(11-16-2019, 12:17 AM)nejagsfan Wrote:

(11-15-2019, 11:51 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: The bolded is where I disagree. They never should have gone to the ground. 

The hit wasn't late.  But the takedown was blatantly late. 
 Garrett had plenty of time to disengage and had to know the ball was gone as Rudolph rotated, took steps, and half shed the tackle before Garrett doubled down and pulled Rudolph to the ground.  

It was flag worthy and constitutes instigation. 

Should Rudolph have tried to pull his helmet off?  Hell no. 
Was he justified in defending himself somehow against a blatant foul? Yes, but he went too far.
I was a little surprised Rudolph wasn't suspended, but I don't feel he "started it."  The late takedown started it IMO.

It wasn't blatantly late and he barely even took him down he didn't lead with his helmet...it wasn't helmet-to-helmet he didn't land with his weight on him... It wasn't blatant and Rudolph didn't have the right to defend himself for the hit... nor was it justified.... Are we watching the same play?? Watch it in real time... At what point is Rudolph justified for trying to rip Garrett's helmet off... And kick him in the groin.... If it was such a blatant foul why didn't the ref throw the flag for roughing the passer.... The referee was standing right there and he didn't think it was a blatant late hit