[BmorePat87]

Originally Posted by duke0476

Unless its the Steelers than it is obviously a dirty dirty hit lol.

or the Ravens.

As much as we hate each other, as the two teams that epitomize smash mouth football, we get this crap more than everyone else. That's why Reed was one of Harrison's biggest supporters two years ago.


friend on facebook (from Mass, Pats fan) was talking about people hating on Brady because he's so good. I made a comment about how I can hate on him because he puts people in danger by kicking, hides behind refs and calls for flags. Another Pats fan starts going on about how its because all of these people are trying to make dirty hits and how that's worse than spygate (because EVERYONE did it, the NFL just went after the Pats because theyre so good). I said no. These hits are the same hits from the last 40 years. They just used to be called "good hard hits".

[duke0476]

Originally Posted by RavensLover69

or the Ravens.

As much as we hate each other, as the two teams that epitomize smash mouth football, we get this crap more than everyone else. That's why Reed was one of Harrison's biggest supporters two years ago.

I was not singling you out with my response I was speaking in general terms.

The smash mouth days, even when done within the confines of the rules is becoming a thing of the past. DB's are hamstringed to the point of not knowing how to defend and the refs always err on the safe side and call a PF regardless.

[BmorePat87]

Originally Posted by duke0476

I was not singling you out with my response I was speaking in general terms.

The smash mouth days, even when done within the confines of the rules is becoming a thing of the past. DB's are hamstringed to the point of not knowing how to defend and the refs always err on the safe side and call a PF regardless.

Oh, I know. Don't worry, didn't take it that way. Just agreeing and saying I see a personal foul flag and fine every week watching my team play. No surprise we see it so many times with teams like the Ravens or Steelers.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

Originally Posted by duke0476

DB's are hamstringed to the point of not knowing how to defend and the refs always err on the safe side and call a PF regardless.

Unless it's New England. The Patriots can have their defensive backs mug a receiver in broad daylight and the referees look the other way.

[BmorePat87]

just heard on Sports Center regarding the Brady kick: "What would we be saying if Suh had done that?"

[Blitzberg06]

Originally Posted by RavensLover69

or the Ravens.

As much as we hate each other, as the two teams that epitomize smash mouth football, we get this crap more than everyone else. That's why Reed was one of Harrison's biggest supporters two years ago.


friend on facebook (from Mass, Pats fan) was talking about people hating on Brady because he's so good. I made a comment about how I can hate on him because he puts people in danger by kicking, hides behind refs and calls for flags. Another Pats fan starts going on about how its because all of these people are trying to make dirty hits and how that's worse than spygate (because EVERYONE did it, the NFL just went after the Pats because theyre so good). I said no. These hits are the same hits from the last 40 years. They just used to be called "good hard hits".

It drives me nuts. Harrison makes a good hit and the moment he does it people yell he's dirty. No he's playing football. Now some hits yes they are just stupid and he could of done things better but for the life of me I don't understand why any player on offense can lead with the crown of their helmet.


These people in the office in New York really aggravate me. When you see a guy come around the edge and is going to score..what is your thought? "Better not tackle him this way" No You are gonna try to tackle him, possibly blow him up and make him fumble or make him think twice about running that way.

[Blitzberg06]

Originally Posted by RavensLover69

just heard on Sports Center regarding the Brady kick: "What would we be saying if Suh had done that?"

That should of been 15 right there and he should be fined. Reed wasn't even gonna hit him.

[duke0476]

Originally Posted by Blitzberg06

That should of been 15 right there and he should be fined. Reed wasn't even gonna hit him.

Surprised they didn't penalize Reed for stepping on his elbow.
























































Only half joking....I am actually surprised they didn't.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Uh, guys, PF is only for defenseless receiver, not for hitting a ballcarrier helmet to helmet...

[duke0476]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

Uh, guys, PF is only for defenseless receiver, not for hitting a ballcarrier helmet to helmet...

We all know that. Which sprung the debate of why is that? For their own safety I don't know why RB's do it. Lower the shoulders head up is the correct way.

[Blitzberg06]

Originally Posted by duke0476

Surprised they didn't penalize Reed for stepping on his elbow.




































Only half joking....I am actually surprised they didn't.

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

Uh, guys, PF is only for defenseless receiver, not for hitting a ballcarrier helmet to helmet...

We know this. We are saying it should go both ways. Running backs hurt themselves and could possibly hurt the person they collide with.

Originally Posted by duke0476

We all know that. Which sprung the debate of why is that? For their own safety I don't know why RB's do it. Lower the shoulders head up is the correct way.

This.

[THEBURG]

Originally Posted by HarleyDog

Before I get started, let it be known I was pleased to see the Raven win the AFC Championship game. Not because I like the Ravens, yet only because they are representing the AFCN. With that said, tell me why I am wrong here. If you remember the Pollard hit on Ridley that caused a turnover, by NFL rules I am not sure I understand why it was ruled a fumble? For those who didnt see it? Here it is: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...d-pollards-hit

The way I see it, it was a helmet to helmet hit (personal foul) which caused the fumble. Why was not possession given back to the Patriots, with a 15yrd penalty assessed from the spot of the foul? After the hit and fumble and then going to commercial under review, I truly believed this was what we were going to hear when we returned from the commercial break. Yet, we heard turnover, Ravens ball! Did the refs get this wrong, or did they get it right?

Also, with him(Ridley) sitting on the ground, shouldn't he have been called down, the re-play shows he was sittin when his head came down and knocked the ball out.