The Hit on Michael Pittman
 

o


Many Colts fans were outraged at the hit on Michael Pittman yesterday.

Looking at the hit objectively as I possibly can, I did not see it as a dirty play. Pittman laid out for the catch, and the defender turned his head and hit Pittman with his shoulder. Yes, the Steelers defender hit Pittman in the head, but with Pittman stretched out and reaching for the ball, there really was no other place to hit him. And I don't think that he was aiming for Pittman's head, I think that he simply hit the first body part that his shoulder collided with, which was (unfortunately) Pittman's head.

So, let's assume that it was a dirty hit ...... what was the alternative for the Steelers' defender ??? The alternative was to not hit Pittman at all, and watch as Pittman lay out and make an outstanding catch to the delight of the roaring home crowd.


And so, in my rat's ass of an opinion, it comes back to this ...... football is an extremely aggressive and physical game, and I believe that in an effort to make it "safer" the NFL has actually not only made it unfair for defensive players, but has also made it more dangerous for defensive players ...... you can get hurt if you're constantly worried about getting penalties for unnecessary roughness and/or late hits that are not late in a sport that is so fast and so violent. If I were a head coach, I would tell my defenders to just continue to play the game the way that they were taught to since they were in high school, and to let the chips fall where they may with unfair roughing calls ...... I would rather have a 15-yard penalty called against my player as opposed to having my player lose his natural instincts in a sport as fast and as violent as is tackle football.

o

Watching live I thought it was definitely a dirty hit and that Kazee definitely should be thrown out of the game. After watching some replays, which weren't shown on the broadcast, I think the argument can be made that it should have just been a penalty and not an ejection.

Something to consider though is that this was the 2nd Colts player injured in as many drives due to illegal hits/tackles (Moss getting horse collared being the other one), and the refs wanted to make sure shit didn't get out of hand.

Since Pittman was going to end up on the ground anyway, all he would have to do was make contact while he was on the ground.

o


Pittman still could have caught ball while he was going to the ground. In fact, Pittman almost did catch the ball as he was going to the ground. The shoulder hit was what made him drop the ball.

o

If a guys airborne he’s defenseless… to deliver a blow to his head and neck area is dirty as fuck as he’s laying horizontally to the ground

o


As I said, the alternative would have been to not hit Pittman, and hope that he dropped the ball. He hit him with his shoulder, and he didn't aim for his head, he hit the first body part that came his way.

The NFL could institute a rule that an airborne receiver isn't to be touched, under any circumstances ...... as it stands, that is essentially the way the game is being officiated, anyway.

o

There’s a difference between touching an airborne guy to ensure he’s down as opposed to throwing your shoulder into him knowing he’s defenseless… I’ve said in other threads as far as I’m concerned NFL should go to NCAA rules when a guys in the ground hes down because defenders literally try and hurt players by pouncing on top of them

o


Touching an airborne player who is flying through the air does nothing, except maybe break the fingers of the defender. You actually expected the Steelers defender to reach out and "touch" Pittman while Pittman was laying out and diving for the ball, and that that would somehow cause Pittman to drop the ball?

Like I said, the way that the game is officiated now, an airborne receiver isn't to be touched, under any circumstances ...... they may as well make it official and put those exact words into the rulebook, and stop pretending that the defender has some kind of recourse other than making a hit with their shoulder, because they don't.

o

Try and hit the ball, or put your hands on the guy if he makes the catch it’s a hell of a play but he’s down. That could’ve ended his career, they we’re trying to take guys out because that horse collar on moss was ridiculous he didn’t even try and let up

o


I'm not talking about the horse-collar play, I'm talking about the hit on Pittman.

If you watch the play with any objectivity, you'll see that the defender doesn't have the multiple choices that you suggest ...... he could either turn and hit the receiver with his shoulder (which he did), or he could have stepped back and hoped that Pittman dropped the ball.

Regarding defenseless receivers, the receivers themselves have a choice in the matter of becoming defenseless in the first place. They are choosing to dive across their bodies and lay out for a pass ...... the choice on the part of the receiver to do that should not therefore inhibit the ability of the defender to prevent him from catching the pass by hitting him. Just like a quarterback who chooses not to slide, lowers his shoulder, and takes on a defender in order to get the yardage needed for a first down ...... if the quarterback doesn't want to risk injury, he can slide and avoid contact. If he wants the first down badly enough, he can lower his shoulder and take on the defender to get the yardage ...... but either way, it's his choice. And in the extremely fast and violent game of tackle football, the same is true of the receiver who dives head-first and horizontally for a ball that he wants to catch ...... it's a very risky maneuver because he's leaving himself defenseless in doing so. And if the NFL were to be forthright and honest about it, they would stop pretending and just put it in the rulebook that a "defenseless" airborne receiver is not to be touched, under any circumstances.

o