Jaime Collins' Ejection - Valid or not?

[lancerman]

56 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Heres the issue. You keep using a weird angle to justify your stance when the 3rd angle CLEARLY SHOWS COLLINS DIDNT INITIATE THE CONTACT

 

lol I don't know why I still bother. The vast majority of people ITT can see whats right in front of there eyes.

60/40 isn’t really a vast majority. And not for nothing I can scout this site for dozens of godawful takes that were crap in hindsight that fans here justified in mass. So that doesn’t mean a whole lot. I’m telling you right now, this ejection is not controversial 

[MookieMonstah]

3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

60/40 isn’t really a vast majority. And not for nothing I can scout this site for dozens of godawful takes that were crap in hindsight that fans here justified in mass. So that doesn’t mean a whole lot. I’m telling you right now, this ejection is not controversial 

Yeah, video evidence is tough. Hate to see it. Pretty big depiction of current climate America though so bravo everyone. 

[squire12]

1 hour ago, MookieMonstah said:

Heres the issue. You keep using a weird angle to justify your stance when the 3rd angle CLEARLY SHOWS COLLINS DIDNT INITIATE THE CONTACT

 

lol I don't know why I still bother. The vast majority of people ITT can see whats right in front of there eyes.

so why are you discounting the 2nd angle that shows that Collins is continuing to move toward the ref?  Does the ref move, yes he does.  Does Collins continue to move toward the ref, yes he does.  So with both individuals moving, they are both responsible for the contact occurring.  

[MookieMonstah]

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

so why are you discounting the 2nd angle that shows that Collins is continuing to move toward the ref?  Does the ref move, yes he does.  Does Collins continue to move toward the ref, yes he does.  So with both individuals moving, they are both responsible for the contact occurring.  

Because the second angle is clearly worse than the third angle. It's from a bad angle, you can't see the front of the ref.

The third angle shows the front of the ref and CLEARLY shows him turn his shoulder and chest into Collins helmet, flinching or not. Its a bad ejection. Your last statement says enough, the ref at the very minimum is 50% responsible for the contact. Which makes it a bad ejection. I've seen HBs truck stick refs before because they were in the middle of the play, guess they should've been ejected.

[lancerman]

13 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Yeah, video evidence is tough. Hate to see it. Pretty big depiction of current climate America though so bravo everyone. 

Did the ref do anything out of the ordinary that would have resulted in contact with a player or did a player rushing over to the other side of the field and putting his helmet at chest level while moving forward start the action that ended in contact. If absolutely nothing changed on the refs part there is no contact. If Collins went back and lined up there is no contact. Again it’s Collins fault. It’s embarrassing that you are trying to say that the ref slightly moving to avoid him is what caused the contact. 
 

Anyways like I said this isn’t controversial to anybody who matters. Nobody is fighting or disputing this in real life. It’s just fans jumping through hoops to have something to complain about 

 

 

[squire12]

5 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Because the second angle is clearly worse than the third angle. It's from a bad angle, you can't see the front of the ref.

yes, it is clearly worse for Collins in that it shows he was continuing to move toward the ref.  Discounting it supports your stance that Collins had no part in making contract with the ref

5 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

The third angle shows the front of the ref and CLEARLY shows him turn his shoulder and chest into Collins helmet, flinching or not. Its a bad ejection. Your last statement says enough, the ref at the very minimum is 50% responsible for the contact. Which makes it a bad ejection. I've seen HBs truck stick refs before because they were in the middle of the play, guess they should've been ejected.

How is something during a play even remotely the same as something well after the play?

[squire12]

2 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Did the ref do anything out of the ordinary that would have resulted in contact with a player or did a player rushing over to the other side of the field and putting his helmet at chest level while moving forward start the action that ended in contact. If absolutely nothing changed on the refs part there is no contact. If Collins went back and lined up there is no contact. Again it’s Collins fault. It’s embarrassing that you are trying to say that the ref slightly moving to avoid him is what caused the contact.

But in the video that he wants to look at, the ref turned to avoid Collins head down coming at him and therefore it was the ref who was the only one to initiate the contact.  Collins actions in continuing to move toward the ref had 0 influence on that end result

2 minutes ago, lancerman said:

 

Anyways like I said this isn’t controversial to anybody who matters. Nobody is fighting or disputing this in real life. It’s just fans jumping through hoops to have something to complain about 

 

 

 

[Superman(DH23)]

I cant believe there is still discussion going on here.  Call it soft if you want, it was the right call.  Collins was stupid.  No he didn't intend injury or anything malicious whatsoever.  Still a blatant case of unnecessary contact with the official.  I understand it violating people's moral sense of "he wasnt really trying to do anything" but it doesnt change the fact that he 100% should not have done it.  

[Jotun_Fan]

3 hours ago, lancerman said:

60/40 isn’t really a vast majority. And not for nothing I can scout this site for dozens of godawful takes that were crap in hindsight that fans here justified in mass. So that doesn’t mean a whole lot. I’m telling you right now, this ejection is not controversial 

Not only that, but the poll isn't even about if the ref hit collins or collins hit the ref.  There might be a decent chunk of those 60% that think Collins hit him but shouldn't have been ejected.  I think what's more telling is trying to get different play by play commentators perspective from when it happened or their first thoughts.  How many analysts were saying things along the lines of "Why did the ref chest bump him"  versus "What is Collins doing?"

3 hours ago, squire12 said:

But in the video that he wants to look at, the ref turned to avoid Collins head down coming at him and therefore it was the ref who was the only one to initiate the contact.  Collins actions in continuing to move toward the ref had 0 influence on that end result

 

Yeah, I give up.  If there was a courtroom argument about who was responsible for what % of the contact, it would be hilarious to see it argued how the ref was 100% responsible for what happened.  If I had multiple angles, and one shows something that appeared to happen and another shows it clearly didn't happen then I would assume the perspective on the first could have been misleading.  I guess if you're trying to determine what exactly happened in a three dimensional world you only use one two dimensional camera angle when you have three available.  Also the ref both initiates contact by bumping into the player and flies backward in one motion initiating the contact with Collins, who was "stationary" and is unmoved at all from said impact from referee while bending over.

My gripe is that this actually undermines the argument of it being an invalid ejection because people are trying to hang on to something that clearly didn't happen.  A better argument would be that he didn't mean to touch him and got too close.  I could understand that.  But watching these clips...more and more I'm just like come on man what are you doing.  If you're one of his coaches on Monday morning, are you saying to him "Dude that was ******* the ref chest bumped you" or are you telling him "Don't do that dumb *** thing again."

[TheKillerNacho]

On 9/14/2020 at 8:51 AM, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Dude literally leaned in and initiated a light bump. 😂 

So no, not warranted.

at the same time, what was Jamie even doing?

[TheKillerNacho]

At the end of the day, I'd say it didn't warrant an ejection but I  have no idea what Jamie was trying to do there lol.

I certainly don't think it was a wrong/bad call, either. Just one that I probably wouldn't have made.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

6 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

at the same time, what was Jamie even doing?

I don’t even want to venture a guess 😂 

[Jotun_Fan]

20 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

At the end of the day, I'd say it didn't warrant an ejection but I  have no idea what Jamie was trying to do there lol.

I certainly don't think it was a wrong/bad call, either. Just one that I probably wouldn't have made.

This is pretty much what I think. I don't blame the ref for throwing the flag right away, hopefully I wouldn't have spooked like that but maybe I would have.

[incognito_man]

20 hours ago, burlow said:

how was the contact he made necessary? 

Quite simply because it was not unnecessary as defined by the NFL rulebook.

[incognito_man]

The fact that we need to dissect several angles to even wager a guess at who initiated the contact is all the proof anyone should need that Collins didn't make unnecessary contact as defined by the NFL (Shove, Push or Strike). It was CLEARLY none of those things.

That there's even participation in the debate of initiation begets the entire innocence of Collins.