Was There A Fine?

[NATI BENGALS]

For the dirty cheap crown of the helmet hit to the side of Kareem's head last week?

[Nicomo Cosca]

I don’t even remember the one you’re talking about but Chubb should have been fined for the super late hit on a defenseless Drew Sample.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-25-2021, 05:23 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I don’t even remember the one you’re talking about but Chubb should have been fined for the super late hit on a defenseless Drew Sample.

It was pretty close to an early hit on the next play. I wish someone would explain what the ref standing right there was thinking.

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-25-2021, 05:23 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I don’t even remember the one you’re talking about but Chubb should have been fined for the super late hit on a defenseless Drew Sample.

It's the reason Kareem was in the concussion protocol. The run that didn't even matter after he stripped the QB. At the end I think it was the Bronco WR Patrick. Just clear as day leading with the crown of the helmet.

[*bfine32*]

No A fine but there is bfine

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-26-2021, 12:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: No A fine but there is bfine

I'll give you one guess as to why you won't c fine.

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-25-2021, 05:23 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I don’t even remember the one you’re talking about but Chubb should have been fined for the super late hit on a defenseless Drew Sample.

watch from 15-16 seconds a few times. He fumbles because he got smacked helmet to helmet. I though it was the huge guy chop when I first saw it. But it was the big ass 6-4 WR Patrick. Looks likes a piece of helmet goes flying off.

[*pally*]

(12-25-2021, 05:21 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: For the dirty cheap crown of the helmet hit to the side of Kareem's head last week?

not for that hit but there was one for Chubb's late hit

The Broncos’ Bradley Chubb was fined $10,300 for his late hit on #Bengals TE Drew Sample that initially was penalized before the officials inexplicably picked up the flag.

— Jay Morrison (@JayMorrisonATH) December 26, 2021

  

[*jason*]

(12-26-2021, 02:35 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote:



watch from 15-16 seconds a few times. He fumbles because he got smacked helmet to helmet. I though it was the huge guy chop when I first saw it. But it was the big ass 6-4 WR Patrick. Looks likes a piece of helmet goes flying off.

I didn't see it til the 3rd replay, but you're right; that was helmet to helmet. Maybe no fine because the refs gifted us possession there because Kareem wasn't down by contact on that play... I'll take it though.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(12-26-2021, 11:47 AM)jason Wrote: I didn't see it til the 3rd replay, but you're right; that was helmet to helmet. Maybe no fine because the refs gifted us possession there because Kareem wasn't down by contact on that play... I'll take it though.

Yes he was. Again, dislike the rule all you want, but they called it correctly. Lock 100% made contact.

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-26-2021, 11:47 AM)jason Wrote: I didn't see it til the 3rd replay, but you're right; that was helmet to helmet. Maybe no fine because the refs gifted us possession there because Kareem wasn't down by contact on that play... I'll take it though.

Yes he was.

[Frank Booth]

Lmao people just refuse to admit cincy caught a break with that “down by contact” call

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-26-2021, 12:05 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: Lmao people just refuse to admit cincy caught a break with that “down by contact” call

How did they catch a break?

[Frank Booth]

(12-26-2021, 12:11 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: How did they catch a break?

Kareem wasn’t down by contact

You’d all be crying if that call was made against cincy

[*jason*]

(12-26-2021, 11:50 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Yes he was. Again, dislike the rule all you want, but they called it correctly. Lock 100% made contact.

He's 2 to 3 feet away from Kareem bein' blocked by Hubbard. Unless they're counting the actual strip as the contact. It's a moot point anyway. I'm glad it went our way.

Every Bengal fan on the planet was yellin' for Kareem to just get down seconds before he fumbled it.

[*pally*]

(12-26-2021, 12:22 PM)jason Wrote: He's 2 to 3 feet away from Kareem bein' blocked by Hubbard. Unless they're counting the actual strip as the contact. It's a moot point anyway. I'm glad it went our way.

Every Bengal fan on the planet was yellin' for Kareem to just get down seconds before he fumbled it.

I wasn't...I knew it was coming back

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-26-2021, 12:14 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: Kareem wasn’t down by contact

You’d all be crying if that call was made against cincy

If you've ever watched more than that game, you will see many instances of plays just like that, where a player is going to the ground and they have to check replay to see if someone had touched them on the way down. 

Kareem was pulling the ball away from Lock and his momentum took him straight to the ground, not to the ground after a step or two. He doesn't have to forcefully "tackle" him for him to be down. He just has to be in contact as Kareem is going down. Which he was.

If the call was made against the Bengals in that exact same scenario, i'd say he was down by contact and that team should retain the ball. I've seen plays like that hundreds of times. 

He was clearly, without even the smallest chance otherwise, down right where he hit the ground the first time. 

Also, Dalvin Cook should have been down by contact in the opener. It was highly questionable that the ball was out of his control before he hit the ground and the SF WR that caught a pass over the middle did not fumble because he never had possession with 2 feet clearly down before the ball was knocked loose. 

[Rubekahn29]

(12-26-2021, 12:14 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: Kareem wasn’t down by contact

You’d all be crying if that call was made against cincy

It’s the same reason Chido was down by contact against the Bolts. Any touching while gaining possession that then leads to player hitting ground is down by contact. Gets called all the time on turnovers across the league. Not a break, correct call.

[grampahol]

That down by contact play was shown numerous times with the rules clearly explained to death during and after the game. If anyone would have a beef with it I would think it would be Denver fans, but OH WELL bronco babies.. Take your lumps. The contact was kind of inadvertent as Kareem simply fell after stripping the ball, but Lock still made contact, Kareem fell and that's that.. End of story. Down by contact.

[Rubekahn29]

(12-26-2021, 12:38 PM)grampahol Wrote: That down by contact play was shown numerous times with the rules clearly explained to death during and after the game. If anyone would have a beef with it I would think it would be Denver fans, but OH WELL bronco babies.. Take your lumps.

There are a few specific posters on heree who live in negativity. They can’t fathom this team winning because they’ve done things in the offseason they don’t agree with.