Why the hit on Marvin Jones was not considered a hit to a defenseless receiver? Marvin was completely outstretched with both arms in the air, in other words completely defenseless. Why is this not a penalty in today's NFL? I've seen the Bengals flagged many times for much less.

Dude didn't leave his feet, didn't contact the head. It was clean.

In other words, let 'em have it. Doesn't change what's happened: There's a new bully on the block.

It's a combination of the game being in Pittsburgh, the fact that their RB was injured right before that (If I remember the sequence correctly) and the fact that the refs don't actually understand the rules of the game.

(11-02-2015, 11:24 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: Why the hit on Marvin Jones was not considered a hit to a defenseless receiver?  Marvin was completely outstretched with both arms in the air, in other words completely defenseless.  Why is this not a penalty in today's NFL?  I've seen the Bengals flagged many times for much less.

I am no expert, but the target area was not high. He was hit in the chest and not in the head making it as legal as him being chopped at the news. They have to be able to hit receivers, not just lead with their head or hit them in the head.

I thought the hit was perfect but was wondering why it wouldn't be a defenseless receiver. I had no issue with the non-call though.

Just a good football play....

(11-02-2015, 11:28 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I am no expert, but the target area was not high. He was hit in the chest and not in the head making it as legal as him being chopped at the news. They have to be able to hit receivers, not just lead with their head or hit them in the head.

Doesn't matter if the target area is high if the receiver is defenseless.  I remember a play a few years ago where Reggie Nelson put his shoulder into Dez Bryant on a fade down the sideline to break up a play.  Out came the flag for 15 yards.

These refs are absolutely clueless.

See below. He was defenseless, however the hit applied to him was legal even against a defenseless player. it's a misnomer that you can't hit them, it just limits how you can hit them.

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are: [. . .]
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
[. . .]
(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

(11-02-2015, 12:10 PM)Daddy-O Wrote: Doesn't matter if the target area is high if the receiver is defenseless.  I remember a play a few years ago where Reggie Nelson put his shoulder into Dez Bryant on a fade down the sideline to break up a play.  Out came the flag for 15 yards.

These refs are absolutely clueless.

I think I remember that play too.  Nelson has been called for it on a couple good clean hits.  

I wondered the same thing but I think some of the responses here have cleared it up. Another call was when AJ was clearly pushed out of bounds before the ball was thrown by Andy when they were in the redzone. I thought there was no contact after 5 yards?! He was clearly pushed out and then the ball sailed out of bounds. Yes it was uncatchable, but no illegal contact? It's a mute point, but just trying to understand the rules that seem to change weekly... :snark:

WHO DEY!!!

(11-02-2015, 12:13 PM)CincyCR3814 Wrote: I wondered the same thing but I think some of the responses here have cleared it up. Another call was when AJ was clearly pushed out of bounds before the ball was thrown by Andy when they were in the redzone. I thought there was no contact after 5 yards?! He was clearly pushed out and then the ball sailed out of bounds. Yes it was uncatchable, but no illegal contact? It's a mute point, but just trying to understand the rules that seem to change weekly... :snark:

WHO DEY!!!

I remember that play also, clear illegal contact.  But the refs picked up a flag on Kirkpatrick too in the end zone for interference, so I guess it all evens out.

(11-02-2015, 11:24 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: Why the hit on Marvin Jones was not considered a hit to a defenseless receiver? Marvin was completely outstretched with both arms in the air, in other words completely defenseless. Why is this not a penalty in today's NFL? I've seen the Bengals flagged many times for much less.

hit him right in the gut.... not to the head or lead with the head... thats a good clean hit. please dont try and take those out of football

(11-02-2015, 12:13 PM)CincyCR3814 Wrote: I wondered the same thing but I think some of the responses here have cleared it up. Another call was when AJ was clearly pushed out of bounds before the ball was thrown by Andy when they were in the redzone. I thought there was no contact after 5 yards?! He was clearly pushed out and then the ball sailed out of bounds. Yes it was uncatchable, but no illegal contact? It's a mute point, but just trying to understand the rules that seem to change weekly... :snark:

WHO DEY!!!

the no contact after 5 yards never seems to get called in the back of the endzone. I believe that flag was picked up because the ball was uncatchable.

(11-02-2015, 11:24 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: Why the hit on Marvin Jones was not considered a hit to a defenseless receiver?  Marvin was completely outstretched with both arms in the air, in other words completely defenseless.  Why is this not a penalty in today's NFL?  I've seen the Bengals flagged many times for much less.

Because Marvin Jones has not yet achieved "stardom" in the NFL..

(11-02-2015, 11:24 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: Why the hit on Marvin Jones was not considered a hit to a defenseless receiver?  Marvin was completely outstretched with both arms in the air, in other words completely defenseless.  Why is this not a penalty in today's NFL?  I've seen the Bengals flagged many times for much less.

It was a clean hit. He didn't lead with his head and Defensive players should be able to seperate a receiver from the ball.

If it was Reggie, Iloka or Shawn doin that to a Stealer you would of loved it Daddy-O.

There were lots of bad calls but that was a good no call. Green was clearly pushed out of bounds in the endzone and that
should of been called. Clearly past 10 yards there were lots of other bad calls and no calls in this game as well from what i
remember, i need to watch the game again but it was an ugly one.

Just happy our Defense came to play, Burfict was extremely impressive in my eyes for not playing a game in a year.

So was Shawn's beautiful interception, loved it.

Think the hit was clean even though he was defenseless.

Andy kind of hung him out to dry on that one though, just happens sometimes. But the problem is that the steelers are a team that will quickly take advantage of just such an occasion.

Think that if it was vice versa and the Bengals hit squealers in same manner then it would have been flagged as well though.

(11-02-2015, 12:52 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: hit him right in the gut.... not to the head or lead with the head... thats a good clean hit. please dont try and take those out of football

Heck no, I'm all for big hits in football.  I'm just tired of the inconsistency with the "hit to a defenseless receiver" calls.  Like possession of a ball after a catch near the goal line, they're subjective and the refs are not consistent.  Guess it can be blamed on the Competition Committee and not the referees.  They're the ones that come up with these stupid rules.

(11-02-2015, 01:11 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: It was a clean hit. He didn't lead with his head and Defensive players should be able to seperate a receiver from the ball.

If it was Reggie, Iloka or Shawn doin that to a Stealer you would of loved it Daddy-O.

There were lots of bad calls but that was a good no call. Green was clearly pushed out of bounds in the endzone and that
should of been called. Clearly past 10 yards there were lots of other bad calls and no calls in this game as well from what i
remember, i need to watch the game again but it was an ugly one.

Just happy our Defense came to play, Burfict was extremely impressive in my eyes for not playing a game in a year.

So was Shawn's beautiful interception, loved it.

I always love a good hit, just want it called consistently.  Ask Reggie Nelson about getting penalized for hitting defenseless receivers where he didn't use or go towards the head.

(11-02-2015, 11:24 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: Why the hit on Marvin Jones was not considered a hit to a defenseless receiver?  Marvin was completely outstretched with both arms in the air, in other words completely defenseless.  Why is this not a penalty in today's NFL?  I've seen the Bengals flagged many times for much less.

Defenseless receiver is only when the hit is to the head or neck.

(11-02-2015, 03:29 PM)Daddy-O Wrote: Heck no, I'm all for big hits in football.  I'm just tired of the inconsistency with the "hit to a defenseless receiver" calls.  Like possession of a ball after a catch near the goal line, they're subjective and the refs are not consistent.  Guess it can be blamed on the Competition Committee and not the referees.  They're the ones that come up with these stupid rules.

Well the Refs are horrible....