Jump to content

Raiders file complaint to league regarding dirty hits on WR Hunter Renfrow

RaidersAreOne

By RaidersAreOne
in NFL News

 Share

Recommended Posts

sammymvpknight

sammymvpknight

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Dome said:

Is there precedent for suspension on players who decide to knock someone down whenever they get the chance?

Lets say we find twice as many clips as we have in the thread, let’s say the ravens knocked renfrow down 4 times when they didn’t need to. You can adjust this to the number of knockdowns you feel would require the NFL to step in.

“Targeting” is defined already, but not in the way you’re using it. So what is the suspension going to be for?

Per NFL football operations website:

  • (2005) Unnecessarily running, diving into, or throwing the body against a player who should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent is unnecessary roughness. Previously, the rule only protected a player who is out of the play.
  • (2009) It is an illegal hit on a defenseless receiver if the initial force of the contact by the defender’s helmet, forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of the receiver.
  • (2010) All “defenseless players” are protected from blows to the head delivered by an opponent’s helmet, forearm, or shoulder.
  • (2017) Gives a receiver running a pass route defenseless player protection.

 

If there were a series of it over the course of the same game, to the same player...I'd imagine the league would have a problem against it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dome

Dome

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, sammymvpknight said:

(2005) Unnecessarily running, diving into, or throwing the body against a player who should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent is unnecessary roughness. Previously, the rule only protected a player who is out of the play.

The OP clip shows this. I agree it should have been an unnecessary roughness.

 

Also from the rulebook: 

SECTION 5 - CHUCKING
Chucking is intentionally contacting an eligible receiver who is in front of a defender. (See 12-1-5-d-exc. 1).

SECTION 4 - LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CONTACT WITH ELIGIBLE RECEIVERS
ARTICLE 1. LEGAL CONTACT WITHIN FIVE YARDS
Within the area five yards beyond the line of scrimmage, a defensive player may chuck an eligible receiver in front of him. The defender is allowed to maintain continuous and unbroken contact within the five-yard zone, so long as the receiver has not moved beyond a point that is even with the defender.

The Queen hit is questionable on whether or not it should have even been a penalty.

Regardless of whether or not it was a penalty because it was beyond 5 yards, there is absolutely reason for Hunter for anticipate contact if he's within a yard or so of that 5 yard marker.

 

2 hours ago, sammymvpknight said:

 

  • (2009) It is an illegal hit on a defenseless receiver if the initial force of the contact by the defender’s helmet, forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of the receiver.

If we're getting technical, it appears as though Queen hits him with his hand (the rule you quoted states that it is illegal if its a helmet, forearm or shoulder) around the chestplate, then it slides up to his neck. You can see Queens other hand on Renfrow's back, across his name plate.

That said, contacting the chestplate and slipping your hand up to the head and neck area isn't illegal based on this rule, because it was his hand.

Here is from the NFL rulebook:

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, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;
2)lowering the head and making forcible contact with any part of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body;
or 3) illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. 

 

Quote


(2010) All “defenseless players” are protected from blows to the head delivered by an opponent’s helmet, forearm, or shoulder.

It doesn't appear Renfrow is hit by Queens helmet, forearm or shoulder. Looks like the majority if not all of the contact was by his hand. 

Quote

If there were a series of it over the course of the same game, to the same player...I'd imagine the league would have a problem against it. 

So far there is one clear personal foul that showed no intent to injure, it was a shove for no good reason.

The Queen hit may not have been an illegal contact foul, it may not have been a personal foul based on the hand being used to initiate contact, and it may be just as much on Hunter because Queen is backpedaling away from Hunter when the contact is initiated.

 

So that's not a series over the course of the game. That's one cheap shove and one demonstration of physical coverage that may or may not have been legal.

Edited by Dome
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dome

Dome

Posted
Posted

Anyways, if I don't see anything besides those two hits I think the person that first suggested filing the complaint against the Ravens should identify themselves publicly. 

There has to be more. Surely twitter has scoured the game by now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sammymvpknight

sammymvpknight

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Dome said:

Anyways, if I don't see anything besides those two hits I think the person that first suggested filing the complaint against the Ravens should identify themselves publicly. 

There has to be more. Surely twitter has scoured the game by now. 

I agree that if it’s those two then i doubt anything comes from his. But the report says “several” which isn’t two. I guess we’ll see. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dome

Dome

Posted
Posted
Just now, sammymvpknight said:

I agree that if it’s those two then i doubt anything comes from his. But the report says “several” which isn’t two. I guess we’ll see. 

If there was anything egregious I have to imagine someone would've posted it by now. People are fast on that stuff.

I won't hold my breath lol. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wackywabbit

wackywabbit

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/16/2021 at 10:36 PM, Dome said:

If there was anything egregious I have to imagine someone would've posted it by now. People are fast on that stuff.

I won't hold my breath lol. 

Yea, the all-22 has been scoured many many times by now. The possibility that the Raiders have more damning evidence from other plays is now essentially 0.

Which like I said when this thread started makes this all a waste of time and energy.

Edited by wackywabbit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dome

Dome

Posted
Posted (edited)

It appears there are no more "dirty hits" to be found in this game. Here are some quotes from B/R fwiw

 

Quote

 

Patrick Queen, Ravens Not Fined for Hits on Hunter Renfrow After Raiders' Complaint

The Las Vegas Raiders filed a complaint with the NFL for a number of hits on wide receiver Hunter Renfrow they deemed excessive after Monday night's matchup with the Baltimore Ravens, but NFL Network's Tom Pelissero reported that no fines were issued after the league reviewed the matter.

Linebacker Patrick Queen in particular was penalized for unnecessary roughness after hitting Renfrow in the second quarter, though he avoided a fine.

The NFL rules dictate that a defender is "permitted to use his hands, arms, or body to push, pull or ward off an offensive receiver" if a quarterback "demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball"

But Ravens cornerback Marlon Humphrey told reporters he apologized to Renfrow for a hit in the game when he thought Raiders quarterback Derek Carr had escaped the pocket and become a potential runner. Humphrey hit Renfrow above the numbers and knocked him off his feet after the wide receiver had slowed his route away from the play.

"I did hit Hunter Renfrow a little after the play," he said. "I thought Derek Carr was out of the pocket. I apologized to him on the field. That was a play I wish I could take back."

 

 

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10012710-patrick-queen-ravens-not-fined-for-hits-on-hunter-renfrow-after-raiders-complaint

The NFL penalizing Queen but not fining him, specifically after complaints, is as close as we're going to get to an apology for flagging what appeared to lots of people as just tough coverage.

Edited by Dome
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas5737

Thomas5737

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Dome said:

It appears there are no more "dirty hits" to be found in this game. Here are some quotes from B/R fwiw

 

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10012710-patrick-queen-ravens-not-fined-for-hits-on-hunter-renfrow-after-raiders-complaint

The NFL penalizing Queen but not fining him, specifically after complaints, is as close as we're going to get to an apology for flagging what appeared to lots of people as just tough coverage.

Not every personal foul is fined, I don't see a non-fine as an apology. The article also has Humphrey admitting what he did was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dome

Dome

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

Not every personal foul is fined, I don't see a non-fine as an apology.

I didn’t say it was an apology. I said it’s as close as we are going to get to an apology. That’s quite literally me acknowledging that the NFL isn’t going to apologize for (what I and others considered) a bad call.

Quote

The article also has Humphrey admitting what he did was wrong.

I know, I bolded that part of the article in my post. As far as I’m aware everyone agrees it should have been a 15 yard penalty for the shove.

So what?

Edited by Dome
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...