Penalty on Keanu Neal

[aaron11]

There has been a lot of chatter about the personal foul penalty on Neal for taking his helmet off after he was injured.  The rule says its a penalty for -Removal of his helmet by a player in the field of play or the end zone during a celebration or demonstration, or during a confrontation with a game official or any other player 

 

He was on the field of play, so i think its hard to be mad at the refs here.  Personally im taking that penalty every time, but Eric Ebron and apparently a bunch of colts fans wish we had declined.  I posted this just to see a few more opinions on the matter

[csmopar]

Probably should be in the nfl general area, not the Colts area.

 

that said,

 

i think the refs should have picked up the flag after realizing he was seriously injured. At first, I didn’t see him get injured and thought he was just made at the play. I’m sure the refs thought so at first too. But once it was obvious that he was injured and badly, I’d picked the flag up, explaining why.

 

ESPN also pointed out that Reich was not able to have a choice in the matter. It’s conduct penalty meaning the team has to take it. The way they explained it, teams don’t get a choice there. If it’s on a non scoring play, the yardage gets tacked on, if it happened on a scoring play, yardage goes on the kick off

[IndySouthsider]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

Probably should be in the nfl general area, not the Colts area.

 

that said,

 

i think the refs should have picked up the flag after realizing he was seriously injured. At first, I didn’t see him get injured and thought he was just made at the play. I’m sure the refs thought so at first too. But once it was obvious that he was injured and badly, I’d picked the flag up, explaining why

I think it was also because he  tossed the helmet.

 

I think injury isn’t going to be an excuse for throwing your helmet. 

[csmopar]

7 minutes ago, IndySouthsider said:

I think it was also because he  tossed the helmet.

 

I think injury isn’t going to be an excuse for throwing your helmet. 

That’s exactly what the penalty was for. Read the rest of my post

[braveheartcolt]

5 minutes ago, csmopar said:

That’s exactly what the penalty was for. Read the rest of my post

What are you on about? You never mentioned anything about him tossing his helmet....

[coltsva]

Pass interference on Texans. Replay shows the defender never touched TY.

You want the Colts to decline the penalty because the ref botched the call?

 

Ramsey guarding TY. TY makes a cut that breaks Ramseys ankle. He grabs TY as he's falling down to support himself as the ball flies past, and the ref calls interference. You declining that one too?

 

Even if the Colts had the choice, you take the penalty. You don't decline a penalty just because the refs made the wrong call.

 

I understand, they should have picked up the flag and it stinks he got hurt. You send him flowers and a get well card, but you take the penalty.

[lollygagger8]

Poor Neal. He just came back from an injury too from what I understand. 

 

Hate to see anyone (regardless of team) get injured. 

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

What are you on about? You never mentioned anything about him tossing his helmet....

the whole thing is about tossing the helmet... 

[our_dbs_rock]

I think that lots of players get hurt regularly and don't take off their helmet and throw it, so why should have Neal got an exception?

[luv_pony_express]

3 hours ago, aaron11 said:

There has been a lot of chatter about the personal foul penalty on Neal for taking his helmet off after he was injured.  The rule says its a penalty for -Removal of his helmet by a player in the field of play or the end zone during a celebration or demonstration, or during a confrontation with a game official or any other player 

 

He was on the field of play, so i think its hard to be mad at the refs here.  Personally im taking that penalty every time, but Eric Ebron and apparently a bunch of colts fans wish we had declined.  I posted this just to see a few more opinions on the matter

 

This is not a difficult call.  He violated a rule.  His reasoning for violating it doesn’t matter.

 

If the rules committee wants to enact an exemption for a reaction to injury, they can do that.  But, as of now, no such exemption exists.

[Coffeedrinker]

3 hours ago, coltsva said:

Pass interference on Texans. Replay shows the defender never touched TY.

You want the Colts to decline the penalty because the ref botched the call?

 

Ramsey guarding TY. TY makes a cut that breaks Ramseys ankle. He grabs TY as he's falling down to support himself as the ball flies past, and the ref calls interference. You declining that one too?

 

Even if the Colts had the choice, you take the penalty. You don't decline a penalty just because the refs made the wrong call.

 

I understand, they should have picked up the flag and it stinks he got hurt. You send him flowers and a get well card, but you take the penalty.

I don't think the Colts should have declined it (take every advantage you can) but your examples are not similar because both of those situations have an effect on the play as it is happening.  Neal's penalty had no affect on anything.

 

Also, the rule is not equally applied.  Rivers, for example, takes off his helmet as he's walking off the field just about every time he throws and incomplete pass on 3rd down.

[runthepost]

Did they call a penalty on Diggs when he tossed his helmet in that game winning touchdown?

[VaAllDay757]

8 minutes ago, runthepost said:

Did they call a penalty on Diggs when he tossed his helmet in that game winning touchdown?

Not the same the game was over when he scored

[coltsva]

15 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I don't think the Colts should have declined it (take every advantage you can) but your examples are not similar because both of those situations have an effect on the play as it is happening.  Neal's penalty had no affect on anything.

 

Also, the rule is not equally applied.  Rivers, for example, takes off his helmet as he's walking off the field just about every time he throws and incomplete pass on 3rd down.

Yeah, I agree.

Not my best work. 

[braveheartcolt]

57 minutes ago, csmopar said:

the whole thing is about tossing the helmet... 

You had a smarty pants arrogant response to IndySouthsider who correctly pointed out for the first time in this WHOLE thread that it was not for taking off his helmet, it was for tossing it away. And as others have added, players take off their helmets on the field of play all the time with no flag.

 

Tick.

[aaron11]

4 hours ago, csmopar said:

It’s conduct penalty meaning the team has to take it. 

Ive seen some conflicting info on this but i think you might be right.  i dont think many nfl coaches would decline that anyway even if they could

 

i would not feel great about flagging that if i was a ref though, even if its by rule.  its not like that are that consistent about it

[Shepman]

I said to my son-in-law that shouldn't apply to injuries.  However, then it happens for a different reason and a player fakes an injury to get out of it.  Gotta be black and white I think to maintain the integrity and spirit of the rule.

[BigQungus]

4 hours ago, coltsva said:

Pass interference on Texans. Replay shows the defender never touched TY.

You want the Colts to decline the penalty because the ref botched the call?

 

Ramsey guarding TY. TY makes a cut that breaks Ramseys ankle. He grabs TY as he's falling down to support himself as the ball flies past, and the ref calls interference. You declining that one too?

 

Even if the Colts had the choice, you take the penalty. You don't decline a penalty just because the refs made the wrong call.

 

I understand, they should have picked up the flag and it stinks he got hurt. You send him flowers and a get well card, but you take the penalty.

 

 I think there is a difference between accepting a bad penalty and accepting a penalty that directly stemmed from a guy getting injured. Not saying I would've declined it even if the rules allowed, but I'm just saying

[BigQungus]

1 hour ago, braveheartcolt said:

You had a smarty pants arrogant response to IndySouthsider who correctly pointed out for the first time in this WHOLE thread that it was not for taking off his helmet, it was for tossing it away. And as others have added, players take off their helmets on the field of play all the time with no flag.

 

Tick.

 

The penalty stemmed from taking off his helmet on the field, which according to league rules is an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty

[Valpo2004]

I tend to agree that the officials shouldn't have called that.  

[braveheartcolt]

19 minutes ago, BigQungus said:

 

The penalty stemmed from taking off his helmet on the field, which according to league rules is an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty

It was the manner in which it was removed. Every week injured players take off their helmets when lying/sitting on the turf. And see the comment re Rivers. Anyway, not sure why I care...

[luv_pony_express]

1 hour ago, VaAllDay757 said:

Not the same the game was over when he scored

 

That may be true.  But it makes it difficult for the NFL to defend the call against Neal.

 

Anybody charged with enforcing any set of rules must make a good faith effort to be consistent.  Context can taken into consideration, of course.  But, if that’s going to be case, then discretion must be written into the rule.

 

An example of this would be hanging on the rim in basketball.  If the officials determine that a player is hanging from the rim in order to avoid injury to themselves or other players, then it’s legal.  Otherwise, it isn’t.

 

I’m not familiar enough with the helmet rule in the NFL to know if the officials are given that sort of latitude.  If they’re not, then they have no choice but to enforce it irrespective of the context.

[IndySouthsider]

18 hours ago, luv_pony_express said:

 

That may be true.  But it makes it difficult for the NFL to defend the call against Neal.

 

Anybody charged with enforcing any set of rules must make a good faith effort to be consistent.  Context can taken into consideration, of course.  But, if that’s going to be case, then discretion must be written into the rule.

 

An example of this would be hanging on the rim in basketball.  If the officials determine that a player is hanging from the rim in order to avoid injury to themselves or other players, then it’s legal.  Otherwise, it isn’t.

 

I’m not familiar enough with the helmet rule in the NFL to know if the officials are given that sort of latitude.  If they’re not, then they have no choice but to enforce it irrespective of the context.

How do you penalize a team when the game is over?

 

We have seen in the past where a player gets injured and fumbled the ball to the other team. Should this forgiveness be for every injury?

[luv_pony_express]

9 hours ago, IndySouthsider said:

How do you penalize a team when the game is over?

 

We have seen in the past where a player gets injured and fumbled the ball to the other team. Should this forgiveness be for every injury?

 

I’m not arguing that it was a bad call.

[BigQungus]

On 9/26/2019 at 1:52 PM, braveheartcolt said:

It was the manner in which it was removed. Every week injured players take off their helmets when lying/sitting on the turf. And see the comment re Rivers. Anyway, not sure why I care...

 

I believe this is the official rule "You cannot take your helmet off as part of a celebration, a demonstration, or as part of a confrontation with an opponent or a game official. "

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 9/26/2019 at 7:37 AM, aaron11 said:

The rule says its a penalty for -Removal of his helmet by a player in the field of play or the end zone during a celebration or demonstration, or during a confrontation with a game official or any other player 

 

Officials enforce rules. If there are no exceptions in the book, then none on the field.

 

However, the league could, and should (and maybe did) decline to fine the player.  Other players throwing their helmet (non catastrophic injury) should get the penalty and a FedEx letter imposing a fine.

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Officials enforce rules. If there are no exceptions in the book, then none on the field.

players take their helmets off pretty often and dont get called for it.  

[jvan1973]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

players take their helmets off pretty often and dont get called for it.  

Not when they throw it

[aaron11]

23 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Not when they throw it

maybe they should make that the rule then.  

[jameszeigler834]

On 9/26/2019 at 7:37 AM, aaron11 said:

There has been a lot of chatter about the personal foul penalty on Neal for taking his helmet off after he was injured.  The rule says its a penalty for -Removal of his helmet by a player in the field of play or the end zone during a celebration or demonstration, or during a confrontation with a game official or any other player 

 

He was on the field of play, so i think its hard to be mad at the refs here.  Personally im taking that penalty every time, but Eric Ebron and apparently a bunch of colts fans wish we had declined.  I posted this just to see a few more opinions on the matter

Except you look at the guy he is clearly hurt make an exception that penalty is bullcrap anyways.

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

maybe they should make that the rule then.  

They did.   Taking off your helmet walking off the field isn't a penalty.   Taking off your helmet in celebration or in anger is a penalty.   The Refs can't wait for MRI results to enforce penalties

[ColtsBlueFL]

5 hours ago, aaron11 said:

6 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Not when they throw it

maybe they should make that the rule then.  

 

And then have to rescind it again when an thrown helmet accidentally hits another player...

 

Nah. The NFL will avoid that scenario from ever happening.

[aaron11]

14 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

They did.   Taking off your helmet walking off the field isn't a penalty.   Taking off your helmet in celebration or in anger is a penalty.   The Refs can't wait for MRI results to enforce penalties

thats not what it says though.   it just says taking it off is a penalty which doesnt get called all the time, it doesnt say anything  about throwing it

[aaron11]

9 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

And then have to rescind it again when an thrown helmet accidentally hits another player...

 

Nah. The NFL will avoid that scenario from ever happening.

i dont think you understood

[ColtsBlueFL]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

i dont think you understood

 

No, I get it:

 

Section 3, Article 1
REMOVAL OF HELMET (h)   
Removal of his helmet by a player in the field of play during a celebration or during a confrontation with a game official or any other player.
Note  1:  Under  no  condition  is  an  official  to  allow  a  player  to  shove,  push,  or  strike  him  in  an  offensive,disrespectful, or unsportsmanlike manner. Any such action must be reported to the Commissioner.
Penalty: (for a through h): Loss of 15 yards  from succeeding spot or whatever spot the Referee, after consulting with the crew, deems equitable.

 

Section 2, Article 15
USE OF HELMET AS A WEAPON
A player may not use a helmet (that is no longer worn by anyone) as a weapon to strike, swing at, or throw at an opponent.
Penalty: For illegal use of helmet as a weapon: Loss of 15 yards and automatic disqualification

But (as I hoped/predicted earlier) Neal was not fined, just penalized.  OTOH, Stefon Diggs was-
"Diggs was hit with a $10,527 fine after removing his helmet and taunting the crowd in Green Bay."

[PrincetonTiger]

12 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

And then have to rescind it again when an thrown helmet accidentally hits another player...

 

Nah. The NFL will avoid that scenario from ever happening.

The Orlando Brown Ref Incident 

[aaron11]

34 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

No, I get it:

 

Section 3, Article 1
REMOVAL OF HELMET (h)   
Removal of his helmet by a player in the field of play during a celebration or during a confrontation with a game official or any other player.

this didnt fit the criteria, going by that wording.  it wasnt a celebration or confrontation, nor did he use it as a weapon

[PrincetonTiger]

11 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

this didnt fit the criteria, going by that wording.  it wasnt a celebration or confrontation, nor did he use it as a weapon

The throwing of the helmet endangered the players, refs, support staff, and even fans around the end zone

  

   The refs deemed it dangerous and throw the flag 

 

       

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

 

   The refs deemed it dangerous and throw the flag 

 

       

obviously that is what happened, i posted this to see how people felt about it.  some liked the call, some didnt.  probably would have been some different responses if it went against the colts too

 

the league looked into it and decided not to fine, that came out after i posted this

[ColtsBlueFL]

21 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

this didnt fit the criteria, going by that wording.  it wasnt a celebration or confrontation, nor did he use it as a weapon

 

You didn't finish with part 2 above-

 

a helmet that was no longer worn (was removed in the field of play) by anyone was thrown ...

 

That normally gets a fine too.  The NFL bypassed that in this case.  But I see no scenario where they write rule(s) allowing 'selective throwing' of their helmets.