What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Will we see the first suspension? (1 Viewer)

B

Bayhawks

Footballguy
Will we see the first suspension under the NFL's "tougher" interpretation of the rules regarding helmet-to-helmet hits?

Ward was injured on a helmet-to-helmet hit by Patrick Chung (I think). As a result of that hit, Ward was unable to play in the remainder of the game.

That hit played a big part in the outcome of the game. NE might still have won, regardless, but without Ward, the Patriots had an easier go of it.

Since the league said they were going to "crack down" on these type of hits with suspensions, is Chung the first one to go?

 
I dont think that was helmet to helmet, looked to me like he led with his shoulder. Was there a penalty called on the hit?

 
The slow-mo replay didn't look like a helmet hit at all. I think Ward's head/neck injury happened when he hit the ground.

 
It was helmet to helmet contact, but ironically it was Ward's helmet that struck the blow into Chung's. Ward was being tackled from behind as Chung came from the front side to assist. As Ward was driven forward by the momentum of the tackle, his head smashed into the front of Chung's helmet - Chung was facing straight up, not lowering the top of his head - above the facemask.

I don't see anyway there can be a suspension for that I don't even think there should be a fine. Unless now the defender is supposed to dodge the onrushing helmet of an offensive player.

 
The_Man said:
Edit to my previous post - Chung was the tackler from behind, it was Sanders in front who was actually the recipient of the helmet to helmet strike from Ward as Ward was driven down from behind.

Here's a video -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjm3sEVhsM4
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, and for correcting my misconception that Chung was the trailing defender, and not the other guy. I assumed he (as the safety) was coming across the middle.Let me be clear, I'm not saying I feel the hit was dirty. But, according to the rules, and the NFL's recent edict about cracking down on these hits, the NE defender should be subject to a suspension. Here are the reaons:

1) Ward is considered a defenseless receiver, as evidenced by the incomplete ruling. If he was not considered a defenseless receiver, he would have been ruled down by contact, as his knee was down before the ball came loose.

2) As a defenseless receiver, Ward is supposed to be protected from helmet-to-helmet hits, even if his movement causes that hit. The defender is responsible for the hit, and it doesn't matter if the receiver was knocked into him, or if the receiver ducks or moves, thereby causing the helmet-to-helmet.

Based on Ray Anderson's "letter of the law" stance (link below), why shouldn't this hit result in a suspension?

http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-falcons-blog/...ta_falcons_blog

Some excerpts from that interview which are applicable here:

On the rule protecting defenseless players:

RA: The rule is Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8. The folks who really follow this can have that in front of them. It says that we are going to protect defenseless players – not just defenseless receivers but defenseless players across the board. We have defined categories of what amounts to a defenseless player.

When it comes to head and neck injuries, we are going to be aggressive at preventing them. If the initial contact to a defenseless player is with the forearm, the shoulder or a helmet, it is illegal under the existing rules. We are going to have players understand that and coaches teach to that. Indeed we are going to enforce that and make them accountable to the letter of the law because we cannot tolerate these types of head and neck injuries in our game. We are going to be aggressive about making sure we discipline accordingly.
Click to expand...
A helmet, shoulder or forearm that ends up having helmet contact as a result is illegal under the rules so we have to enforce it.
Click to expand...
I just don't see how the NFL can make these kinds of statements, and then not enforce their own "stricter" policies, not if they want the players to take them seriously.
 
Under the new rules, yes, a fine at minimum. Suspension would be acceptable too. It even looked like the defender was rising up into Ward, leading with the helmet. Not a dirty play, but it doesn't matter anymore.

 
Bayhawks said:
The_Man said:
Edit to my previous post - Chung was the tackler from behind, it was Sanders in front who was actually the recipient of the helmet to helmet strike from Ward as Ward was driven down from behind.

Here's a video -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjm3sEVhsM4
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, and for correcting my misconception that Chung was the trailing defender, and not the other guy. I assumed he (as the safety) was coming across the middle.Let me be clear, I'm not saying I feel the hit was dirty. But, according to the rules, and the NFL's recent edict about cracking down on these hits, the NE defender should be subject to a suspension. Here are the reaons:

1) Ward is considered a defenseless receiver, as evidenced by the incomplete ruling. If he was not considered a defenseless receiver, he would have been ruled down by contact, as his knee was down before the ball came loose.

2) As a defenseless receiver, Ward is supposed to be protected from helmet-to-helmet hits, even if his movement causes that hit. The defender is responsible for the hit, and it doesn't matter if the receiver was knocked into him, or if the receiver ducks or moves, thereby causing the helmet-to-helmet.

Based on Ray Anderson's "letter of the law" stance (link below), why shouldn't this hit result in a suspension?

http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-falcons-blog/...ta_falcons_blog

Some excerpts from that interview which are applicable here:

On the rule protecting defenseless players:

RA: The rule is Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8. The folks who really follow this can have that in front of them. It says that we are going to protect defenseless players – not just defenseless receivers but defenseless players across the board. We have defined categories of what amounts to a defenseless player.

When it comes to head and neck injuries, we are going to be aggressive at preventing them. If the initial contact to a defenseless player is with the forearm, the shoulder or a helmet, it is illegal under the existing rules. We are going to have players understand that and coaches teach to that. Indeed we are going to enforce that and make them accountable to the letter of the law because we cannot tolerate these types of head and neck injuries in our game. We are going to be aggressive about making sure we discipline accordingly.
Click to expand...
A helmet, shoulder or forearm that ends up having helmet contact as a result is illegal under the rules so we have to enforce it.
Click to expand...
I just don't see how the NFL can make these kinds of statements, and then not enforce their own "stricter" policies, not if they want the players to take them seriously.
Click to expand...
From above..." If the initial contact to a defenseless player " I think this is where the problem with your argument lies. The initial contact with Ward is by Chung from behind, and is legal. IIRC, that was part of the Collie ruling last week, as well. He had initial contact with another defender, then was driven into the H2H contact.

 
I am assuming this is nothing but a fishing expedition - but the league is trying to eliminate intentional hits to the head, and/or unnecessary hits to a defenseless receiver.

Neither is the case in this situation.

No penalty, no fine, no suspension.

 
I hate the new rules. I also see no problem with this hit, but if Harrison's hit was a $75,000 fine, this is a suspension. Again if I made the rules neither would have even been a foul. There is no way a defender can account for last second movement by the offensive players head.

 
Drunken Cowboy said:
I hate the new rules. I also see no problem with this hit, but if Harrison's hit was a $75,000 fine, this is a suspension. Again if I made the rules neither would have even been a foul. There is no way a defender can account for last second movement by the offensive players head.
Click to expand...
I partially disagree with the last second movement. I don't know how to explain it, except from my own experiences. When high intensity plays are happening in sports, the time feels as if it slows down. Take a look at baseball as a quick example. The whole time from when the ball leaves the pitchers hand to when it gets to the catcher is .4 seconds. Yet, baseball players can adjust to the pitch and hit it constantly. I would say the only time where a defender can't adjust is when he launches helmet first and isn't looking what is going on. You can see in this play Chung was going to go all out on the hit and pulls off. Sure there was still contact, but it would have been worse if Chung didn't react.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I am assuming this is nothing but a fishing expedition - but the league is trying to eliminate intentional hits to the head, and/or unnecessary hits to a defenseless receiver.Neither is the case in this situation. No penalty, no fine, no suspension.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
VaTerp said:
Sinn Fein said:
I am assuming this is nothing but a fishing expedition - but the league is trying to eliminate intentional hits to the head, and/or unnecessary hits to a defenseless receiver.Neither is the case in this situation. No penalty, no fine, no suspension.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
Click to expand...
The defender did not launch himself head first, nor did he change his body position. Thats just football.
 
Fishing.

I like how Ocho Cinco is fined $20,000 for a uniform violation but Jon Beason is only fined $10,000 for a helmet to helmet hit on Marques Colston.

 
It was helmet-to-helmet but didn't look intentional or severe. How about we just let players play and officials officiate? Monday mornings are so annoying anymore.

 
crowe1130 said:
It was helmet-to-helmet but didn't look intentional or severe. How about we just let players play and officials officiate? Monday mornings are so annoying anymore.
Click to expand...
Intent doesn't matter anymore.The league also said they would go back and review every play regardless of penalty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
I am assuming this is nothing but a fishing expedition - but the league is trying to eliminate intentional hits to the head, and/or unnecessary hits to a defenseless receiver.

Neither is the case in this situation.

No penalty, no fine, no suspension.
Click to expand...
I think it was a clean hit and shouldn't be fined though similar hits have been fined this season which is why there has been so much controversy this season. I do take issue with the bolded statement though. The league has clearly stated that intention has absolutely nothing to do with a hit being considered illegal or not. If a helmet to helmet blow occurs on a "defenseless" receiver then it doesn't matter if the defender intended to hit him in the head or not. They have gone on to say that it doesn't even matter if the helmet-to-helmet contact was a result of the receiver dropping his head or turning his body.

Seems screwy to me but this is the NFL under Goodell...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
and whiny Pittsburgh fans.

Isn't that the truth. Is there a Pittsburgh fan that isn't whiny?

Oh, so that explains the yellow towels. I thought it was to dry their eyes after another loss to NE.

 
Godsbrother said:
Sinn Fein said:
I am assuming this is nothing but a fishing expedition - but the league is trying to eliminate intentional hits to the head, and/or unnecessary hits to a defenseless receiver.

Neither is the case in this situation.

No penalty, no fine, no suspension.
Click to expand...
I think it was a clean hit and shouldn't be fined though similar hits have been fined this season which is why there has been so much controversy this season. I do take issue with the bolded statement though. The league has clearly stated that intention has absolutely nothing to do with a hit being considered illegal or not. If a helmet to helmet blow occurs on a "defenseless" receiver then it doesn't matter if the defender intended to hit him in the head or not. They have gone on to say that it doesn't even matter if the helmet-to-helmet contact was a result of the receiver dropping his head or turning his body.

Seems screwy to me but this is the NFL under Goodell...
Click to expand...
I would argue that I have not seen "similar" hits that were fined.And at this point, you need lawyers to determine what the written rules and official statements from the league actually mean. Even then, there would still be some ambiguity.

That said, I agree with the overall intent and spirit of the rules and what the league is trying to do. And the hit on Ward IMO should not have been a penalty and should not be one that draws a fine. And I will be surprised if the league reviews it and believes that it should be.

FWIW, I started Ward and that hit led to a giant goose egg that could cost me in a crucial game this week. But I still see it as just an unfortunate incident and not the type of hit that the league is making a point to remove from the game.

 
The_Man said:
Edit to my previous post - Chung was the tackler from behind, it was Sanders in front who was actually the recipient of the helmet to helmet strike from Ward as Ward was driven down from behind.

Here's a video -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjm3sEVhsM4
Click to expand...
Not sure how anyone can question whether this is legal or not--it isn't. The discussion above proves that the NFL's rules are not clear. This should have been a penalty and he should be fined--or else, get rid of the Rule. He is defenseless--as he is being held, has barely made one step, and then smack--his helmet is hit by the second defender's helmet. You can see his head fly back on the impact.
 
two_dollars said:
crowe1130 said:
It was helmet-to-helmet but didn't look intentional or severe. How about we just let players play and officials officiate? Monday mornings are so annoying anymore.
Click to expand...
Intent doesn't matter anymore.The league also said they would go back and review every play regardless of penalty.
Click to expand...
Nothing to see on that play. The defender never launched himself or lowered his head.
 
I didn't see it mentioned anywhere else yet, Ward also did not catch a pass for the first time in 187 consecutive games. I think we was 3 games away from moving into 2nd place all time.

 
The hit by Brandon Meriweather a few weeks ago was 1000 times worse than the hit last night on Ward. The hit on Ward was a typical play and the players involved happened to bump heads. Brandon Meriweather got a running start, lined up the receiver in his crosshairs, and launched into the receiver who was totally defenseless. In the Ward play, the NE guys were just trying to tackle him and IMO there was no intent to injure or send some testosterone message about not going across the middle, etc.

The second defender (Sanders) was just going for a tackle, but Ward got turned when Chung hit him. That's a HUGE distinction as there was nothing Sanders could have done. He was not launching at Ward, and if Chung didn't hit Ward first, Sanders would not have come close to hitting Ward in the head with his helmet.

It still is possible for players to hit helmets and not have it be a huge debate about penalties, fines, and suspensions. It's unfortunate that Ward ended up getting hit on the play, but I don't see how either the old rules or the new rules indicate that there is any basis for a penalty, fine, or suspension on this play.

 
tones said:
and whiny Pittsburgh fans.Isn't that the truth. Is there a Pittsburgh fan that isn't whiny?Oh, so that explains the yellow towels. I thought it was to dry their eyes after another loss to NE.
Click to expand...
:angry: I and several other Steeler fans in this thead are not whining about the hit.I said in the NE/PIT game thread the Steelers were outcoached and outplayed by NE in every facet of the game. What more do you want ?
 
Road Warriors said:
Bayhawks said:
The_Man said:
Edit to my previous post - Chung was the tackler from behind, it was Sanders in front who was actually the recipient of the helmet to helmet strike from Ward as Ward was driven down from behind.

Here's a video -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjm3sEVhsM4
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, and for correcting my misconception that Chung was the trailing defender, and not the other guy. I assumed he (as the safety) was coming across the middle.Let me be clear, I'm not saying I feel the hit was dirty. But, according to the rules, and the NFL's recent edict about cracking down on these hits, the NE defender should be subject to a suspension. Here are the reaons:

1) Ward is considered a defenseless receiver, as evidenced by the incomplete ruling. If he was not considered a defenseless receiver, he would have been ruled down by contact, as his knee was down before the ball came loose.

2) As a defenseless receiver, Ward is supposed to be protected from helmet-to-helmet hits, even if his movement causes that hit. The defender is responsible for the hit, and it doesn't matter if the receiver was knocked into him, or if the receiver ducks or moves, thereby causing the helmet-to-helmet.

Based on Ray Anderson's "letter of the law" stance (link below), why shouldn't this hit result in a suspension?

http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-falcons-blog/...ta_falcons_blog

Some excerpts from that interview which are applicable here:

On the rule protecting defenseless players:

RA: The rule is Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8. The folks who really follow this can have that in front of them. It says that we are going to protect defenseless players – not just defenseless receivers but defenseless players across the board. We have defined categories of what amounts to a defenseless player.

When it comes to head and neck injuries, we are going to be aggressive at preventing them. If the initial contact to a defenseless player is with the forearm, the shoulder or a helmet, it is illegal under the existing rules. We are going to have players understand that and coaches teach to that. Indeed we are going to enforce that and make them accountable to the letter of the law because we cannot tolerate these types of head and neck injuries in our game. We are going to be aggressive about making sure we discipline accordingly.
Click to expand...
A helmet, shoulder or forearm that ends up having helmet contact as a result is illegal under the rules so we have to enforce it.
Click to expand...
I just don't see how the NFL can make these kinds of statements, and then not enforce their own "stricter" policies, not if they want the players to take them seriously.
Click to expand...
From above..." If the initial contact to a defenseless player " I think this is where the problem with your argument lies. The initial contact with Ward is by Chung from behind, and is legal. IIRC, that was part of the Collie ruling last week, as well. He had initial contact with another defender, then was driven into the H2H contact.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking, but I'm wondering if it means the initial contact by each defensive player.

In layman's terms, the first time the 2nd player hit Ward (initial contact by the 2nd player) was with the helmet.

If "initial contact" only refers to the first hit, then the 2nd player can go head first at him? That doesn't make sense.

 
Da Guru said:
two_dollars said:
crowe1130 said:
It was helmet-to-helmet but didn't look intentional or severe. How about we just let players play and officials officiate? Monday mornings are so annoying anymore.
Click to expand...
Intent doesn't matter anymore.The league also said they would go back and review every play regardless of penalty.
Click to expand...
Nothing to see on that play. The defender never launched himself or lowered his head.
Click to expand...
The defender's helmet hit the receiver's helmet, while the receiver was in the act of attempting to catch a pass. That's all that needs to be said. Helmet to helmet on a defenseless receiver per the letter of the rules. Intentional or not, launching or rising or not. I don't see how this is even a discussion.
 
Billy Costigan Jr said:
Road Warriors said:
From above..." If the initial contact to a defenseless player "

I think this is where the problem with your argument lies. The initial contact with Ward is by Chung from behind, and is legal. IIRC, that was part of the Collie ruling last week, as well. He had initial contact with another defender, then was driven into the H2H contact.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking, but I'm wondering if it means the initial contact by each defensive player.

In layman's terms, the first time the 2nd player hit Ward (initial contact by the 2nd player) was with the helmet.

If "initial contact" only refers to the first hit, then the 2nd player can go head first at him? That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
The 2nd player can't go head first in any sense of the spearing rules, regardless of defenseless receiver or not, is how I would interpret. In this case, Sanders is squared up with his head up, holding his ground. His facemask makes contact with the point of Ward's helmet, as Ward is being tackled. I don't think this fits the target play for the newly emphasized "defenseless receiver" rules and H2H hits.With the way the NFL is ruling these hits, I wouldn't be shocked to see a fine. But I also wouldn't be surprised if it is not tagged at all.

 
Anarchy99 said:
The hit by Brandon Meriweather a few weeks ago was 1000 times worse than the hit last night on Ward. The hit on Ward was a typical play and the players involved happened to bump heads. Brandon Meriweather got a running start, lined up the receiver in his crosshairs, and launched into the receiver who was totally defenseless. In the Ward play, the NE guys were just trying to tackle him and IMO there was no intent to injure or send some testosterone message about not going across the middle, etc.

The second defender (Sanders) was just going for a tackle, but Ward got turned when Chung hit him. That's a HUGE distinction as there was nothing Sanders could have done. He was not launching at Ward, and if Chung didn't hit Ward first, Sanders would not have come close to hitting Ward in the head with his helmet.

It still is possible for players to hit helmets and not have it be a huge debate about penalties, fines, and suspensions. It's unfortunate that Ward ended up getting hit on the play, but I don't see how either the old rules or the new rules indicate that there is any basis for a penalty, fine, or suspension on this play.
Click to expand...
That (the bolded) doesn't matter.I can't post a link because it was from an interview that an NFL VP gave on Mike and Mike the day after the NFL had issued their new "enforcing the letter of the rule" policy.

The VP said that it doesn't matter if their is intent to injure, or even go at the head. It is the defender's responsibility to avoid helmet-to-helmet hit. It doesn't matter if the offensive player ducks, moves, lowers or raises head, etc. If there is helmet-to-helmet, the defender is responsible.

To clarify, I think the rule is badly worded, and I think the NFL is stupid to say they are going to so strictly adhere to the letter of the rule, but that is the rule, and they did make that statement. They should fine the NE defender, based on that. I'm wondering what they will do. If they do nothing, it merely demonstrates that they don't really want player safety, but they want to play lip service to player safety, for PR reasons.

 
Bayhawks said:
Anarchy99 said:
The hit by Brandon Meriweather a few weeks ago was 1000 times worse than the hit last night on Ward. The hit on Ward was a typical play and the players involved happened to bump heads. Brandon Meriweather got a running start, lined up the receiver in his crosshairs, and launched into the receiver who was totally defenseless. In the Ward play, the NE guys were just trying to tackle him and IMO there was no intent to injure or send some testosterone message about not going across the middle, etc.

The second defender (Sanders) was just going for a tackle, but Ward got turned when Chung hit him. That's a HUGE distinction as there was nothing Sanders could have done. He was not launching at Ward, and if Chung didn't hit Ward first, Sanders would not have come close to hitting Ward in the head with his helmet.

It still is possible for players to hit helmets and not have it be a huge debate about penalties, fines, and suspensions. It's unfortunate that Ward ended up getting hit on the play, but I don't see how either the old rules or the new rules indicate that there is any basis for a penalty, fine, or suspension on this play.
Click to expand...
That (the bolded) doesn't matter.I can't post a link because it was from an interview that an NFL VP gave on Mike and Mike the day after the NFL had issued their new "enforcing the letter of the rule" policy.

The VP said that it doesn't matter if their is intent to injure, or even go at the head. It is the defender's responsibility to avoid helmet-to-helmet hit. It doesn't matter if the offensive player ducks, moves, lowers or raises head, etc. If there is helmet-to-helmet, the defender is responsible.

To clarify, I think the rule is badly worded, and I think the NFL is stupid to say they are going to so strictly adhere to the letter of the rule, but that is the rule, and they did make that statement. They should fine the NE defender, based on that. I'm wondering what they will do. If they do nothing, it merely demonstrates that they don't really want player safety, but they want to play lip service to player safety, for PR reasons.
Click to expand...
I disagree, as I still suspect incidental contact will be ignored by the refs and the league.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We are watching this play in slow motion, the game is played at fast speed. The defender was ready to make a clean tackle, and was already in the "process" (NFL loves that word) of the tackle when another players hit lowered Wards head just enough to make some helmet contact. If the other player does not pull Ward it is a chest to chest, or shoulder to shoulder contact.

There is no way any NFL player can react fast enough to pull up on that..it is impossible.

I have no dog in this fight. I say clean hit..no fine.

 
Da Guru said:
We are watching this play in slow motion, the game is played at fast speed. The defender was ready to make a clean tackle, and was already in the "process" (NFL loves that word) of the tackle when another players hit lowered Wards head just enough to make some helmet contact. If the other player does not pull Ward it is a chest to chest, or shoulder to shoulder contact.There is no way any NFL player can react fast enough to pull up on that..it is impossible.I have no dog in this fight. I say clean hit..no fine.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, except the NFL has said they will look at slow motion, and according to the rule, it doesn't matter. If the defender made a form tackle at the waist we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
two_dollars said:
Da Guru said:
We are watching this play in slow motion, the game is played at fast speed. The defender was ready to make a clean tackle, and was already in the "process" (NFL loves that word) of the tackle when another players hit lowered Wards head just enough to make some helmet contact. If the other player does not pull Ward it is a chest to chest, or shoulder to shoulder contact.There is no way any NFL player can react fast enough to pull up on that..it is impossible.I have no dog in this fight. I say clean hit..no fine.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, except the NFL has said they will look at slow motion, and according to the rule, it doesn't matter. If the defender made a form tackle at the waist we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...
I believe the rule has language to the effect that deals with the first contact by a defender. Sanders was the second defender to hit Ward, so IMO the rule does not apply. Had been Ward stood up and Sanders got a running start from 10 yards and lined up Ward's helmet in his sights and nailed him helmet to helmet that would be a different situation, but there was nothing like that here. Sanders was going to wrap up Ward with a legal tackle and Ward got twisted and his head lowered at the last second when Sanders went to tackle him. As I see it, this play is nowhere similar to the other defenseless receiver hits from throughout the season.
 
David Yudkin said:
two_dollars said:
Da Guru said:
We are watching this play in slow motion, the game is played at fast speed. The defender was ready to make a clean tackle, and was already in the "process" (NFL loves that word) of the tackle when another players hit lowered Wards head just enough to make some helmet contact. If the other player does not pull Ward it is a chest to chest, or shoulder to shoulder contact.There is no way any NFL player can react fast enough to pull up on that..it is impossible.I have no dog in this fight. I say clean hit..no fine.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, except the NFL has said they will look at slow motion, and according to the rule, it doesn't matter. If the defender made a form tackle at the waist we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...
I believe the rule has language to the effect that deals with the first contact by a defender. Sanders was the second defender to hit Ward, so IMO the rule does not apply. Had been Ward stood up and Sanders got a running start from 10 yards and lined up Ward's helmet in his sights and nailed him helmet to helmet that would be a different situation, but there was nothing like that here. Sanders was going to wrap up Ward with a legal tackle and Ward got twisted and his head lowered at the last second when Sanders went to tackle him. As I see it, this play is nowhere similar to the other defenseless receiver hits from throughout the season.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I interpret the rule as "initial contact by the defender, if it's the first, second, or fifth defender" not initial contact only by the first defender to the play. I mean, look at the hit on Boldin that broke his jaw. Pretty similar here if you ask me.
 
Bayhawks said:
Anarchy99 said:
The hit by Brandon Meriweather a few weeks ago was 1000 times worse than the hit last night on Ward. The hit on Ward was a typical play and the players involved happened to bump heads. Brandon Meriweather got a running start, lined up the receiver in his crosshairs, and launched into the receiver who was totally defenseless. In the Ward play, the NE guys were just trying to tackle him and IMO there was no intent to injure or send some testosterone message about not going across the middle, etc.

The second defender (Sanders) was just going for a tackle, but Ward got turned when Chung hit him. That's a HUGE distinction as there was nothing Sanders could have done. He was not launching at Ward, and if Chung didn't hit Ward first, Sanders would not have come close to hitting Ward in the head with his helmet.

It still is possible for players to hit helmets and not have it be a huge debate about penalties, fines, and suspensions. It's unfortunate that Ward ended up getting hit on the play, but I don't see how either the old rules or the new rules indicate that there is any basis for a penalty, fine, or suspension on this play.
Click to expand...
That (the bolded) doesn't matter.I can't post a link because it was from an interview that an NFL VP gave on Mike and Mike the day after the NFL had issued their new "enforcing the letter of the rule" policy.

The VP said that it doesn't matter if their is intent to injure, or even go at the head. It is the defender's responsibility to avoid helmet-to-helmet hit. It doesn't matter if the offensive player ducks, moves, lowers or raises head, etc. If there is helmet-to-helmet, the defender is responsible.

To clarify, I think the rule is badly worded, and I think the NFL is stupid to say they are going to so strictly adhere to the letter of the rule, but that is the rule, and they did make that statement. They should fine the NE defender, based on that. I'm wondering what they will do. If they do nothing, it merely demonstrates that they don't really want player safety, but they want to play lip service to player safety, for PR reasons.
Click to expand...
You are going in circles,,,the NFL has repeatedly said that they have NOT changed the rules and you are basing your whole arguement on what some guy supposedly said.The rules haven't changed and the rules, (as several have repeatedly pointed out to you), forget about what some guy said that you can't even post a link for (doesn't matter). The rules as written do include intent; the rules haven't changed only a change in point of emphasis.

BTW, The dirtiest play of the night is what Polamolu did to Brady after he scored the rushing touchdown and after he was down. I am sure he was frustrated with how the games was going, but unlike the play of Sanders on Ward, Polamolu's was clearly intentional.

 
two_dollars said:
Da Guru said:
We are watching this play in slow motion, the game is played at fast speed. The defender was ready to make a clean tackle, and was already in the "process" (NFL loves that word) of the tackle when another players hit lowered Wards head just enough to make some helmet contact. If the other player does not pull Ward it is a chest to chest, or shoulder to shoulder contact.There is no way any NFL player can react fast enough to pull up on that..it is impossible.I have no dog in this fight. I say clean hit..no fine.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, except the NFL has said they will look at slow motion, and according to the rule, it doesn't matter. If the defender made a form tackle at the waist we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...
According to what written rule does it (what) not matter? Please post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin said:
Bayhawks said:
Anarchy99 said:
The hit by Brandon Meriweather a few weeks ago was 1000 times worse than the hit last night on Ward. The hit on Ward was a typical play and the players involved happened to bump heads. Brandon Meriweather got a running start, lined up the receiver in his crosshairs, and launched into the receiver who was totally defenseless. In the Ward play, the NE guys were just trying to tackle him and IMO there was no intent to injure or send some testosterone message about not going across the middle, etc.

The second defender (Sanders) was just going for a tackle, but Ward got turned when Chung hit him. That's a HUGE distinction as there was nothing Sanders could have done. He was not launching at Ward, and if Chung didn't hit Ward first, Sanders would not have come close to hitting Ward in the head with his helmet.

It still is possible for players to hit helmets and not have it be a huge debate about penalties, fines, and suspensions. It's unfortunate that Ward ended up getting hit on the play, but I don't see how either the old rules or the new rules indicate that there is any basis for a penalty, fine, or suspension on this play.
Click to expand...
That (the bolded) doesn't matter.I can't post a link because it was from an interview that an NFL VP gave on Mike and Mike the day after the NFL had issued their new "enforcing the letter of the rule" policy.

The VP said that it doesn't matter if their is intent to injure, or even go at the head. It is the defender's responsibility to avoid helmet-to-helmet hit. It doesn't matter if the offensive player ducks, moves, lowers or raises head, etc. If there is helmet-to-helmet, the defender is responsible.

To clarify, I think the rule is badly worded, and I think the NFL is stupid to say they are going to so strictly adhere to the letter of the rule, but that is the rule, and they did make that statement. They should fine the NE defender, based on that. I'm wondering what they will do. If they do nothing, it merely demonstrates that they don't really want player safety, but they want to play lip service to player safety, for PR reasons.
Click to expand...
I disagree, as I still suspect incidental contact will be ignored by the refs and the league.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, (and I'm not saying it isn't), then what legitimacy does the NFL have when one of it's VP's goes on and on that the "letter of the law" will be followed, and that they are going to hold the defensive players responsible?
 
NE_REVIVAL said:
You are going in circles,,,the NFL has repeatedly said that they have NOT changed the rules and you are basing your whole arguement on what some guy supposedly said.The rules haven't changed and the rules, (as several have repeatedly pointed out to you), forget about what some guy said that you can't even post a link for (doesn't matter). The rules as written do include intent; the rules haven't changed only a change in point of emphasis.BTW, The dirtiest play of the night is what Polamolu did to Brady after he scored the rushing touchdown and after he was down. I am sure he was frustrated with how the games was going, but unlike the play of Sanders on Ward, Polamolu's was clearly intentional.
Click to expand...
How am I going in circles?I posted the rules, and the rules don't say ANYTHING about intent. Please show me where it mentions intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnnyU
Will the 1.02 rookie pick be overvalued or will it drop in value?
Replies
17
Views
2K
menobrown
M
Scoresman
First 4 rounds - What are you hoping to end up with?
Replies
41
Views
1K
Pickle Rody
Pickle Rody
Gatorman
How many rookie RBs will you be buying in redraft this year?
Replies
16
Views
895
joey
joey

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top