Helmet to Helmet Hits (1 Viewer)

[Carolina Hustler]

My point is that hits on "defenseless receivers" aren't as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Receivers are eligible to be tackled before they've completed the process of making a catch.

I don't think the helmet-to-helmet contact in this case warranted the flag, nor falls into the whatever they're labeling the big time hits of "defenseless receiver" these days.

No offense intended, but you are wrong.NFL Rule 12, section 2, article 8: **Note, it's fairly long; skip to the end if you want for the pertinent points**

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (Unnecessary roughness) in the NFL rulebook

(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; or

(2) Lowering the head and violently or unnecessarily making forcible contact with the “hairline” or forehead part of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body; or

(3) “Launching” (springing forward and upward) into a defenseless player, or otherwise striking him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player’s neck. (Examples: a defender buries his facemask into a defenseless player’s high chest area, but the defender’s trajectory as he leaps into the defenseless player causes the defender’s helmet to strike the defenseless player violently in the head or face; or a defender, using a face-on posture or with his head slightly lowered, hits a defenseless player in an area below the defenseless player’s neck, then the defender’s head moves upward, resulting in strong contact by the defender’s mask or helmet with the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face [an example is the so-called “dip and rip” technique]).

Note: The provisions of section (f) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or noncrown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on an opponent.

(g) if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

h) If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver’s head or neck area—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver’s neck.

Note: Launching is defined as springing forward and upward by a player who leaves his feet to make contact on the receiver.

(i) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked, is out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. During the kick or during the return, if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of the kicker/punter, it is a foul.

(j) any player who grabs a helmet opening of an opponent and forcibly twists, turns, or pulls his head.

(k) Illegal contact with the helmet against the knee of the snapper during an attempt for a field goal or kick try.

Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.

Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

I bolded these sections in the actual rule above:(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;

It goes on to say:

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

You say you don't think the rule applies, but it very clearly does.

Ward was a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass,

The defender forcibly hit Ward's head with his helmet or facemask

It violates the letter of the rule, and according to the NFL, that's not going to be tolerated.

The above bolded is the flaw in your arguement; it represents your opinion, not fact. If the referee agreed with your opinion it is clearly a penalty.IMHO, It didn't look like the defender lead with his head and it was unfortunate but clearly not intentional.

Put it this way, if Wards helmet had hit the defenders knee (knocked out) on the way down would should there still be a penalty? That is how I saw the hit, what else could the defender do, jump out of the way.

The Wallace hit was clean, period.

forcibly is the only part that is opinion, and really has no bearing on how the rules read.. According to the rules, it was a helmet to helmet hit on a defenseless receiver, which should have been a penalty..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

karma:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QGKlluCU0o

That was a nasty hit.. I agree, if we're just talking "football" Ward has nothing to complain about... The rules are the rules though...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

My point is that hits on "defenseless receivers" aren't as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Receivers are eligible to be tackled before they've completed the process of making a catch.

I don't think the helmet-to-helmet contact in this case warranted the flag, nor falls into the whatever they're labeling the big time hits of "defenseless receiver" these days.

No offense intended, but you are wrong.NFL Rule 12, section 2, article 8: **Note, it's fairly long; skip to the end if you want for the pertinent points**

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (Unnecessary roughness) in the NFL rulebook

(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; or

(2) Lowering the head and violently or unnecessarily making forcible contact with the “hairline” or forehead part of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body; or

(3) “Launching” (springing forward and upward) into a defenseless player, or otherwise striking him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player’s neck. (Examples: a defender buries his facemask into a defenseless player’s high chest area, but the defender’s trajectory as he leaps into the defenseless player causes the defender’s helmet to strike the defenseless player violently in the head or face; or a defender, using a face-on posture or with his head slightly lowered, hits a defenseless player in an area below the defenseless player’s neck, then the defender’s head moves upward, resulting in strong contact by the defender’s mask or helmet with the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face [an example is the so-called “dip and rip” technique]).

Note: The provisions of section (f) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or noncrown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on an opponent.

(g) if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

h) If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver’s head or neck area—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver’s neck.

Note: Launching is defined as springing forward and upward by a player who leaves his feet to make contact on the receiver.

(i) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked, is out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. During the kick or during the return, if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of the kicker/punter, it is a foul.

(j) any player who grabs a helmet opening of an opponent and forcibly twists, turns, or pulls his head.

(k) Illegal contact with the helmet against the knee of the snapper during an attempt for a field goal or kick try.

Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.

Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

I bolded these sections in the actual rule above:(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;

It goes on to say:

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

You say you don't think the rule applies, but it very clearly does.

Ward was a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass,

The defender forcibly hit Ward's head with his helmet or facemask

It violates the letter of the rule, and according to the NFL, that's not going to be tolerated.

Funny how you missed some of the bolded ... Violently or unnecessarily, and flagrantly. None of the huts u r complaining about were any of those.

I guess that could be a matter of opinion, but the hit I saw was unnecessary, as Ward had already been tackled and was on his way to the ground, and the hit was pretty violent, as were many of the hits last night, both ways... Some really hard hitting in last nights game....

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Meriweather was one of the first 3 players fined for these types of hits so the premise that there is some sort of bias that favors NE here is laughable.

Secondly, the hit on Ward was not the type of hit that is a point of emphasis. Really not even close. It was an unfortunate consequence of playing football. I will have to look at the hit on Wallace again to offer a any thoughts on that one.

I agree that the refs and the league office need to do a better job of applying the rule consistenly. But I think that will come with time. Either way, using the hit on Ward is a poor example of the refs inconsistency. It was not, nor should have been, a hit that draws a penalty or any action from the league office. And I would be HIGHLY surprised if a fine comes into play here.

Based on what? If you'll make that statement, at least give some reasoning why.. That was a very hard hit, was helmet to helmet, was a defenseless receiver, Ward was left dazed and to me looked like he was knocked out momentarily, Ward also had to be helped to the sideline and even stumbled on the way...Whatcha got?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The hit on Ward wasn't helmet to helmet.

Sorry you missed the game...

Actually they replayed the hit a number of times while I watched the game. Sorry you were blinded by your Pittsburgh fandom to see clearly

I'm not a pit fan, check the Big Ben is a scum bag molester threads...Everyone else here saw Helmet to Helmet contact except you? And I'm blind?

 

[David Yudkin]

As I mentioned in the other thread, IMO, it was not a dirty hit. Sanders was approaching Ward to tackle him when Chung also started tackling Ward. In the process, Ward was on his way down and turned when Sanders then tried to tackle him. In essence, Chung dropped Ward into the tackling zone where Sanders' helmet was.

Therefore, Sanders did not get a running start, he didn't target Ward's helmet, he wasn't leading with his helmet to make a hit, it was not clearly a defenseless receiver, and it was not the first hit on a defenseless receiver. So as I see it, this is much ado about nothing.

 

[Bayhawks]

As I mentioned in the other thread, IMO, it was not a dirty hit. Sanders was approaching Ward to tackle him when Chung also started tackling Ward. In the process, Ward was on his way down and turned when Sanders then tried to tackle him. In essence, Chung dropped Ward into the tackling zone where Sanders' helmet was.

Therefore, Sanders did not get a running start, he didn't target Ward's helmet, he wasn't leading with his helmet to make a hit, it was not clearly a defenseless receiver, and it was not the first hit on a defenseless receiver. So as I see it, this is much ado about nothing.

If Ward wasn't a defenseless receiver, why was the play over-turned and ruled an incompletion? Ward's knee was down before the ball came loose. If Ward had finished the act of catching the ball before the hit took place, then he didn't need to retain possession "through the ground," and it should have been a completion.

 

[David Yudkin]

As I mentioned in the other thread, IMO, it was not a dirty hit. Sanders was approaching Ward to tackle him when Chung also started tackling Ward. In the process, Ward was on his way down and turned when Sanders then tried to tackle him. In essence, Chung dropped Ward into the tackling zone where Sanders' helmet was.

Therefore, Sanders did not get a running start, he didn't target Ward's helmet, he wasn't leading with his helmet to make a hit, it was not clearly a defenseless receiver, and it was not the first hit on a defenseless receiver. So as I see it, this is much ado about nothing.

If Ward wasn't a defenseless receiver, why was the play over-turned and ruled an incompletion? Ward's knee was down before the ball came loose. If Ward had finished the act of catching the ball before the hit took place, then he didn't need to retain possession "through the ground," and it should have been a completion.

As I remember it, the ball came out very similar to the Megatron play from earlier in the year. The player (Ward) needed to maintain possession through hitting the ground. He didn't. Therefore they ruled it an incomplete pass.

 

[Ksquared]

A couple of things people are missing on the "hot" topic of illegal hits

1) Several times in the last two weeks I have heard league officials explain that a helmet to helmet hit should not be flagged if another defender hits the offensive player first and that force causes the offensive players head to move into a helmet to helmet hit with another defender (see Collie hit last week). I believe the Collie hit drew a flag but no fine - which two different people from the league in the helmet to helmet fining process stated on the radio, there should be no flag or fine for the Collie hit due to the helmet to helmet part was by a second defender that was clearly (in their opinion) not originally aiming for the head. The force of the first defender moved Collie's head into the collision position. I have no problem with the helmet to helmet rule if they keep with this interpretation in the games, the issue is can the officials see this clearly during those bang/bang plays?

2) The basic guideline I believe the league will be using going forward for a lot of these gray areas will be if the tackler was being fundamental. Fundamental tackling does not launch with arms back or have their heads down (ie lead with the crown of the helmet). These two fundamentals really seem to be missing from every fined play I have seen in the last three weeks. I think this may be the direction the league goes (focus on fundamental tackling) so it will be easier for everyone to know what is and is not a clean play.

 

[Short Corner]

karma:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QGKlluCU0o

 

[az_prof]

As I mentioned in the other thread, IMO, it was not a dirty hit. Sanders was approaching Ward to tackle him when Chung also started tackling Ward. In the process, Ward was on his way down and turned when Sanders then tried to tackle him. In essence, Chung dropped Ward into the tackling zone where Sanders' helmet was.

Therefore, Sanders did not get a running start, he didn't target Ward's helmet, he wasn't leading with his helmet to make a hit, it was not clearly a defenseless receiver, and it was not the first hit on a defenseless receiver. So as I see it, this is much ado about nothing.

If Ward wasn't a defenseless receiver, why was the play over-turned and ruled an incompletion? Ward's knee was down before the ball came loose. If Ward had finished the act of catching the ball before the hit took place, then he didn't need to retain possession "through the ground," and it should have been a completion.

As I remember it, the ball came out very similar to the Megatron play from earlier in the year. The player (Ward) needed to maintain possession through hitting the ground. He didn't. Therefore they ruled it an incomplete pass.

Catches in the end zone are different than catches in the field. But in any case, the fact that it was ruled incomplete proves that in the officials estimation Ward was still 'in the act of making the catch'--which raises a higher threshold of protection for the receiver. If he has made the catch already, and established possession, then he is no longer considered "defenseless." So, if he was in act of catching then the helmet to helmet hit should have been illegal. If it was legal, then it should have been a catch, and a fumble recovery by Ward.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I guess that could be a matter of opinion, but the hit I saw was unnecessary, as Ward had already been tackled and was on his way to the ground, and the hit was pretty violent, as were many of the hits last night, both ways... Some really hard hitting in last nights game....

That doesn't make any sense, considering Ward was still in the process of securing the ball. The second man hitting him forced the ball to be dropped and the pass incomplete (as ruled after NE challenged the play).

 

[mad sweeney]

First, NE defender hits Ward helmet to helmet. Sure, the ball came out of his hands--you hit him in the head and concussed him!!!!!Then the very next play Wallace is hit helmet to helmet. No comments. No flags. Lesson learned: if you are NE you can hit helmet to helmet.By the way, I am NOT a Pitt fan. I just think the NFL rules and referees are awful--week after week the rules are applied inconsistently.

Considering Merriweather had the only flag on the big weekend of hits, this is pretty sad. Besides, if Ward did the same thing everyone would be gushing about how good of a blocker he is. Ward deserves it, you don't get repeatedly voted the dirtiest player by your peers for nothing.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I guess that could be a matter of opinion, but the hit I saw was unnecessary, as Ward had already been tackled and was on his way to the ground, and the hit was pretty violent, as were many of the hits last night, both ways... Some really hard hitting in last nights game....

That doesn't make any sense, considering Ward was still in the process of securing the ball. The second man hitting him forced the ball to be dropped and the pass incomplete (as ruled after NE challenged the play).

The ball had been secured, Ward never made a football move, since he never made a football move he needed to retain possession of the ball until he made contact with the ground, he was grabbed when he caught the ball and hauled down, on the was down, he was popped. If you watch the replay, it was the effect of the hit to the head that cause his hand to loosen.. There was no contact with the ball or the ball carrying arm... Someone hits you in the head with a brick, you're gonna drop whatever you are carrying...

 

[Bayhawks]

As I mentioned in the other thread, IMO, it was not a dirty hit. Sanders was approaching Ward to tackle him when Chung also started tackling Ward. In the process, Ward was on his way down and turned when Sanders then tried to tackle him. In essence, Chung dropped Ward into the tackling zone where Sanders' helmet was.

Therefore, Sanders did not get a running start, he didn't target Ward's helmet, he wasn't leading with his helmet to make a hit, it was not clearly a defenseless receiver, and it was not the first hit on a defenseless receiver. So as I see it, this is much ado about nothing.

If Ward wasn't a defenseless receiver, why was the play over-turned and ruled an incompletion? Ward's knee was down before the ball came loose. If Ward had finished the act of catching the ball before the hit took place, then he didn't need to retain possession "through the ground," and it should have been a completion.

As I remember it, the ball came out very similar to the Megatron play from earlier in the year. The player (Ward) needed to maintain possession through hitting the ground. He didn't. Therefore they ruled it an incomplete pass.

Someone already posted this, but since Ward hadn't yet secured the catch, he was still in the process of securing the catch. By definition of the NFL rules, that marks him as a "defenseless receiver," and he should not have been subject to a helmet-to-helmet hit. Since you have already shown that he hadn't secured the catch, then he was "clearly a defenseless receiver," contrary to your earlier post.This is where my issue was. If the officials over-ruled the catch because he didn't secure the ball to the ground, that's fine. However, IMO, the fact that what should have been an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty was allowed to negate a catch by replay doesn't seem fair, since the penalty that was seen on replay couldn't then be assessed.

Essentially, the Patriots "cheated" by using an illegal hit to have a Pittsburgh catch over-ruled upon replay.

 

[David Yudkin]

As I mentioned in the other thread, IMO, it was not a dirty hit. Sanders was approaching Ward to tackle him when Chung also started tackling Ward. In the process, Ward was on his way down and turned when Sanders then tried to tackle him. In essence, Chung dropped Ward into the tackling zone where Sanders' helmet was.

Therefore, Sanders did not get a running start, he didn't target Ward's helmet, he wasn't leading with his helmet to make a hit, it was not clearly a defenseless receiver, and it was not the first hit on a defenseless receiver. So as I see it, this is much ado about nothing.

If Ward wasn't a defenseless receiver, why was the play over-turned and ruled an incompletion? Ward's knee was down before the ball came loose. If Ward had finished the act of catching the ball before the hit took place, then he didn't need to retain possession "through the ground," and it should have been a completion.

As I remember it, the ball came out very similar to the Megatron play from earlier in the year. The player (Ward) needed to maintain possession through hitting the ground. He didn't. Therefore they ruled it an incomplete pass.

Catches in the end zone are different than catches in the field. But in any case, the fact that it was ruled incomplete proves that in the officials estimation Ward was still 'in the act of making the catch'--which raises a higher threshold of protection for the receiver. If he has made the catch already, and established possession, then he is no longer considered "defenseless." So, if he was in act of catching then the helmet to helmet hit should have been illegal. If it was legal, then it should have been a catch, and a fumble recovery by Ward.

I will try this again and will then give up. For starters, I believe it will come out that a player being readjusted for a second tackler will not be penalized/disciplined when the guy he was tackling gets moved at the last second. Sometimes guys butt helmets. It doesn't mean they should be suspended.Ward was deemed to be in the process of catching the ball and thus fair game to be hit. The ball was not overthrown by 10 feet and the receiver all exposed for a safety to come in and clean his clock. Sanders was going in to tackle Ward, not spear him with his helmet with a free lane to pop him in the head. Sanders had mostly stopped running and Ward's momentum hit Sanders more than the other way around. I also don't think that Sanders left his feet to launch at Ward, which in some passages of the rules comes into play. It also appears to me that Sanders' right arm/hand hit Ward before his facemask does, so that also begs the question if leading with a helmet comes into play if a defender hits the player with another part of his body. Similarly, would this be considered an excessively violent hit? It looks like a basic tackle that ended up being a partial facemask to the head after the fact, not necessarily a violent hit.

I would be surprised if Sanders gets disciplined at all on this one.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Okay, CH, I'll rephrase:

The catch, according to the current NFL rules, had not been secured, so the second man coming in did his job: he hit the player legally and jarred the ball loose, resulting in an incompletion.

 

[Tree Shaker]

I thought the hit on Ward was clean.

Not based on the rules, or the officials interpretation of them.Read my post above if you want, but they ruled the pass incomplete because he didn't maintain control through the ground. You only have to maintain control through the ground if you are going to the ground in the act of catching the ball. If you are going to the ground in the act of catching the ball, you are a "defenseless receiver." If you are a "defenseless receiver," you CAN NOT be hit, helmet-to-helmet. Ward was clearly hit helmet-to-helmet.Therefore, based on the way the officials ruled (after the replay), the hit was illegal.

My problem with this reasoning (or ruling) is that it was the same situation on the Collie hit as explained by the NFL. The Head of Officials essentially said that, after the Collie hit, the officials ruled that the call on the field was an incomplete pass; therefore Collie was "defenseless" and the hit should have been flagged. However, it surely looked like Collie caught the pass, took two steps, covered the ball, and lowered his head for the expected impact. Now, the defender has absolutely no idea what the referee's ultimate call will be prior to making contact. Had Andy Reid (rightly, in my opinion) challenged the ruling of an incomplete pass AND the ruling on the field had been overturned, that would mean that the receiver would, by rule, be no longer be classified as "defenseless" - making the hit completely legal and the flag would have had to be picked up. Except that they couldn't really do that because they want to be seen as "protecting the player". So, the Eagles lose the fumble recovery allowing the Colts a chance to get back into the game. The absurdity of the penalty was further reinforced when the league levied NO fines on that play. Ward's catch was similar, in that the original call *could have* been overturned by replay and ruled a fumble, so his "status" would have had to be changed from "defenseless" to "ready-to-be-hit". So, the defender really just never knows on any given play whether a receiver he thought was not defenseless could be ruled "defenseless" after the play is over. The interpretation of this rule is getting more and more complicated and is being increasingly ruled incorrectly on the field - in both directions.

The pass does not have to be incomplete for the receiver to be defenseless...

Completion vs. incompletion has nothing to do with my argument. I was stating that had those examples been ruled (via challenge or replay official) as catch + possession + fumble after an incomplete ruling on the initial call, the defenselessness of the receiver would have become an issue - especially where a penalty was called on the pretense of a hit on a "defenseless" receiver. The defense given for the penalty vs. the Eagles was that the officials ruled that it was an incomplete pass THEREFORE the hit was on a defenseless receiver. So, it was implied that the initial call is what allowed the penalty to be justifiable. However, had Reid challenged and the call was changed to catch + possession + player preparing for collision downfield (as it should have been), the receiver would no longer have been "defenseless" and the penalty would not have been correct.

 

[Bayhawks]

I will try this again and will then give up. For starters, I believe it will come out that a player being readjusted for a second tackler will not be penalized/disciplined when the guy he was tackling gets moved at the last second. Sometimes guys butt helmets. It doesn't mean they should be suspended.

Ward was deemed to be in the process of catching the ball and thus fair game to be hit. The ball was not overthrown by 10 feet and the receiver all exposed for a safety to come in and clean his clock. Sanders was going in to tackle Ward, not spear him with his helmet with a free lane to pop him in the head. Sanders had mostly stopped running and Ward's momentum hit Sanders more than the other way around. I also don't think that Sanders left his feet to launch at Ward, which in some passages of the rules comes into play. It also appears to me that Sanders' right arm/hand hit Ward before his facemask does, so that also begs the question if leading with a helmet comes into play if a defender hits the player with another part of his body. Similarly, would this be considered an excessively violent hit? It looks like a basic tackle that ended up being a partial facemask to the head after the fact, not necessarily a violent hit.

I would be surprised if Sanders gets disciplined at all on this one.

Logically, everything you are posting makes sense. However, I'm not asking about logic. Rather, I'm talking about the NFL rules, and logic doesn't always apply, it seems.I posted the rule that applies earlier in this post, but here are some relevant excerpts:

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

Note the 2 bolded parts. No matter how you want to define Ward at the moment (receiver in the process of making a catch, OR he had already secured the catch and he was in the grasp of a tackler and going down), he was a defenseless player. Those are the NFL rules. You, I, and everyone with any common sense might know that this is football, and football happens, but according to the rules, he was a defenseless runner/receiver.

So again, how does the NFL say several weeks ago they are going to strictly enforce the "letter of the rule," and then not fine/suspend players who break those rules? (Even if logical people know they shouldn't be enforcing the letter of the rule)

 

[VaTerp]

I will try this again and will then give up. For starters, I believe it will come out that a player being readjusted for a second tackler will not be penalized/disciplined when the guy he was tackling gets moved at the last second. Sometimes guys butt helmets. It doesn't mean they should be suspended.

Ward was deemed to be in the process of catching the ball and thus fair game to be hit. The ball was not overthrown by 10 feet and the receiver all exposed for a safety to come in and clean his clock. Sanders was going in to tackle Ward, not spear him with his helmet with a free lane to pop him in the head. Sanders had mostly stopped running and Ward's momentum hit Sanders more than the other way around. I also don't think that Sanders left his feet to launch at Ward, which in some passages of the rules comes into play. It also appears to me that Sanders' right arm/hand hit Ward before his facemask does, so that also begs the question if leading with a helmet comes into play if a defender hits the player with another part of his body. Similarly, would this be considered an excessively violent hit? It looks like a basic tackle that ended up being a partial facemask to the head after the fact, not necessarily a violent hit.

I would be surprised if Sanders gets disciplined at all on this one.

Logically, everything you are posting makes sense. However, I'm not asking about logic. Rather, I'm talking about the NFL rules, and logic doesn't always apply, it seems.I posted the rule that applies earlier in this post, but here are some relevant excerpts:

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

Note the 2 bolded parts. No matter how you want to define Ward at the moment (receiver in the process of making a catch, OR he had already secured the catch and he was in the grasp of a tackler and going down), he was a defenseless player. Those are the NFL rules. You, I, and everyone with any common sense might know that this is football, and football happens, but according to the rules, he was a defenseless runner/receiver.

So again, how does the NFL say several weeks ago they are going to strictly enforce the "letter of the rule," and then not fine/suspend players who break those rules? (Even if logical people know they shouldn't be enforcing the letter of the rule)

You seem to be intentionally obtuse about the league rule and what the letter of the law states and means.Regardless of how well defined a rule is it is still subject to interpretation. Your argument is based on your assertion that the rule lacks common sense and that there is no room for interpretation.

IMO, there is always room for interpretation to any rule and, while there is certainly room for improvement, there is an element of common sense that the refs and league office are using with these type of hits.

It's clear that the hit on Ward most closely resembles the hit on Collie for which a flag was thrown, incorrectly IMO, but for which there was no fine and no suspension. I will be very surprised if the league issues any sort of fine and a suspension for that hit is COMPLETELY out of the question.

You have YOUR interpretation of the rule but I don't think you will find that YOUR interpretation is consistent with the NFLs. Thankfully.

 

[David Yudkin]

I will try this again and will then give up. For starters, I believe it will come out that a player being readjusted for a second tackler will not be penalized/disciplined when the guy he was tackling gets moved at the last second. Sometimes guys butt helmets. It doesn't mean they should be suspended.

Ward was deemed to be in the process of catching the ball and thus fair game to be hit. The ball was not overthrown by 10 feet and the receiver all exposed for a safety to come in and clean his clock. Sanders was going in to tackle Ward, not spear him with his helmet with a free lane to pop him in the head. Sanders had mostly stopped running and Ward's momentum hit Sanders more than the other way around. I also don't think that Sanders left his feet to launch at Ward, which in some passages of the rules comes into play. It also appears to me that Sanders' right arm/hand hit Ward before his facemask does, so that also begs the question if leading with a helmet comes into play if a defender hits the player with another part of his body. Similarly, would this be considered an excessively violent hit? It looks like a basic tackle that ended up being a partial facemask to the head after the fact, not necessarily a violent hit.

I would be surprised if Sanders gets disciplined at all on this one.

Logically, everything you are posting makes sense. However, I'm not asking about logic. Rather, I'm talking about the NFL rules, and logic doesn't always apply, it seems.I posted the rule that applies earlier in this post, but here are some relevant excerpts:

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

Note the 2 bolded parts. No matter how you want to define Ward at the moment (receiver in the process of making a catch, OR he had already secured the catch and he was in the grasp of a tackler and going down), he was a defenseless player. Those are the NFL rules. You, I, and everyone with any common sense might know that this is football, and football happens, but according to the rules, he was a defenseless runner/receiver.

So again, how does the NFL say several weeks ago they are going to strictly enforce the "letter of the rule," and then not fine/suspend players who break those rules? (Even if logical people know they shouldn't be enforcing the letter of the rule)

I still, IMO, do not believe that Ward met the conditions of being a defenseless receiver. The NFL rules have so many areas of grey that almost every rule is subject to interpretation. In this case, the refs on the field did not find any fault with the hit on Ward. It's possible that the league office could see it otherwise, but I don't think they will.In Ward's case, his forward progress had not been stopped, he was not being stood up by another player, and in my interpretation of the rule was not defenseless. He was being tackled, he was not being blindsided by a freight train going 500 miles an hour with a high velocity impact by a player that launched into him. Sanders had come to almost a complete stop and was leaning in to make a tackle. He was not using himself as a trajectile weapon leading with his helmet. I doubt people could really make a compelling argument that Sanders was trying to jar the ball lose from Ward intentionally. It just looks to me that he was trying to tackle him with a "regular" tackle.

As I mentioned in threads a few weeks back, they weren't making any new rules, they were claiming that in severe cirucumstances they would be threatening to take action. I felt then (and now) that it was nothing but a PR move and only the most heinous crimes (and repeat offenders) would ever get suspended. I do not think that the Sanders hit is even remotely close to the plays cited as violent hits on defenseless receivers. As the saying goes, I knew Jack Kennedy, and you sir are not Jack Kennedy. I know a suspension worthy hit, and I don't see how they can suspend Sanders on this one.

Using a baseball analogy, the rules state that a pitcher thowing at a batter's head will be ejected and subject to suspension. But sometime's a pitcher will hit a batter in the head and yet there are no suspensions. Why? Because not every batter that gets beaned in the noggin is deemed to have been a pitcher throwing at a batter. In Ward's case, I don't see where a league official will view that play and say it was anything but an accident that Sanders' helmet bumped into Ward's and that the net result would be "play on."

 

[Bayhawks]

I will try this again and will then give up. For starters, I believe it will come out that a player being readjusted for a second tackler will not be penalized/disciplined when the guy he was tackling gets moved at the last second. Sometimes guys butt helmets. It doesn't mean they should be suspended.

Ward was deemed to be in the process of catching the ball and thus fair game to be hit. The ball was not overthrown by 10 feet and the receiver all exposed for a safety to come in and clean his clock. Sanders was going in to tackle Ward, not spear him with his helmet with a free lane to pop him in the head. Sanders had mostly stopped running and Ward's momentum hit Sanders more than the other way around. I also don't think that Sanders left his feet to launch at Ward, which in some passages of the rules comes into play. It also appears to me that Sanders' right arm/hand hit Ward before his facemask does, so that also begs the question if leading with a helmet comes into play if a defender hits the player with another part of his body. Similarly, would this be considered an excessively violent hit? It looks like a basic tackle that ended up being a partial facemask to the head after the fact, not necessarily a violent hit.

I would be surprised if Sanders gets disciplined at all on this one.

Logically, everything you are posting makes sense. However, I'm not asking about logic. Rather, I'm talking about the NFL rules, and logic doesn't always apply, it seems.I posted the rule that applies earlier in this post, but here are some relevant excerpts:

Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

Note the 2 bolded parts. No matter how you want to define Ward at the moment (receiver in the process of making a catch, OR he had already secured the catch and he was in the grasp of a tackler and going down), he was a defenseless player. Those are the NFL rules. You, I, and everyone with any common sense might know that this is football, and football happens, but according to the rules, he was a defenseless runner/receiver.

So again, how does the NFL say several weeks ago they are going to strictly enforce the "letter of the rule," and then not fine/suspend players who break those rules? (Even if logical people know they shouldn't be enforcing the letter of the rule)

You seem to be intentionally obtuse about the league rule and what the letter of the law states and means.Regardless of how well defined a rule is it is still subject to interpretation. Your argument is based on your assertion that the rule lacks common sense and that there is no room for interpretation.

IMO, there is always room for interpretation to any rule and, while there is certainly room for improvement, there is an element of common sense that the refs and league office are using with these type of hits.

It's clear that the hit on Ward most closely resembles the hit on Collie for which a flag was thrown, incorrectly IMO, but for which there was no fine and no suspension. I will be very surprised if the league issues any sort of fine and a suspension for that hit is COMPLETELY out of the question.

You have YOUR interpretation of the rule but I don't think you will find that YOUR interpretation is consistent with the NFLs. Thankfully.

I'm not sure if you read the entire thread or not, but I'm not being intentionally (or unintentionally) obtuse about anything.When an NFL VP comes out and says "we are going to strictly enforce the letter of the law," that takes interpretation out of the equation.

Ray Anderson, NFL VP

Scroll down about 5 paragraphs.

When Anderson said the league would be enforcing the rules "to the letter of the law," he was certainly consistent with himself. Later in the interview, he said it would be unnecessary for the league to determine intent, and if the pad levels of the players changed at the last second, this would not be taken into account.

This is from the NFL itself. Intent does not matter. The letter of the rule says that should have been a penalty.Once again, I don't like the rule, and I don't like that the NFL has basically said it's officials have no leeway to interpret the rule, but that is what they have done. I'm not being "obtuse," I'm discussing what the NFL rules are, and how an NFL VP has said those rules would be enforced.

 

[Bayhawks]

I still, IMO, do not believe that Ward met the conditions of being a defenseless receiver. The NFL rules have so many areas of grey that almost every rule is subject to interpretation. In this case, the refs on the field did not find any fault with the hit on Ward. It's possible that the league office could see it otherwise, but I don't think they will.

In Ward's case, his forward progress had not been stopped, he was not being stood up by another player, and in my interpretation of the rule was not defenseless. He was being tackled, he was not being blindsided by a freight train going 500 miles an hour with a high velocity impact by a player that launched into him. Sanders had come to almost a complete stop and was leaning in to make a tackle. He was not using himself as a trajectile weapon leading with his helmet. I doubt people could really make a compelling argument that Sanders was trying to jar the ball lose from Ward intentionally. It just looks to me that he was trying to tackle him with a "regular" tackle.

As I mentioned in threads a few weeks back, they weren't making any new rules, they were claiming that in severe cirucumstances they would be threatening to take action. I felt then (and now) that it was nothing but a PR move and only the most heinous crimes (and repeat offenders) would ever get suspended. I do not think that the Sanders hit is even remotely close to the plays cited as violent hits on defenseless receivers. As the saying goes, I knew Jack Kennedy, and you sir are not Jack Kennedy. I know a suspension worthy hit, and I don't see how they can suspend Sanders on this one.

Using a baseball analogy, the rules state that a pitcher thowing at a batter's head will be ejected and subject to suspension. But sometime's a pitcher will hit a batter in the head and yet there are no suspensions. Why? Because not every batter that gets beaned in the noggin is deemed to have been a pitcher throwing at a batter. In Ward's case, I don't see where a league official will view that play and say it was anything but an accident that Sanders' helmet bumped into Ward's and that the net result would be "play on."

David, I agree with the bolded, and perhaps I am playing devil's advocate for the purposes of this discussion, but one of my main points is how much weight does this "PR move" carry, if they ignore the first few instances where the "strict interpretation" of the rules calls for a penalty/fine/suspenion?See my previous post for a link to an NFL VP's statement about "letter of the law," and intent.

 

[David Yudkin]

I still, IMO, do not believe that Ward met the conditions of being a defenseless receiver. The NFL rules have so many areas of grey that almost every rule is subject to interpretation. In this case, the refs on the field did not find any fault with the hit on Ward. It's possible that the league office could see it otherwise, but I don't think they will.

In Ward's case, his forward progress had not been stopped, he was not being stood up by another player, and in my interpretation of the rule was not defenseless. He was being tackled, he was not being blindsided by a freight train going 500 miles an hour with a high velocity impact by a player that launched into him. Sanders had come to almost a complete stop and was leaning in to make a tackle. He was not using himself as a trajectile weapon leading with his helmet. I doubt people could really make a compelling argument that Sanders was trying to jar the ball lose from Ward intentionally. It just looks to me that he was trying to tackle him with a "regular" tackle.

As I mentioned in threads a few weeks back, they weren't making any new rules, they were claiming that in severe cirucumstances they would be threatening to take action. I felt then (and now) that it was nothing but a PR move and only the most heinous crimes (and repeat offenders) would ever get suspended. I do not think that the Sanders hit is even remotely close to the plays cited as violent hits on defenseless receivers. As the saying goes, I knew Jack Kennedy, and you sir are not Jack Kennedy. I know a suspension worthy hit, and I don't see how they can suspend Sanders on this one.

Using a baseball analogy, the rules state that a pitcher thowing at a batter's head will be ejected and subject to suspension. But sometime's a pitcher will hit a batter in the head and yet there are no suspensions. Why? Because not every batter that gets beaned in the noggin is deemed to have been a pitcher throwing at a batter. In Ward's case, I don't see where a league official will view that play and say it was anything but an accident that Sanders' helmet bumped into Ward's and that the net result would be "play on."

David, I agree with the bolded, and perhaps I am playing devil's advocate for the purposes of this discussion, but one of my main points is how much weight does this "PR move" carry, if they ignore the first few instances where the "strict interpretation" of the rules calls for a penalty/fine/suspenion?See my previous post for a link to an NFL VP's statement about "letter of the law," and intent.

I echo my sentiment from several weeks ago . . . I'll believe when I see it. We haven't seen any suspensions, and unless someone clearly goes headhunting or is a multi-time offender, I doubt we will.I have no issue in the points you raise, but as I see it the league is the one posturing for things they will not be going to deliver on.

As things stand now, defenders are forced to play two hand touch when it comes to the safety of the QBs. I think that's a joke and that they should let them play the game and it's not croquet. But they have a brand and a product they are marketing, and they can make more money with Manning and Brady playing than if their backups are playing every week.

At the end of the day, I think the league office has some intelligence, and suspending Sanders for this when way worse hits were either 1) not penalized, 2) not fined and 3) not suspended would make them look really bad. MAYBE if a guy gets totally leveled someone will get suspended, but I would still not hold my breath. They might make someone a scape goat just to say they did something, but it would have to be a really bad hit or take a star player getting severely hurt to happen.

 

[VaTerp]

I'm not sure if you read the entire thread or not, but I'm not being intentionally (or unintentionally) obtuse about anything.

When an NFL VP comes out and says "we are going to strictly enforce the letter of the law," that takes interpretation out of the equation.

Ray Anderson, NFL VP

Scroll down about 5 paragraphs.

When Anderson said the league would be enforcing the rules "to the letter of the law," he was certainly consistent with himself. Later in the interview, he said it would be unnecessary for the league to determine intent, and if the pad levels of the players changed at the last second, this would not be taken into account.

This is from the NFL itself. Intent does not matter. The letter of the rule says that should have been a penalty.Once again, I don't like the rule, and I don't like that the NFL has basically said it's officials have no leeway to interpret the rule, but that is what they have done. I'm not being "obtuse," I'm discussing what the NFL rules are, and how an NFL VP has said those rules would be enforced.

No, there is still room for interpretation as with the vast majority of rules. The fact that you think there is no room for interpretation and keep quoting parts of a statement are why I think you are being intentionally obtuse.If there was no room for interpretation then why was there no fine on the Collie hit? Obviously the NFL reviews the play in context and does not just say if the helmets hit it's a finable offense.

 

[Bayhawks]

I echo my sentiment from several weeks ago . . . I'll believe when I see it. We haven't seen any suspensions, and unless someone clearly goes headhunting or is a multi-time offender, I doubt we will.I have no issue in the points you raise, but as I see it the league is the one posturing for things they will not be going to deliver on.As things stand now, defenders are forced to play two hand touch when it comes to the safety of the QBs. I think that's a joke and that they should let them play the game and it's not croquet. But they have a brand and a product they are marketing, and they can make more money with Manning and Brady playing than if their backups are playing every week.At the end of the day, I think the league office has some intelligence, and suspending Sanders for this when way worse hits were either 1) not penalized, 2) not fined and 3) not suspended would make them look really bad. MAYBE if a guy gets totally leveled someone will get suspended, but I would still not hold my breath. They might make someone a scape goat just to say they did something, but it would have to be a really bad hit or take a star player getting severely hurt to happen.

Let me ask you this, without putting words in your mouth (or keyboard).Do you think (I do) that the player(s) involved makes a difference?If it had been a big name player (Brady, Manning, Calvin Johnson, Andre Johnson) who received that hit or a big name guy who delivered it (Harrison, Dunta Robinson, etc), do you think the league would try to "send a message?"If that's the case, then something is seriously wrong. The league is impacting the outcome of games. If they penalize certain players, and protect certain others, they are creating unfair advantages/disadvantages. It's different from creating new rules (that may/may not help/hurt different teams), because if those rules are applied equally, everyone should be on equal footing.

 

[David Yudkin]

I echo my sentiment from several weeks ago . . . I'll believe when I see it. We haven't seen any suspensions, and unless someone clearly goes headhunting or is a multi-time offender, I doubt we will.I have no issue in the points you raise, but as I see it the league is the one posturing for things they will not be going to deliver on.As things stand now, defenders are forced to play two hand touch when it comes to the safety of the QBs. I think that's a joke and that they should let them play the game and it's not croquet. But they have a brand and a product they are marketing, and they can make more money with Manning and Brady playing than if their backups are playing every week.At the end of the day, I think the league office has some intelligence, and suspending Sanders for this when way worse hits were either 1) not penalized, 2) not fined and 3) not suspended would make them look really bad. MAYBE if a guy gets totally leveled someone will get suspended, but I would still not hold my breath. They might make someone a scape goat just to say they did something, but it would have to be a really bad hit or take a star player getting severely hurt to happen.

Let me ask you this, without putting words in your mouth (or keyboard).Do you think (I do) that the player(s) involved makes a difference?If it had been a big name player (Brady, Manning, Calvin Johnson, Andre Johnson) who received that hit or a big name guy who delivered it (Harrison, Dunta Robinson, etc), do you think the league would try to "send a message?"If that's the case, then something is seriously wrong. The league is impacting the outcome of games. If they penalize certain players, and protect certain others, they are creating unfair advantages/disadvantages. It's different from creating new rules (that may/may not help/hurt different teams), because if those rules are applied equally, everyone should be on equal footing.

Yes, the players involved make a difference. Tom Brady tore his ACL and they made a rule named after him. If that happened to a BUF QB, would anyone be there to hear the tree fall (so to speak).Similarly, Brett Favre was hurt and not on the injury report and the Jets got fined for not reporting it. Ellis Hobbs needed multiple surgeries the year the Pats lost to the Giants in the SB and they didn't even get a warning or a slap on the wrist. So absolutely the players involved make a difference. Just like in basketball. Kobe Bryant looks at a ref and he will be at the foul line. Other guys could get mugged and they won't call a foul.That's just how it is. I agree it's bogus, but that's how things work unfortunately.

 

[Bayhawks]

I'm not sure if you read the entire thread or not, but I'm not being intentionally (or unintentionally) obtuse about anything.

When an NFL VP comes out and says "we are going to strictly enforce the letter of the law," that takes interpretation out of the equation.

Ray Anderson, NFL VP

Scroll down about 5 paragraphs.

When Anderson said the league would be enforcing the rules "to the letter of the law," he was certainly consistent with himself. Later in the interview, he said it would be unnecessary for the league to determine intent, and if the pad levels of the players changed at the last second, this would not be taken into account.

This is from the NFL itself. Intent does not matter. The letter of the rule says that should have been a penalty.Once again, I don't like the rule, and I don't like that the NFL has basically said it's officials have no leeway to interpret the rule, but that is what they have done. I'm not being "obtuse," I'm discussing what the NFL rules are, and how an NFL VP has said those rules would be enforced.

No, there is still room for interpretation as with the vast majority of rules. The fact that you think there is no room for interpretation and keep quoting parts of a statement are why I think you are being intentionally obtuse.If there was no room for interpretation then why was there no fine on the Collie hit? Obviously the NFL reviews the play in context and does not just say if the helmets hit it's a finable offense.

Again, I'm not sure if you have read the entire thread or not. If you have, then I have to think that you are the one who is being "intentionally obtuse." I've posted several times that I don't agree with the rule, and that (in a way) I'm playing devil's advocate. However, if the NFL VP says that there is no room for interpretation with regards intent FOR THIS RULE, and I think that means the NFL is not going to allow officials to interpret intent FOR THIS RULE, how am I being obtuse?

I'm not reading into what he said. He said "it would be unneccessary for the league to determine intent." That means the officials don't get to decide if the defender was trying to hit him in the head, or if it was accidental.

 

[Road Warriors]

I echo my sentiment from several weeks ago . . . I'll believe when I see it. We haven't seen any suspensions, and unless someone clearly goes headhunting or is a multi-time offender, I doubt we will.I have no issue in the points you raise, but as I see it the league is the one posturing for things they will not be going to deliver on.As things stand now, defenders are forced to play two hand touch when it comes to the safety of the QBs. I think that's a joke and that they should let them play the game and it's not croquet. But they have a brand and a product they are marketing, and they can make more money with Manning and Brady playing than if their backups are playing every week.At the end of the day, I think the league office has some intelligence, and suspending Sanders for this when way worse hits were either 1) not penalized, 2) not fined and 3) not suspended would make them look really bad. MAYBE if a guy gets totally leveled someone will get suspended, but I would still not hold my breath. They might make someone a scape goat just to say they did something, but it would have to be a really bad hit or take a star player getting severely hurt to happen.

Let me ask you this, without putting words in your mouth (or keyboard).Do you think (I do) that the player(s) involved makes a difference?If it had been a big name player (Brady, Manning, Calvin Johnson, Andre Johnson) who received that hit or a big name guy who delivered it (Harrison, Dunta Robinson, etc), do you think the league would try to "send a message?"If that's the case, then something is seriously wrong. The league is impacting the outcome of games. If they penalize certain players, and protect certain others, they are creating unfair advantages/disadvantages. It's different from creating new rules (that may/may not help/hurt different teams), because if those rules are applied equally, everyone should be on equal footing.

On this play, I don't think it would matter a bit on which WR was involved. The Sanders hit doesn't warrant any action by the league, regardless of any big name receivers being involved. And to the other side of it, if it was Harrison, or Merriwether, or any of the "big name offenders" as defined by the league, I still don't think there's any action taken by the league. The hit in question isn't what the NFL is trying to get out of the game. On your larger point of preferential treatment of stars, well, I'd be lying if I said that doesn't exist. Of course it does, and few get the treatment any more than Manning and Brady. A gentle brushing of the helmet will net you a 15 yard flag if it's Manning in the pocket. Fair? No. The way it is, across all sports? of course. It's not changing anytime soon.

 

[VaTerp]

I echo my sentiment from several weeks ago . . . I'll believe when I see it. We haven't seen any suspensions, and unless someone clearly goes headhunting or is a multi-time offender, I doubt we will.I have no issue in the points you raise, but as I see it the league is the one posturing for things they will not be going to deliver on.As things stand now, defenders are forced to play two hand touch when it comes to the safety of the QBs. I think that's a joke and that they should let them play the game and it's not croquet. But they have a brand and a product they are marketing, and they can make more money with Manning and Brady playing than if their backups are playing every week.At the end of the day, I think the league office has some intelligence, and suspending Sanders for this when way worse hits were either 1) not penalized, 2) not fined and 3) not suspended would make them look really bad. MAYBE if a guy gets totally leveled someone will get suspended, but I would still not hold my breath. They might make someone a scape goat just to say they did something, but it would have to be a really bad hit or take a star player getting severely hurt to happen.

Let me ask you this, without putting words in your mouth (or keyboard).Do you think (I do) that the player(s) involved makes a difference?If it had been a big name player (Brady, Manning, Calvin Johnson, Andre Johnson) who received that hit or a big name guy who delivered it (Harrison, Dunta Robinson, etc), do you think the league would try to "send a message?"If that's the case, then something is seriously wrong. The league is impacting the outcome of games. If they penalize certain players, and protect certain others, they are creating unfair advantages/disadvantages. It's different from creating new rules (that may/may not help/hurt different teams), because if those rules are applied equally, everyone should be on equal footing.

On this play, I don't think it would matter a bit on which WR was involved. The Sanders hit doesn't warrant any action by the league, regardless of any big name receivers being involved. And to the other side of it, if it was Harrison, or Merriwether, or any of the "big name offenders" as defined by the league, I still don't think there's any action taken by the league. The hit in question isn't what the NFL is trying to get out of the game. On your larger point of preferential treatment of stars, well, I'd be lying if I said that doesn't exist. Of course it does, and few get the treatment any more than Manning and Brady. A gentle brushing of the helmet will net you a 15 yard flag if it's Manning in the pocket. Fair? No. The way it is, across all sports? of course. It's not changing anytime soon.