Statcruncher
Footballguy
Here's the play again, what's your take?
Last edited by a moderator:
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!
Jared Allen Hit On Lance Louis (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Statcruncher
- Start date
Statcruncher
Footballguy
Anybody know when the NFL releases their official statements/fines?
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
For the most part I really do not think that NFL players intentionally try to injure other players. This was just a pure and simple "cheap shot" and the opposing player was injured.
Watching the replay it was really cheap and illegal. 2 games minimum.
Watching the replay it was really cheap and illegal. 2 games minimum.
Last edited by a moderator:
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
I didn't know Jared Allen swung that way. dem.
packseasontix
Footballguy
http://static.nfl.co...Rule%20Book.pdf
PAGE 67
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7 Part A - Deems who is defenseless
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7 Part B - Says actions that are not allowed
http://www.nfl.com/v...red-Allen-block
Watch at about 54 seconds and you will notice the Bears Player is moving DIRECTLY towards Allen
Your survey is very confusing to people who don't know the actual rules as launching yourself into a block is not illegal also even hitting helmet to helmet or leading with your helmet when block is not illegal.
The primary things that CAN makes this hit illegal:
Pushing arms away from body just to make contact with helmet (illegal block)
Coming directly from the side or behind the player to hit him to the neck/head area (blindside block on defenseless player)
Purposly hitting the helmet (not accidentally where he first makes contact with shoulder or chest) (unsportsman like conduct)
PAGE 67
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7 Part A - Deems who is defenseless
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7 Part B - Says actions that are not allowed
http://www.nfl.com/v...red-Allen-block
Watch at about 54 seconds and you will notice the Bears Player is moving DIRECTLY towards Allen
Your survey is very confusing to people who don't know the actual rules as launching yourself into a block is not illegal also even hitting helmet to helmet or leading with your helmet when block is not illegal.
The primary things that CAN makes this hit illegal:
Pushing arms away from body just to make contact with helmet (illegal block)
Coming directly from the side or behind the player to hit him to the neck/head area (blindside block on defenseless player)
Purposly hitting the helmet (not accidentally where he first makes contact with shoulder or chest) (unsportsman like conduct)
Last edited by a moderator:
Banemorth
Footballguy
I feel like I've seen something like this right on the first page a few topics down before.
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=669229
Edit: I do like your polls better though.
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=669229
Edit: I do like your polls better though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maelstrom
Footballguy
I think it was a legal block in the midst of an interception return, and without the injury (unfortunate) we wouldn't be talking about this today. I think Allen rode up a bit high and may get fined for an unintentional hit to the head/neck area. I don't think there was any intention to injure, and I don't even think it was a cheap shot - the ball carrier was about 5/10 yards away coming towards the two players. Allen was making a block, and IMO the only way he succeeds is to have momentum as he definitely does not have the mass to make that block. I put this in the "looks worse than it was" category and unfortunate that a player was injured in the course of the play.
Oh, and not sure why another thread/poll was needed, but ok. (Explaination posted below, makes sense - better poll.)
Note also, there is no prohibition about incidental contact of the helmet in the course of making a legal hit. Even if it qualifies as a blindside hit, and therefore a defenseless player, it doesn't seem to qualify as an illegal hit (i.e. launching) because Allen did not lead with the crown or top of his helmet.
Oh, and not sure why another thread/poll was needed, but ok. (Explaination posted below, makes sense - better poll.)
Note also, there is no prohibition about incidental contact of the helmet in the course of making a legal hit. Even if it qualifies as a blindside hit, and therefore a defenseless player, it doesn't seem to qualify as an illegal hit (i.e. launching) because Allen did not lead with the crown or top of his helmet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Statcruncher
Footballguy
That is the topic that spawned this one. It seems biased and the topic poll was about fines/suspensions only. It didn't explore whether people thought it was intentional, illegal, or what made it legal/illegal. This poll should give us a better feeling of what people are thinking
Last edited by a moderator:
DoubleG
Footballguy
Statcruncher
Footballguy
So you think my poll is eerily similar to yours?...or are eerily similar to the "biased" poll.
I included far more options which drill down into people's perceptions of the play and simply said "what's your take?" instead of leading off with biased comments, but if you want to call them eerily similar I guess you can.'DoubleG said:
Last edited by a moderator:
DoubleG
Footballguy
No - but the results are. About 70% calling the hit illegal - and about 75% calling for a fine or fine and suspension. So if somehow breaking it up makes you feel better that's cool. But the concept that it was legal and should not be punished is still clearly a position held by the minority - at about the same percentage in your poll and mine.So you think my poll is eerily similar to yours?
Last edited by a moderator:
MCguidance
Footballguy
NTTAWWT
Statcruncher
Footballguy
Why do you keep trying to "win" this situation? It's not about winning, it's about really wanting to know what people think and why. Your poll left alot of unanswered questions so I created a different one that allows people to put a reason with their selections. Common sense dictates that both polls would show roughly the same percentages in favor of a fine/suspension, I just wanted better insight into the reasoning behind people's opinions as well. For example of the ones that voted for fine/no fine, 11% think it's a legal hit but he will get fined while 9% think it's illegal and he won't get fined. 20% think that he won't be correctly punished. Sorry if I stole your thunder or whatever.No - but the results are. About 70% calling the hit illegal - and about 75% calling for a fine or fine and suspension. So if somehow breaking it up makes you feel better that's cool. But the concept that it was legal and should not be punished is still clearly a position held by the minority - at about the same percentage in your poll and mine.So you think my poll is eerily similar to yours?
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Hey you know who else likes to legally hit helmet to helmet for fumbles, fun and profit?
The 9ers.
But that's football.
Or it used to be.
The 9ers.
But that's football.
Or it used to be.
Last edited by a moderator:
packseasontix
Footballguy
Issue is that people don't know the rules and just have a gut reaction on what they THINK instead of actually knowing the rules.Out of these 7 options only 1 of them is always illegal.No - but the results are. About 70% calling the hit illegal - and about 75% calling for a fine or fine and suspension. So if somehow breaking it up makes you feel better that's cool. But the concept that it was legal and should not be punished is still clearly a position held by the minority - at about the same percentage in your poll and mine.So you think my poll is eerily similar to yours?
Launching is Legal
Leading with helmet for block is Legal
Launching and leading with your helmet is legal
Contacting a defenses players helment is not illegal unless its the first place you land
Launching directly into the helmet would be illegal
These are only illegal if you verify that the player is hit directly from the side or behind and is then deemed defenseless, since the Bears player was hit from the direction of his movement this is not the case...
packseasontix
Footballguy
This doesnt say it wasnt a cheap shot or shouldnt be fined but at the same point can you Fine or Suspend someone for something that the NFL hasnt even outlawed in a game?
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
candymanvandyfan
Footballguy
Louis need not be defenseless for the act to be unnecessary roughness.
DoubleG
Footballguy
Easy there Sparky - I'm not trying to win anything. It's cool - my thunder is very much intact. I'm actually curious about the 3 people who voted the hit was illegal but that the NFL wont do anything. That seems an odd position in today's NFL.
DoubleG
Footballguy
Title of the thread down?'Raiderfan32904 said:'shadyridr said:or this just another
internet message board rumor!
Is Lance his real name, or just his "stage" name? Anyone else find it odd that they both have two first names? 
two_dollars
Footballguy
Where is the "I don't care, I'm tired of every hit being over analyzed, football is a collision sport not a contact sport, you can't even fathom the speed at which NFL football is played" option?
two_dollars
Footballguy
It's very odd.. you are a lot more likely to get fined for a legal hit than you are to not be fined for an illegal one.'DoubleG said:
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
In the NHL, there is no game.
Statcruncher
Footballguy
I understand this is a boring and annoying subject, but how the NFL rules on these plays is shaping the future of contact in the league. The fabric of the game is being changed by these plays.
Statcruncher
Footballguy
Can anyone find why he was fined? I mean obviously it was for the hit, but does anyone have the wording of what exactly triggered the fine? Did they see it as helmet to helmet or what?
Last edited by a moderator:
Morton Muffley
Footballguy
Good to know I'm not the only person who thought this thread was gonna be about the first active openly gay player in the NFL...am kinda disappointed actually
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Guess some "physical" teams have players who actively try to knock out opposing players. Sometimes fumbles, wins and profit result.
And it's legal, approved and even rewarded.
And it's legal, approved and even rewarded.
GregR
Footballguy
Haven't heard a wording. Probably decided it was enough into the head/neck to qualify, if I had to guess.
The NFL's goal is to defend a player who can't see a big hit coming, so can't protect himself. Which way he's moving isn't the issue in such a play. It's whether he's facing a direction that he can see the hit coming. Most of the dangerous plays like this the rule is meant to deal with, the player IS moving one direction but facing another. Louis's upper body is twisted partway to look back up field. Allen's coming from the side relative to that, where he can't be seen. That's the definition of the situation the rule is meant to address.
I agree it can be argued whether Allen hit Louis's head. But I don't think it can be argued this wasn't a blindside block.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maelstrom
Footballguy
Well, at least those teams aren't like the Saints who had an actual bounty program for such.
