Browns lose big one to Colts as Johnny Manziel sits
December 7, 2014First place Cavs, Grammy nominations and ESPN’s “execution of journalism”: While We’re Waiting…
December 8, 2014The Cleveland Browns lost to the Colts on Sunday, and all the momentum seemed to change when Paul Kruger was charged with a personal foul on his sack of Andrew Luck. At the time, the play would have forced fourth and ten and a likely punt. As it turned out, the Colts got a 15-yard penalty and a first down. Eventually they scored a field goal and as we all know, the game was tight as could be, with the Colts winning 25-24.
So now the question becomes, is this a good call by the officials?
Obviously Browns fans didn’t think so in the stadium. Obviously Browns fans at home didn’t either, but the question remains. Is this technically the right call? Is it just the proper enforcement of a bad rule? Did the ref blow it and call it because it looked like something it wasn’t?
I don’t know the answer for sure because I never want to bet against it being against the rules for the refs to protect quarterbacks when interpreting the rulebook. There’s a lot of leeway in there for refs to do just that and there’s no doubting Kruger’s hit on Luck was violent and big.
Still, it’s very hard as a Browns fan to watch that replay and think that this is the kind of play that the rule was designed to stop. It wasn’t egregious as an attempt to hurt the opposing player and even if his helmet did seem to aim toward luck, the technique of using hands instead of becoming a missile is pretty much what the NFL wants, I think.
16 Comments
Thin line for the NFL, a player might start thinking that if he’s getting flagged either way, might as well “make it count”.
Bad call by Craig.
By calling this a “game changing” penalty, you imply that it was the “game losing” play, and you put the loss on Kruger. Obviously, that’s not the case.
Yeah, it was a touchy-feely b.s. call, but there were many, many plays that could be called “game changing,” but none in and of itself was. The game was changed by an accumulation of plays, not just one.
You know better than this, Craig.
I thought it was a bad call, though I understood why it was made based on how it looked. Kruger clearly used his hands to make the impact; the head leaning was simply directing him and his balance/force at work. His helmet doesn’t even actually hit Luck’s, though it looks like it at full speed; it just comes really close before the hands shove Luck down.
This is where the over-emphasis on the rule book and defining what should be judgment calls bothers me (think of what is and isn’t a catch, fumble, etc. etc.). I get that slow-motion makes everything look different, but I think that in the flow of the game we have a better intrinsic understanding of what should be a flagged hit, what should be a catch, fumble, etc. than when we’re shown the same play 25x from 6 different angles. If Kruger hadn’t been flagged, I don’t think even a rabid Colts fan would have said “hey, that hit looked really terrible and should have been flagged!” That should mean something.
Nope. Didn’t imply that. Simply stated that it was game-changing because it was three points that the refs pretty much gave the Colts with the call – right or wrong. It was also the biggest momentum swing from my vantage point in the stadium. It never felt to me like the crowd recovered from that play turning badly.
The Browns could have and should have still won, despite this play and call.
there is some bad nfl refereeing (last week’s Brown’s game an example). I didn’t think this was a penalty but sure see how an official can make that mistake without super slo-mo replays in HD.
Then there’s last week’s no-call when Barnidge was blatantly speared in the middle of the field. Saw today that the Buffalo guy was fined substantially despite no penalty.
This seems to have been the right call in the letter of the law (there was helmet-to-helmet contact), if not in its spirit. Unfortunately, we’re going to have to deal with some setbacks like this as the league tries to make the game a bit safer. Some calls will go against us and some will go for us – but ultimately the NFL is bending towards a slightly less dangerous game for the players, which is good.
I’m getting really tired of being the team that gets flagged but not fined. It would much better if we were like our opponents…fined but not flagged.
Ugh!
I don’t like the call, but I think it does comply with the letter of the law. The push makes Luck’s head move and look like there was an impact to it, but slow-mo from the back (at a higher frame rate than above) showed that the helmets touched just before Kruger extended his arms and nothing more. It wasn’t a helmet-to-helmet “hit” but it was helmet-to-helmet “contact.”
It sucks because Kruger clearly wasn’t trying to hit Luck in the head or with his helmet and didn’t really deliver the blow that the referees probably thought they saw, but the lesson here is that if he keeps his eyes on the target it doesn’t happen. (and I’m sure they’ll be talking about that when they watch the film) Whether you’re technically afoul of the rules or not, pointing the top of your helmet at somebody is asking for laundry on the field.
The replay rules should be changed to allow a coach to challenge penalties. That’s all there is to it.
There is s view in that video that clearly shows his helmet hit Luck in the shoulder pads. It appears as though their helmets never actually touched on the view from behind Luck…which is where that official was standing. Another great play taken away by poor officiating. Did any Browns fan even think the NFL was going to allow Browns to win this game? Wise up folks.
I love how the right tackle gets destroyed by Kruger and immediately (almost before Kruger even hits Luck) is turning around asking for a flag. Way to throw a look-out block for your quarterback and start praying a penalty bails you out.
I’m trying not to be melodramatic, but I think if a hit like this is a penalty, we are basically at the point where sacking the QB should be two-hand touch. In the face of how dangerous it apparently is to be a QB in the NFL, I’m not ruling out that some severe rules changes might be warranted.
Grown men playing a fierce, contact sport where you tackle someone by taking them to the ground is guaranteed to include plays like the one shown above. This was not targeting of the head, it wasn’t launching, and though his head is down as he moves to the QB, it’s not “leading with the crown” in the way I understand that phrase to be used because the ultimate first (and most violent) contact comes from the hands, not the head. It is essentially physically impossible to tackle someone while moving forward without leaning forward to do so, and when you lean forward, your head leads your body.
My understanding of these rules is that they are intended to prevent avoidable blows to the head on defenseless players, not any possible contact of any kind which in any way involves either players’ head. If you can’t do this, you can’t tackle. A big part of “should this be a penalty” should be, “Can the player avoid committing the offense without making the game farcical?” If the answer is that the hit was essentially unavoidable in the normal run of play without just pulling up and not hitting, then I don’t think it’s right that it be penalized.
I think it’s undeniable that it was a “game changing penalty.” Doesn’t mean that it could not be overcome and it doesn’t excuse all of our other missed opportunities, but it made a defensive stop into a field-goal. in a game that was ultimately decided by about a field goal (assuming that the various 2-point conversions may have been kicked given different scenarios).
It is a non-trivial thing to turn a 3rd-down sack into a personal foul, and in this case it spotted one of the teams 3 points in a game that was decided by less than a touchdown. I think Craig is entirely correct in his assessment of the play.
Yeah, you and Craig are right. I was just being contrary because I was mad when I wrote that.
No harm, no foul. Unlike Kruger’s sack, sadly.
I think a lot of these iffy calls could be gotten right if reviewed by the booth. Just have a booth official look at it in slow motion and determine if the criteria for roughing were met. There are so many breaks in the action anyway. I’d rather have a couple more 1 minute delays to get these calls right, than have a game partially decided by a ref who thinks he saw something in real time.
Some of the pass interference calls could stand the same treatment. These are game-changing calls that just can’t be accurately evaluated in real time. Expecting refs to get these calls right is analogous to the government passing laws that are impossible to comply with.