The Real Official wildcard game 2 *** Steeler Vs Bengals *** (1 Viewer)

[Bayhawks]

Florio is an NFL shill. Plus he's flat wrong.

Can't argue with either, just saying we might not see a fine. I live in Cincy, this place will lose its #### if he is let off the hook.

His entire paragraph that starts with second is wrong.

Except, according to this article from 2013 when the rule was instituted, he is right, and you are wrong.

Now, if you want to argue that Shazier did "line up" Bernard, that's another point, but according to this article, it is a necessary component.

 

[Pipes]

Florio is an NFL shill. Plus he's flat wrong.

Can't argue with either, just saying we might not see a fine. I live in Cincy, this place will lose its #### if he is let off the hook.

His entire paragraph that starts with second is wrong.

Agreed

 

[Pipes]

Florio is an NFL shill. Plus he's flat wrong.

Can't argue with either, just saying we might not see a fine. I live in Cincy, this place will lose its #### if he is let off the hook.

His entire paragraph that starts with second is wrong.

Except, according to this article from 2013 when the rule was instituted, he is right, and you are wrong.

Now, if you want to argue that Shazier did "line up" Bernard, that's another point, but according to this article, it is a necessary component.

Of course he lined him up I don't know how you can argue otherwise. ESPN had an former official on saying it should've been a penalty...a guy who's worked Super Bowl's. So dumb that so called "experts" can't even agree on this.

 

[Bayhawks]

Florio is an NFL shill. Plus he's flat wrong.

Can't argue with either, just saying we might not see a fine. I live in Cincy, this place will lose its #### if he is let off the hook.

His entire paragraph that starts with second is wrong.

Except, according to this article from 2013 when the rule was instituted, he is right, and you are wrong.

Now, if you want to argue that Shazier did "line up" Bernard, that's another point, but according to this article, it is a necessary component.

Of course he lined him up I don't know how you can argue otherwise. ESPN had an formal official on saying it should've been a penalty...a guy who's worked Super Bowl's. So dumb that so called "experts" can't even agree on this.

On the broadcast, the broadcast team's "official" said it wasn't a penalty.

Explain, please how he lined him up. To do so, you'd have to have an understanding of that the NFL means by "lined up," which I don't. If you don't know what they mean by that term, I don't know how you can argue he DID line him up.

 

[Bayhawks]

Florio is an NFL shill. Plus he's flat wrong.

Can't argue with either, just saying we might not see a fine. I live in Cincy, this place will lose its #### if he is let off the hook.

His entire paragraph that starts with second is wrong.

Agreed

Except it's not. He's 100% right, based on the NFL's explanation of the rule (which is in the link I posted).

He is right, the two of you are wrong.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

The Steelers homerism in this thread is hilarious.

Would you say it's more or less funny than this?

Why is emotion such a problem for you?

It's not. I am enjoying a gamut of positive emotions watching him cry.

If only your mother had held you when you were younger...

something something your mother holding me much more recently something

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Jene Bramel ‏@JeneBramel 6m6 minutes ago

Jene Bramel Retweeted Paul Pabst

Ridiculous. Brown was unconscious before he hit the ground.

I'm a Steeler fan and that's a flat out lie. Watch the tape. He puts his hand out to be helped up but decides to stay down.

How many times have you been knocked out? It can be minutes long or it may only last 1 or 2 seconds. I'd say his body language on the way down clearly indicates he was out.

 

[Godsbrother]

Jene Bramel ‏@JeneBramel 6m6 minutes ago

Jene Bramel Retweeted Paul Pabst

Ridiculous. Brown was unconscious before he hit the ground.

I'm a Steeler fan and that's a flat out lie. Watch the tape. He puts his hand out to be helped up but decides to stay down.

How many times have you been knocked out? It can be minutes long or it may only last 1 or 2 seconds. I'd say his body language on the way down clearly indicates he was out.

Exactly. He was definitely out. Even a Grammy-award winning actor couldn't fake that.

 

[dparker713]

Florio is an NFL shill. Plus he's flat wrong.

Can't argue with either, just saying we might not see a fine. I live in Cincy, this place will lose its #### if he is let off the hook.

His entire paragraph that starts with second is wrong.

Agreed

Except it's not. He's 100% right, based on the NFL's explanation of the rule (which is in the link I posted).

He is right, the two of you are wrong.

Every play in the NFL is a bang bang play. To claim that a rule only applies when its not is to render a rule useless. Plus, the rule as written has no such component. Seeing as the NFL writes the rules, if they want that to be a component and not merely a guide to help the refs, they had every opportunity to write the rule as such.

 

[Bayhawks]

Florio is an NFL shill. Plus he's flat wrong.

Can't argue with either, just saying we might not see a fine. I live in Cincy, this place will lose its #### if he is let off the hook.

His entire paragraph that starts with second is wrong.

Agreed

Except it's not. He's 100% right, based on the NFL's explanation of the rule (which is in the link I posted).

He is right, the two of you are wrong.

Every play in the NFL is a bang bang play. To claim that a rule only applies when its not is to render a rule useless. Plus, the rule as written has no such component. Seeing as the NFL writes the rules, if they want that to be a component and not merely a guide to help the refs, they had every opportunity to write the rule as such.

Read the article; they sent the "instructional video" to teams, explaining how the rule was going to be enforced, and that: "the player must line up another" was part of it.

I suspect you did read the article & realize this, which is why you're trying to explain it away by saying "they could have written the rule that way," rather than discussing the fact that it is part of the enforcement of the rule.

I believed I was wrong based on the article cited the other day, and I admitted as much. It doesn't mean anything, other than there was information out there that I was unaware of. You are in the same situation, and admitting as much doesn't mean anything, except that there is information out there that you were unaware of. Too often on these boards, people cling to inaccurate takes/viewpoints because they refuse to admit that they were wrong. It's pointless. Whether you admit it or not, you were wrong, based on not having all the information.

 

[3C's]

You're not going to convince these guys that they're mistaken. The 2 former officials named Mike both say the Shazier hit wasn't a penalty. I have a feeling they're a little better informed on the rules.

 

[dparker713]

Florio is an NFL shill. Plus he's flat wrong.

Can't argue with either, just saying we might not see a fine. I live in Cincy, this place will lose its #### if he is let off the hook.

His entire paragraph that starts with second is wrong.

Agreed

Except it's not. He's 100% right, based on the NFL's explanation of the rule (which is in the link I posted). He is right, the two of you are wrong.

Every play in the NFL is a bang bang play. To claim that a rule only applies when its not is to render a rule useless. Plus, the rule as written has no such component. Seeing as the NFL writes the rules, if they want that to be a component and not merely a guide to help the refs, they had every opportunity to write the rule as such.

Read the article; they sent the "instructional video" to teams, explaining how the rule was going to be enforced, and that: "the player must line up another" was part of it.I suspect you did read the article & realize this, which is why you're trying to explain it away by saying "they could have written the rule that way," rather than discussing the fact that it is part of the enforcement of the rule.

I believed I was wrong based on the article cited the other day, and I admitted as much. It doesn't mean anything, other than there was information out there that I was unaware of. You are in the same situation, and admitting as much doesn't mean anything, except that there is information out there that you were unaware of. Too often on these boards, people cling to inaccurate takes/viewpoints because they refuse to admit that they were wrong. It's pointless. Whether you admit it or not, you were wrong, based on not having all the information.

I don't need more information than the rule as written. It is clear and does not require clarification. The rule is the controlling factor, not the point of emphasis.

Plus, even with the point of emphasis added, only with a highly contorted meaning of "lined up" would Shazier's play have been legal.

 

[BigJohn]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

 

[Buzzbait]

Not always a huge fan of Whitlock but I think this article pretty much sums up my thoughts on the game.

Burfict, Jones, Lewis, Porter, Shazier, Munchak & Tomlin all are idiots and played a part in this travesty. The Bengals have no one but themselves to blame and the Steelers are proud of their actions.

They're all a bunch of losers IMO.

http://j.school/post/137095635280/mike-tomlin-marvin-lewis-owe-us-an-apology

 

[Evilgrin 72]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

 

[Dizzy]

3 game vacation for Burfict.

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/686708288508026880

Deserving, I have watched the replay over and over and watching Browns body go limp is pretty bad.

This guy is the definition of a dirty player. Suh is a choir boy next to this menace.

Agreed. He is the modern version of Jack Tatum.

 

[Bayhawks]

Florio is an NFL shill. Plus he's flat wrong.

Can't argue with either, just saying we might not see a fine. I live in Cincy, this place will lose its #### if he is let off the hook.

His entire paragraph that starts with second is wrong.

Agreed

Except it's not. He's 100% right, based on the NFL's explanation of the rule (which is in the link I posted). He is right, the two of you are wrong.

Every play in the NFL is a bang bang play. To claim that a rule only applies when its not is to render a rule useless. Plus, the rule as written has no such component. Seeing as the NFL writes the rules, if they want that to be a component and not merely a guide to help the refs, they had every opportunity to write the rule as such.

Read the article; they sent the "instructional video" to teams, explaining how the rule was going to be enforced, and that: "the player must line up another" was part of it.I suspect you did read the article & realize this, which is why you're trying to explain it away by saying "they could have written the rule that way," rather than discussing the fact that it is part of the enforcement of the rule.

I believed I was wrong based on the article cited the other day, and I admitted as much. It doesn't mean anything, other than there was information out there that I was unaware of. You are in the same situation, and admitting as much doesn't mean anything, except that there is information out there that you were unaware of. Too often on these boards, people cling to inaccurate takes/viewpoints because they refuse to admit that they were wrong. It's pointless. Whether you admit it or not, you were wrong, based on not having all the information.

I don't need more information than the rule as written. It is clear and does not require clarification. The rule is the controlling factor, not the point of emphasis.

Plus, even with the point of emphasis added, only with a highly contorted meaning of "lined up" would Shazier's play have been legal.

No, it isn't.

The NFL says "here's the rule, and here's how it will be enforced." That is the controlling factor. You want to ignore this fact because it makes you wrong. It doesn't matter that you're wrong, you didn't have this information when you made your original point/argument. Pretending like the point doesn't matter, when it clearly does, is just foolish.

Now, with that being said, Shazier may have "lined up" Bernard; I have no idea what the NFL considers "lining up." Several people with more knowledge than me (former officials, NFL reporters, etc) say it wasn't a penalty (i.e.-he didn't "line him up,") and I'm more inclined to accept their position than yours (no offense intended).

 

[BigJohn]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

I've said several times that I'm not defending Burfict. I'm only saying that if you erase the identities of the players involved, and you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse, IMO. And understand that I am a huge Buckeye fan and Shazier has been one of my favorite Buckeyes in the last 10 years. But the hit and then the ridiculous antics afterwards changed my opinion of him completely. He's getting a pass simply because Burfict was involved with this game.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

I've said several times that I'm not defending Burfict. I'm only saying that if you erase the identities of the players involved, and you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse, IMO. And understand that I am a huge Buckeye fan and Shazier has been one of my favorite Buckeyes in the last 10 years. But the hit and then the ridiculous antics afterwards changed my opinion of him completely. He's getting a pass simply because Burfict was involved with this game.

I honestly don't believe it was. I may be biased, but it didn't look like Shazier was trying to hurt Gio, it truly didn't. Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Shazier and he has never struck me as that kind of guy. Son of a coach/preacher, plays the game the right way. To me, it looked like an unfortunate thing where Gio went low and Shazier had his head down and their helmets met. You may have a different perspective and you may even be right, I respect that. I also think he could have been celebrating the fact that he caused a turnover and not that he hurt another player.

But Burfict's hit sure as hell looked like he was sending a message. The ball was gone, he did not need to hit him in the head like that. I can't see, ESPECIALLY given his history, how anyone could possibly give the guy the benefit of the doubt there. He goes out between the lines looking to injure people, it's what he does. He's a dirty player. Of course he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Bayhawks]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

I've said several times that I'm not defending Burfict. I'm only saying that if you erase the identities of the players involved, and you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse, IMO. And understand that I am a huge Buckeye fan and Shazier has been one of my favorite Buckeyes in the last 10 years. But the hit and then the ridiculous antics afterwards changed my opinion of him completely. He's getting a pass simply because Burfict was involved with this game.

The Shazier hit, IMO was not dirty. It might have warranted a penalty (depending on what the NFL constitutes "lining up" a player), but I don't think it was dirty. His actions (on the sideline) after the fact, were very foolish. He looked like a tool. That being said, AFIK, Shazier has ZERO history of dirty play, being fined by the league for these types of hits, causing pre-game problems, etc. Burfict checks ALL of those boxes. While I agree with defenders when they say you can't adjust to a player jumping, ducking, moving, etc to avoid head shots, Burfict's history leads me to believe he wasn't trying to avoid a head shot, but trying to administer one.

 

[dparker713]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

I've said several times that I'm not defending Burfict. I'm only saying that if you erase the identities of the players involved, and you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse, IMO. And understand that I am a huge Buckeye fan and Shazier has been one of my favorite Buckeyes in the last 10 years. But the hit and then the ridiculous antics afterwards changed my opinion of him completely. He's getting a pass simply because Burfict was involved with this game.

I honestly don't believe it was. I may be biased, but it didn't look like Shazier was trying to hurt Gio, it truly didn't. Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Shazier and he has never struck me as that kind of guy. Son of a coach/preacher, plays the game the right way. To me, it looked like an unfortunate thing where Gio went low and Shazier had his head down and their helmets met. You may have a different perspective and you may even be right, I respect that. I also think he could have been celebrating the fact that he caused a turnover and not that he hurt another player.

But Burfict's hit sure as hell looked like he was sending a message. The ball was gone, he did not need to hit him in the head like that. I can't see, ESPECIALLY given his history, how anyone could possibly give the guy the benefit of the doubt there. He goes out between the lines looking to injure people, it's what he does. He's a dirty player. Of course he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt.

Without knowing either players history, Burficts looked more justifiable. Still a no doubt penalty, but he crouched and led with his shoulder. The ball passed Brown less than a second earlier. Brown was coming down and his head looked to be even lower than it normally would be. If that's Gronk or AJ Green I think that Burficts hits them squarely in the chest.

On the other hand, Bernard's head moved much less over the course of the play and there was nowhere Shazier could have hit him other than in the head.

We can't know what they players are thinking, but without a side in the game Shazier's hit looked more intentional.

 

[davearm]

It's a fine line to walk. I personally am not too likely to ##### about defenders taking huge head shots at guys -- either those on my team or on opposing teams. I just don't have a ton of respect for players taking the shot, then crying about the flag afterwards. It's pretty freaking clear that those types of hits are going to draw some laundry nowadays. Price is worth paying to set the tone early in the game, IMO. But don't take the shot then cry about the penalty / fine / suspension afterwards.

I dont recall Burfict, or anybody else, for that matter complaining much about that penalty. It was pretty clear cut.

Both penalties were absolutely clear cut. Yet people are crying.

Again, I don't think people are saying that they weren't penalties. People wanted Porter flagged as well.

There's no basis to flag Porter that I can discern.

Even if someone wants to argue that Porter violated the rule that states asst. coaches are not allowed on the field during injury timeouts, and ignore the fact that the rule is rarely enforced, and hadn't been enforced earlier in the same game during the Bernard injury, they would still have to provide evidence that the correct penalty for violating the rule is a 15-yard penalty. Nowhere have I seen anything pointing to this.

As for the trash talk, that surely had been going on all night. You can't let Porter and the Bengals call each other #####es all game long, and then suddenly throw a flag for it, on just one guy, in the last minute. It's absurd, frankly.

 

[Buzzbait]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

I've said several times that I'm not defending Burfict. I'm only saying that if you erase the identities of the players involved, and you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse, IMO. And understand that I am a huge Buckeye fan and Shazier has been one of my favorite Buckeyes in the last 10 years. But the hit and then the ridiculous antics afterwards changed my opinion of him completely. He's getting a pass simply because Burfict was involved with this game.

I honestly don't believe it was. I may be biased, but it didn't look like Shazier was trying to hurt Gio, it truly didn't. Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Shazier and he has never struck me as that kind of guy. Son of a coach/preacher, plays the game the right way. To me, it looked like an unfortunate thing where Gio went low and Shazier had his head down and their helmets met. You may have a different perspective and you may even be right, I respect that. I also think he could have been celebrating the fact that he caused a turnover and not that he hurt another player.

But Burfict's hit sure as hell looked like he was sending a message. The ball was gone, he did not need to hit him in the head like that. I can't see, ESPECIALLY given his history, how anyone could possibly give the guy the benefit of the doubt there. He goes out between the lines looking to injure people, it's what he does. He's a dirty player. Of course he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt.

Without knowing either players history, Burficts looked more justifiable. Still a no doubt penalty, but he crouched and led with his shoulder. The ball passed Brown less than a second earlier. Brown was coming down and his head looked to be even lower than it normally would be. If that's Gronk or AJ Green I think that Burficts hits them squarely in the chest.

On the other hand, Bernard's head moved much less over the course of the play and there was nowhere Shazier could have hit him other than in the head.

We can't know what they players are thinking, but without a side in the game Shazier's hit looked more intentional.

Agree with most of this. The issue on Shazier's hit is that he dipped his head and went helmet to helmet. Maybe he could have avoided and maybe he couldn't but it's irrelevant because he led with the crown of his helmet.

My take on the hit was that it wasn't malicious but absolutely deserved a penalty. His actions afterwards were also ridicules and added fuel to the fire. It was already a dirty game but that hit (not being called) and his actions after sent things to a much more intense level. The place came unglued after that play.

 

[dparker713]

It's a fine line to walk. I personally am not too likely to ##### about defenders taking huge head shots at guys -- either those on my team or on opposing teams. I just don't have a ton of respect for players taking the shot, then crying about the flag afterwards. It's pretty freaking clear that those types of hits are going to draw some laundry nowadays. Price is worth paying to set the tone early in the game, IMO. But don't take the shot then cry about the penalty / fine / suspension afterwards.

I dont recall Burfict, or anybody else, for that matter complaining much about that penalty. It was pretty clear cut.

Both penalties were absolutely clear cut. Yet people are crying.

Again, I don't think people are saying that they weren't penalties. People wanted Porter flagged as well.

There's no basis to flag Porter that I can discern.

Even if someone wants to argue that Porter violated the rule that states asst. coaches are not allowed on the field during injury timeouts, and ignore the fact that the rule is rarely enforced, and hadn't been enforced earlier in the same game during the Bernard injury, they would still have to provide evidence that the correct penalty for violating the rule is a 15-yard penalty. Nowhere have I seen anything pointing to this.

As for the trash talk, that surely had been going on all night. You can't let Porter and the Bengals call each other #####es all game long, and then suddenly throw a flag for it, on just one guy, in the last minute. It's absurd, frankly.

The difference is that Porter is not a player. I don't think it's ever acceptable for a coach to talk trash.

 

[Pipes]

Florio is an NFL shill. Plus he's flat wrong.

Can't argue with either, just saying we might not see a fine. I live in Cincy, this place will lose its #### if he is let off the hook.

His entire paragraph that starts with second is wrong.

Agreed

Except it's not. He's 100% right, based on the NFL's explanation of the rule (which is in the link I posted).

He is right, the two of you are wrong.

Sorry I'll go with the Jim Daopoulus' interpretation of the rule which seems pretty cut and dry. Whatever I'm done arguing about this since people in the know can't even agree if it's legal or not. In my eyes and many others it's a dirty hit by Shazier...nothing will change my opinion about that.

 

[davearm]

It's a fine line to walk. I personally am not too likely to ##### about defenders taking huge head shots at guys -- either those on my team or on opposing teams. I just don't have a ton of respect for players taking the shot, then crying about the flag afterwards. It's pretty freaking clear that those types of hits are going to draw some laundry nowadays. Price is worth paying to set the tone early in the game, IMO. But don't take the shot then cry about the penalty / fine / suspension afterwards.

I dont recall Burfict, or anybody else, for that matter complaining much about that penalty. It was pretty clear cut.

Both penalties were absolutely clear cut. Yet people are crying.

Again, I don't think people are saying that they weren't penalties. People wanted Porter flagged as well.

There's no basis to flag Porter that I can discern.

Even if someone wants to argue that Porter violated the rule that states asst. coaches are not allowed on the field during injury timeouts, and ignore the fact that the rule is rarely enforced, and hadn't been enforced earlier in the same game during the Bernard injury, they would still have to provide evidence that the correct penalty for violating the rule is a 15-yard penalty. Nowhere have I seen anything pointing to this.

As for the trash talk, that surely had been going on all night. You can't let Porter and the Bengals call each other #####es all game long, and then suddenly throw a flag for it, on just one guy, in the last minute. It's absurd, frankly.

The difference is that Porter is not a player. I don't think it's ever acceptable for a coach to talk trash.

In that case, Porter should have been flagged many, many times before this Burfict/Brown play. The talk was all game long.

But since he wasn't, he shouldn't be flagged then, either.

 

[Bayhawks]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

I've said several times that I'm not defending Burfict. I'm only saying that if you erase the identities of the players involved, and you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse, IMO. And understand that I am a huge Buckeye fan and Shazier has been one of my favorite Buckeyes in the last 10 years. But the hit and then the ridiculous antics afterwards changed my opinion of him completely. He's getting a pass simply because Burfict was involved with this game.

I honestly don't believe it was. I may be biased, but it didn't look like Shazier was trying to hurt Gio, it truly didn't. Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Shazier and he has never struck me as that kind of guy. Son of a coach/preacher, plays the game the right way. To me, it looked like an unfortunate thing where Gio went low and Shazier had his head down and their helmets met. You may have a different perspective and you may even be right, I respect that. I also think he could have been celebrating the fact that he caused a turnover and not that he hurt another player.

But Burfict's hit sure as hell looked like he was sending a message. The ball was gone, he did not need to hit him in the head like that. I can't see, ESPECIALLY given his history, how anyone could possibly give the guy the benefit of the doubt there. He goes out between the lines looking to injure people, it's what he does. He's a dirty player. Of course he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt.

Without knowing either players history, Burficts looked more justifiable. Still a no doubt penalty, but he crouched and led with his shoulder. The ball passed Brown less than a second earlier. Brown was coming down and his head looked to be even lower than it normally would be. If that's Gronk or AJ Green I think that Burficts hits them squarely in the chest.

On the other hand, Bernard's head moved much less over the course of the play and there was nowhere Shazier could have hit him other than in the head.

We can't know what they players are thinking, but without a side in the game Shazier's hit looked more intentional.

You can't be serious? When Shazier started towards Bernard, Bernard's back was to him. During the short time Shazier was closing, Bernard turned, saw Shazier, and planted his right leg, in an attempt to evade him. In planting his right leg, lowered his height by at least 3-4 inches. Shazier hit him in the jaw with his helmet. If Bernard hadn't planted his leg to try to cut (not saying he shouldn't have, but he did), he would have been standing taller, and Shazier would have hit him square in the chest with his helmet. As has been noted in this thread, Shazier had his head down, so he couldn't see where Gio's head was to target it. Here's the play; watch between 34 & 39 seconds.

 

[Bayhawks]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

I've said several times that I'm not defending Burfict. I'm only saying that if you erase the identities of the players involved, and you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse, IMO. And understand that I am a huge Buckeye fan and Shazier has been one of my favorite Buckeyes in the last 10 years. But the hit and then the ridiculous antics afterwards changed my opinion of him completely. He's getting a pass simply because Burfict was involved with this game.

I honestly don't believe it was. I may be biased, but it didn't look like Shazier was trying to hurt Gio, it truly didn't. Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Shazier and he has never struck me as that kind of guy. Son of a coach/preacher, plays the game the right way. To me, it looked like an unfortunate thing where Gio went low and Shazier had his head down and their helmets met. You may have a different perspective and you may even be right, I respect that. I also think he could have been celebrating the fact that he caused a turnover and not that he hurt another player.

But Burfict's hit sure as hell looked like he was sending a message. The ball was gone, he did not need to hit him in the head like that. I can't see, ESPECIALLY given his history, how anyone could possibly give the guy the benefit of the doubt there. He goes out between the lines looking to injure people, it's what he does. He's a dirty player. Of course he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt.

Without knowing either players history, Burficts looked more justifiable. Still a no doubt penalty, but he crouched and led with his shoulder. The ball passed Brown less than a second earlier. Brown was coming down and his head looked to be even lower than it normally would be. If that's Gronk or AJ Green I think that Burficts hits them squarely in the chest.

On the other hand, Bernard's head moved much less over the course of the play and there was nowhere Shazier could have hit him other than in the head.

We can't know what they players are thinking, but without a side in the game Shazier's hit looked more intentional.

Agree with most of this. The issue on Shazier's hit is that he dipped his head and went helmet to helmet. Maybe he could have avoided and maybe he couldn't but it's irrelevant because he led with the crown of his helmet.

My take on the hit was that it wasn't malicious but absolutely deserved a penalty. His actions afterwards were also ridicules and added fuel to the fire. It was already a dirty game but that hit (not being called) and his actions after sent things to a much more intense level. The place came unglued after that play.

But it's not irrelevant. According to the NFL, it's only a penalty to lead with the crown, if Shazier "lined up" Bernard. Without knowing what constitutes "lining up" a player, it's impossible to say whether it should have been called a penalty or not. The "experts" (ex-refs, NFL reporters, etc) seem to agree that he didn't line him up & it wasn't a penalty.

 

[dparker713]

It's a fine line to walk. I personally am not too likely to ##### about defenders taking huge head shots at guys -- either those on my team or on opposing teams. I just don't have a ton of respect for players taking the shot, then crying about the flag afterwards. It's pretty freaking clear that those types of hits are going to draw some laundry nowadays. Price is worth paying to set the tone early in the game, IMO. But don't take the shot then cry about the penalty / fine / suspension afterwards.

I dont recall Burfict, or anybody else, for that matter complaining much about that penalty. It was pretty clear cut.

Both penalties were absolutely clear cut. Yet people are crying.

Again, I don't think people are saying that they weren't penalties. People wanted Porter flagged as well.

There's no basis to flag Porter that I can discern.

Even if someone wants to argue that Porter violated the rule that states asst. coaches are not allowed on the field during injury timeouts, and ignore the fact that the rule is rarely enforced, and hadn't been enforced earlier in the same game during the Bernard injury, they would still have to provide evidence that the correct penalty for violating the rule is a 15-yard penalty. Nowhere have I seen anything pointing to this.

As for the trash talk, that surely had been going on all night. You can't let Porter and the Bengals call each other #####es all game long, and then suddenly throw a flag for it, on just one guy, in the last minute. It's absurd, frankly.

The difference is that Porter is not a player. I don't think it's ever acceptable for a coach to talk trash.

In that case, Porter should have been flagged many, many times before this Burfict/Brown play. The talk was all game long.

But since he wasn't, he shouldn't be flagged then, either.

Just because the refs were doing a bad job earlier doesn't mean we should want them to continue to do a bad job.

 

[Buzzbait]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

I've said several times that I'm not defending Burfict. I'm only saying that if you erase the identities of the players involved, and you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse, IMO. And understand that I am a huge Buckeye fan and Shazier has been one of my favorite Buckeyes in the last 10 years. But the hit and then the ridiculous antics afterwards changed my opinion of him completely. He's getting a pass simply because Burfict was involved with this game.

I honestly don't believe it was. I may be biased, but it didn't look like Shazier was trying to hurt Gio, it truly didn't. Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Shazier and he has never struck me as that kind of guy. Son of a coach/preacher, plays the game the right way. To me, it looked like an unfortunate thing where Gio went low and Shazier had his head down and their helmets met. You may have a different perspective and you may even be right, I respect that. I also think he could have been celebrating the fact that he caused a turnover and not that he hurt another player.

But Burfict's hit sure as hell looked like he was sending a message. The ball was gone, he did not need to hit him in the head like that. I can't see, ESPECIALLY given his history, how anyone could possibly give the guy the benefit of the doubt there. He goes out between the lines looking to injure people, it's what he does. He's a dirty player. Of course he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt.

Without knowing either players history, Burficts looked more justifiable. Still a no doubt penalty, but he crouched and led with his shoulder. The ball passed Brown less than a second earlier. Brown was coming down and his head looked to be even lower than it normally would be. If that's Gronk or AJ Green I think that Burficts hits them squarely in the chest.

On the other hand, Bernard's head moved much less over the course of the play and there was nowhere Shazier could have hit him other than in the head.

We can't know what they players are thinking, but without a side in the game Shazier's hit looked more intentional.

Agree with most of this. The issue on Shazier's hit is that he dipped his head and went helmet to helmet. Maybe he could have avoided and maybe he couldn't but it's irrelevant because he led with the crown of his helmet.

My take on the hit was that it wasn't malicious but absolutely deserved a penalty. His actions afterwards were also ridicules and added fuel to the fire. It was already a dirty game but that hit (not being called) and his actions after sent things to a much more intense level. The place came unglued after that play.

But it's not irrelevant. According to the NFL, it's only a penalty to lead with the crown, if Shazier "lined up" Bernard. Without knowing what constitutes "lining up" a player, it's impossible to say whether it should have been called a penalty or not. The "experts" (ex-refs, NFL reporters, etc) seem to agree that he didn't line him up & it wasn't a penalty.

This rule doesn't say anything about "lining up." Shazier should have been flagged and his actions after were uncalled for.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000238662/article/new-nfl-rules-crownofhelmet-change-to-help-runner-defender

NEW RULE: A ban on a ball carrier initiating contact with the crown of his helmet in the open field or by a defender while making a tackle.

What the rule changes: A 15-yard penalty will be called if a runner or a tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players clearly are outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle-to-tackle and from 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team's end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or a tackler against an opponent would not be deemed a foul.

Why the change was made: The NFL is trying to avoid concussions at all costs, so this rule will make it illegal for players to use their helmets as weapons. Using the helmet on hits against receivers already is illegal, so this is the next logical step.

 

[Bayhawks]

Florio is an NFL shill. Plus he's flat wrong.

Can't argue with either, just saying we might not see a fine. I live in Cincy, this place will lose its #### if he is let off the hook.

His entire paragraph that starts with second is wrong.

Agreed

Except it's not. He's 100% right, based on the NFL's explanation of the rule (which is in the link I posted).

He is right, the two of you are wrong.

Sorry I'll go with the Jim Daopoulus' interpretation of the rule which seems pretty cut and dry. Whatever I'm done arguing about this since people in the know can't even agree if it's legal or not. In my eyes and many others it's a dirty hit by Shazier...nothing will change my opinion about that.

Yeah, Mike Carey, Mike Pereira, and Mike Florio's interpretation of the rule is pretty cut & dry, as well.

 

[Bayhawks]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

I've said several times that I'm not defending Burfict. I'm only saying that if you erase the identities of the players involved, and you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse, IMO. And understand that I am a huge Buckeye fan and Shazier has been one of my favorite Buckeyes in the last 10 years. But the hit and then the ridiculous antics afterwards changed my opinion of him completely. He's getting a pass simply because Burfict was involved with this game.

I honestly don't believe it was. I may be biased, but it didn't look like Shazier was trying to hurt Gio, it truly didn't. Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Shazier and he has never struck me as that kind of guy. Son of a coach/preacher, plays the game the right way. To me, it looked like an unfortunate thing where Gio went low and Shazier had his head down and their helmets met. You may have a different perspective and you may even be right, I respect that. I also think he could have been celebrating the fact that he caused a turnover and not that he hurt another player.

But Burfict's hit sure as hell looked like he was sending a message. The ball was gone, he did not need to hit him in the head like that. I can't see, ESPECIALLY given his history, how anyone could possibly give the guy the benefit of the doubt there. He goes out between the lines looking to injure people, it's what he does. He's a dirty player. Of course he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt.

Without knowing either players history, Burficts looked more justifiable. Still a no doubt penalty, but he crouched and led with his shoulder. The ball passed Brown less than a second earlier. Brown was coming down and his head looked to be even lower than it normally would be. If that's Gronk or AJ Green I think that Burficts hits them squarely in the chest.

On the other hand, Bernard's head moved much less over the course of the play and there was nowhere Shazier could have hit him other than in the head.

We can't know what they players are thinking, but without a side in the game Shazier's hit looked more intentional.

Agree with most of this. The issue on Shazier's hit is that he dipped his head and went helmet to helmet. Maybe he could have avoided and maybe he couldn't but it's irrelevant because he led with the crown of his helmet.

My take on the hit was that it wasn't malicious but absolutely deserved a penalty. His actions afterwards were also ridicules and added fuel to the fire. It was already a dirty game but that hit (not being called) and his actions after sent things to a much more intense level. The place came unglued after that play.

But it's not irrelevant. According to the NFL, it's only a penalty to lead with the crown, if Shazier "lined up" Bernard. Without knowing what constitutes "lining up" a player, it's impossible to say whether it should have been called a penalty or not. The "experts" (ex-refs, NFL reporters, etc) seem to agree that he didn't line him up & it wasn't a penalty.

This rule doesn't say anything about "lining up" and is why Shazier should have been flagged.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000238662/article/new-nfl-rules-crownofhelmet-change-to-help-runner-defender

NEW RULE: A ban on a ball carrier initiating contact with the crown of his helmet in the open field or by a defender while making a tackle.

What the rule changes: A 15-yard penalty will be called if a runner or a tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players clearly are outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle-to-tackle and from 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team's end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or a tackler against an opponent would not be deemed a foul.

Why the change was made: The NFL is trying to avoid concussions at all costs, so this rule will make it illegal for players to use their helmets as weapons. Using the helmet on hits against receivers already is illegal, so this is the next logical step.

I provided a link a number of posts back. When the NFL instituted the rule, they distributed to all teams a video explaining the rule & how it would be enforced, and "lining up" the player was a required component. Other contact, without the "lining up" component would be deemed as incidental contact, from what I can tell.

ETA-from your own link:

What players are saying about it: "I don't use my head anyway. That's dangerous. It won't affect me at all. I don't lower my head when I'm contacting defenders. I lower my shoulder. It might be a thin line, like a judgment call, if you ask me. It's a thin line between what's lowering your shoulder and what's lowering your head. But the way they stated the rule how you have to first line him up, then you have to lower your head and deliver a blow -- it's understandable. I've never done that before. So I'm not worried at all." -- Washington Redskins running back Alfred Morris

I added the red font and underlined the pertinent line.

 

[Buzzbait]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

I've said several times that I'm not defending Burfict. I'm only saying that if you erase the identities of the players involved, and you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse, IMO. And understand that I am a huge Buckeye fan and Shazier has been one of my favorite Buckeyes in the last 10 years. But the hit and then the ridiculous antics afterwards changed my opinion of him completely. He's getting a pass simply because Burfict was involved with this game.

I honestly don't believe it was. I may be biased, but it didn't look like Shazier was trying to hurt Gio, it truly didn't. Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Shazier and he has never struck me as that kind of guy. Son of a coach/preacher, plays the game the right way. To me, it looked like an unfortunate thing where Gio went low and Shazier had his head down and their helmets met. You may have a different perspective and you may even be right, I respect that. I also think he could have been celebrating the fact that he caused a turnover and not that he hurt another player.

But Burfict's hit sure as hell looked like he was sending a message. The ball was gone, he did not need to hit him in the head like that. I can't see, ESPECIALLY given his history, how anyone could possibly give the guy the benefit of the doubt there. He goes out between the lines looking to injure people, it's what he does. He's a dirty player. Of course he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt.

Without knowing either players history, Burficts looked more justifiable. Still a no doubt penalty, but he crouched and led with his shoulder. The ball passed Brown less than a second earlier. Brown was coming down and his head looked to be even lower than it normally would be. If that's Gronk or AJ Green I think that Burficts hits them squarely in the chest.

On the other hand, Bernard's head moved much less over the course of the play and there was nowhere Shazier could have hit him other than in the head.

We can't know what they players are thinking, but without a side in the game Shazier's hit looked more intentional.

Agree with most of this. The issue on Shazier's hit is that he dipped his head and went helmet to helmet. Maybe he could have avoided and maybe he couldn't but it's irrelevant because he led with the crown of his helmet.

My take on the hit was that it wasn't malicious but absolutely deserved a penalty. His actions afterwards were also ridicules and added fuel to the fire. It was already a dirty game but that hit (not being called) and his actions after sent things to a much more intense level. The place came unglued after that play.

But it's not irrelevant. According to the NFL, it's only a penalty to lead with the crown, if Shazier "lined up" Bernard. Without knowing what constitutes "lining up" a player, it's impossible to say whether it should have been called a penalty or not. The "experts" (ex-refs, NFL reporters, etc) seem to agree that he didn't line him up & it wasn't a penalty.

This rule doesn't say anything about "lining up" and is why Shazier should have been flagged.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000238662/article/new-nfl-rules-crownofhelmet-change-to-help-runner-defender

NEW RULE: A ban on a ball carrier initiating contact with the crown of his helmet in the open field or by a defender while making a tackle.

What the rule changes: A 15-yard penalty will be called if a runner or a tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players clearly are outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle-to-tackle and from 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team's end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or a tackler against an opponent would not be deemed a foul.

Why the change was made: The NFL is trying to avoid concussions at all costs, so this rule will make it illegal for players to use their helmets as weapons. Using the helmet on hits against receivers already is illegal, so this is the next logical step.

I provided a link a number of posts back. When the NFL instituted the rule, they distributed to all teams a video explaining the rule & how it would be enforced, and "lining up" the player was a required component.

Then we just agree to disagree. I don't agree with your interpretation (I saw the previous link) and if this is what the NFL wants then they get what they deserve. Of similar note is the M. Bryant catch. The NFL is telling us Megatron and Dez's from a few years ago weren't catches but M Bryant's was?

The NFL deserves this quagmire they created.

 

[Bayhawks]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

I've said several times that I'm not defending Burfict. I'm only saying that if you erase the identities of the players involved, and you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse, IMO. And understand that I am a huge Buckeye fan and Shazier has been one of my favorite Buckeyes in the last 10 years. But the hit and then the ridiculous antics afterwards changed my opinion of him completely. He's getting a pass simply because Burfict was involved with this game.

I honestly don't believe it was. I may be biased, but it didn't look like Shazier was trying to hurt Gio, it truly didn't. Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Shazier and he has never struck me as that kind of guy. Son of a coach/preacher, plays the game the right way. To me, it looked like an unfortunate thing where Gio went low and Shazier had his head down and their helmets met. You may have a different perspective and you may even be right, I respect that. I also think he could have been celebrating the fact that he caused a turnover and not that he hurt another player.

But Burfict's hit sure as hell looked like he was sending a message. The ball was gone, he did not need to hit him in the head like that. I can't see, ESPECIALLY given his history, how anyone could possibly give the guy the benefit of the doubt there. He goes out between the lines looking to injure people, it's what he does. He's a dirty player. Of course he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt.

Without knowing either players history, Burficts looked more justifiable. Still a no doubt penalty, but he crouched and led with his shoulder. The ball passed Brown less than a second earlier. Brown was coming down and his head looked to be even lower than it normally would be. If that's Gronk or AJ Green I think that Burficts hits them squarely in the chest.

On the other hand, Bernard's head moved much less over the course of the play and there was nowhere Shazier could have hit him other than in the head.

We can't know what they players are thinking, but without a side in the game Shazier's hit looked more intentional.

Agree with most of this. The issue on Shazier's hit is that he dipped his head and went helmet to helmet. Maybe he could have avoided and maybe he couldn't but it's irrelevant because he led with the crown of his helmet.

My take on the hit was that it wasn't malicious but absolutely deserved a penalty. His actions afterwards were also ridicules and added fuel to the fire. It was already a dirty game but that hit (not being called) and his actions after sent things to a much more intense level. The place came unglued after that play.

But it's not irrelevant. According to the NFL, it's only a penalty to lead with the crown, if Shazier "lined up" Bernard. Without knowing what constitutes "lining up" a player, it's impossible to say whether it should have been called a penalty or not. The "experts" (ex-refs, NFL reporters, etc) seem to agree that he didn't line him up & it wasn't a penalty.

This rule doesn't say anything about "lining up" and is why Shazier should have been flagged.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000238662/article/new-nfl-rules-crownofhelmet-change-to-help-runner-defender

NEW RULE: A ban on a ball carrier initiating contact with the crown of his helmet in the open field or by a defender while making a tackle.

What the rule changes: A 15-yard penalty will be called if a runner or a tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players clearly are outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle-to-tackle and from 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team's end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or a tackler against an opponent would not be deemed a foul.

Why the change was made: The NFL is trying to avoid concussions at all costs, so this rule will make it illegal for players to use their helmets as weapons. Using the helmet on hits against receivers already is illegal, so this is the next logical step.

I provided a link a number of posts back. When the NFL instituted the rule, they distributed to all teams a video explaining the rule & how it would be enforced, and "lining up" the player was a required component.

Then we just agree to disagree. I don't agree with your interpretation (I saw the previous link) and if this is what the NFL wants then they get what they deserve. Of similar note is the M. Bryant catch. The NFL is telling us Megatron and Dez's from a few years ago weren't catches but M Bryant's was?

The NFL deserves this quagmire they created.

See my edit. Alfred Morris, in the link you provided, stated that the NFL said you have to "line up" the other player to violate that rule. It's not my interpretation; it's the NFL's interpretation.

 

[dparker713]

If Burfuct makes the same hit as Shazier, you are all trying to get him charged with murder.

Probably not, but you can't argue that Burfict has shown on multiple occasions in the past that he plays beyond the whistle with the sole intent of injuring other players. Not just intimidate, INJURE. So no, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt as much as Shazier would, who has no such history. That's life.

Also, "that guy does stuff too!" isn't an effective defense. Either defend what Burfict and Jones did as being good for the franchise or blast them for losing their heads and costing their fans the season. But saying : "Hey, those guys did things too !" is weak. Try using the "You let OJ off !" defense if you're tried for murder and see where that gets you.

I've said several times that I'm not defending Burfict. I'm only saying that if you erase the identities of the players involved, and you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse, IMO. And understand that I am a huge Buckeye fan and Shazier has been one of my favorite Buckeyes in the last 10 years. But the hit and then the ridiculous antics afterwards changed my opinion of him completely. He's getting a pass simply because Burfict was involved with this game.

I honestly don't believe it was. I may be biased, but it didn't look like Shazier was trying to hurt Gio, it truly didn't. Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Shazier and he has never struck me as that kind of guy. Son of a coach/preacher, plays the game the right way. To me, it looked like an unfortunate thing where Gio went low and Shazier had his head down and their helmets met. You may have a different perspective and you may even be right, I respect that. I also think he could have been celebrating the fact that he caused a turnover and not that he hurt another player.

But Burfict's hit sure as hell looked like he was sending a message. The ball was gone, he did not need to hit him in the head like that. I can't see, ESPECIALLY given his history, how anyone could possibly give the guy the benefit of the doubt there. He goes out between the lines looking to injure people, it's what he does. He's a dirty player. Of course he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt.

Without knowing either players history, Burficts looked more justifiable. Still a no doubt penalty, but he crouched and led with his shoulder. The ball passed Brown less than a second earlier. Brown was coming down and his head looked to be even lower than it normally would be. If that's Gronk or AJ Green I think that Burficts hits them squarely in the chest.On the other hand, Bernard's head moved much less over the course of the play and there was nowhere Shazier could have hit him other than in the head.

We can't know what they players are thinking, but without a side in the game Shazier's hit looked more intentional.

You can't be serious? When Shazier started towards Bernard, Bernard's back was to him. During the short time Shazier was closing, Bernard turned, saw Shazier, and planted his right leg, in an attempt to evade him. In planting his right leg, lowered his height by at least 3-4 inches. Shazier hit him in the jaw with his helmet. If Bernard hadn't planted his leg to try to cut (not saying he shouldn't have, but he did), he would have been standing taller, and Shazier would have hit him square in the chest with his helmet. As has been noted in this thread, Shazier had his head down, so he couldn't see where Gio's head was to target it. Here's the play; watch between 34 & 39 seconds.

3 or 4 inches versus 3 or 4 feetAnd the crown of the helmet rule does not require helmet to helmet contact so it's fairly immaterial where Shazier hit Bernard as to its legality. Only really matters regarding how dirty it was.

 

[Steeler]

Florio is an NFL shill. Plus he's flat wrong.

Can't argue with either, just saying we might not see a fine. I live in Cincy, this place will lose its #### if he is let off the hook.

His entire paragraph that starts with second is wrong.

Agreed

Except it's not. He's 100% right, based on the NFL's explanation of the rule (which is in the link I posted). He is right, the two of you are wrong.

Sorry I'll go with the Jim Daopoulus' interpretation of the rule which seems pretty cut and dry. Whatever I'm done arguing about this since people in the know can't even agree if it's legal or not. In my eyes and many others it's a dirty hit by Shazier...nothing will change my opinion about that.

I see the word you chose, but did you really mean dirty? Or did you mean illegal? To my knowledge this is the first "questionable" hit by Shazier so I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt in terms of his intentions.

 

[davearm]

It's a fine line to walk. I personally am not too likely to ##### about defenders taking huge head shots at guys -- either those on my team or on opposing teams. I just don't have a ton of respect for players taking the shot, then crying about the flag afterwards. It's pretty freaking clear that those types of hits are going to draw some laundry nowadays. Price is worth paying to set the tone early in the game, IMO. But don't take the shot then cry about the penalty / fine / suspension afterwards.

I dont recall Burfict, or anybody else, for that matter complaining much about that penalty. It was pretty clear cut.

Both penalties were absolutely clear cut. Yet people are crying.

Again, I don't think people are saying that they weren't penalties. People wanted Porter flagged as well.

There's no basis to flag Porter that I can discern.

Even if someone wants to argue that Porter violated the rule that states asst. coaches are not allowed on the field during injury timeouts, and ignore the fact that the rule is rarely enforced, and hadn't been enforced earlier in the same game during the Bernard injury, they would still have to provide evidence that the correct penalty for violating the rule is a 15-yard penalty. Nowhere have I seen anything pointing to this.

As for the trash talk, that surely had been going on all night. You can't let Porter and the Bengals call each other #####es all game long, and then suddenly throw a flag for it, on just one guy, in the last minute. It's absurd, frankly.

The difference is that Porter is not a player. I don't think it's ever acceptable for a coach to talk trash.

In that case, Porter should have been flagged many, many times before this Burfict/Brown play. The talk was all game long.

But since he wasn't, he shouldn't be flagged then, either.

Just because the refs were doing a bad job earlier doesn't mean we should want them to continue to do a bad job.

Letting a particular behavior go unpenalized for 59 minutes and then suddenly flagging that same behavior in the final minute of the game is how you'd like to see games officiated?

 

[dparker713]

It's a fine line to walk. I personally am not too likely to ##### about defenders taking huge head shots at guys -- either those on my team or on opposing teams. I just don't have a ton of respect for players taking the shot, then crying about the flag afterwards. It's pretty freaking clear that those types of hits are going to draw some laundry nowadays. Price is worth paying to set the tone early in the game, IMO. But don't take the shot then cry about the penalty / fine / suspension afterwards.

I dont recall Burfict, or anybody else, for that matter complaining much about that penalty. It was pretty clear cut.

Both penalties were absolutely clear cut. Yet people are crying.

Again, I don't think people are saying that they weren't penalties. People wanted Porter flagged as well.

There's no basis to flag Porter that I can discern.

Even if someone wants to argue that Porter violated the rule that states asst. coaches are not allowed on the field during injury timeouts, and ignore the fact that the rule is rarely enforced, and hadn't been enforced earlier in the same game during the Bernard injury, they would still have to provide evidence that the correct penalty for violating the rule is a 15-yard penalty. Nowhere have I seen anything pointing to this.

As for the trash talk, that surely had been going on all night. You can't let Porter and the Bengals call each other #####es all game long, and then suddenly throw a flag for it, on just one guy, in the last minute. It's absurd, frankly.

The difference is that Porter is not a player. I don't think it's ever acceptable for a coach to talk trash.

In that case, Porter should have been flagged many, many times before this Burfict/Brown play. The talk was all game long.

But since he wasn't, he shouldn't be flagged then, either.

Just because the refs were doing a bad job earlier doesn't mean we should want them to continue to do a bad job.

Letting a particular behavior go unpenalized for 59 minutes and then suddenly flagging that same behavior in the final minute of the game is how you'd like to see games officiated?

When the instigation finally provokes a response that the refs finally penalize, I've no problem with offsetting penalties.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

... you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse...

You can't be serious, can you?

Shazier's was a football play on a non-defenseless player. Burfict's was a blatant cheap shot with undeniable intent to injure.

 

[BigJohn]

... you look at both hits, Shazier's looks worse...

You can't be serious, can you?

Shazier's was a football play on a non-defenseless player. Burfict's was a blatant cheap shot with undeniable intent to injure.

IMO

 

[davearm]

There's no basis to flag Porter that I can discern.Even if someone wants to argue that Porter violated the rule that states asst. coaches are not allowed on the field during injury timeouts, and ignore the fact that the rule is rarely enforced, and hadn't been enforced earlier in the same game during the Bernard injury, they would still have to provide evidence that the correct penalty for violating the rule is a 15-yard penalty. Nowhere have I seen anything pointing to this.

As for the trash talk, that surely had been going on all night. You can't let Porter and the Bengals call each other #####es all game long, and then suddenly throw a flag for it, on just one guy, in the last minute. It's absurd, frankly.

The difference is that Porter is not a player. I don't think it's ever acceptable for a coach to talk trash.

In that case, Porter should have been flagged many, many times before this Burfict/Brown play. The talk was all game long.

But since he wasn't, he shouldn't be flagged then, either.

Just because the refs were doing a bad job earlier doesn't mean we should want them to continue to do a bad job.

Letting a particular behavior go unpenalized for 59 minutes and then suddenly flagging that same behavior in the final minute of the game is how you'd like to see games officiated?

When the instigation finally provokes a response that the refs finally penalize, I've no problem with offsetting penalties.

If I call you a ##### and you walk away, then I've done nothing wrong.

If I call you a ##### and you slug me, then I've committed a personal foul.

Do I have that right?

 

[dparker713]

There's no basis to flag Porter that I can discern.

Even if someone wants to argue that Porter violated the rule that states asst. coaches are not allowed on the field during injury timeouts, and ignore the fact that the rule is rarely enforced, and hadn't been enforced earlier in the same game during the Bernard injury, they would still have to provide evidence that the correct penalty for violating the rule is a 15-yard penalty. Nowhere have I seen anything pointing to this.

As for the trash talk, that surely had been going on all night. You can't let Porter and the Bengals call each other #####es all game long, and then suddenly throw a flag for it, on just one guy, in the last minute. It's absurd, frankly.

The difference is that Porter is not a player. I don't think it's ever acceptable for a coach to talk trash.

In that case, Porter should have been flagged many, many times before this Burfict/Brown play. The talk was all game long.

But since he wasn't, he shouldn't be flagged then, either.

Just because the refs were doing a bad job earlier doesn't mean we should want them to continue to do a bad job.

Letting a particular behavior go unpenalized for 59 minutes and then suddenly flagging that same behavior in the final minute of the game is how you'd like to see games officiated?

When the instigation finally provokes a response that the refs finally penalize, I've no problem with offsetting penalties.

If I call you a ##### and you walk away, then I've done nothing wrong.

If I call you a ##### and you slug me, then I've committed a personal foul.

Do I have that right?

If you're going to let instigation happen all game, it's just as much on you when someone finally reacts. They should have been flagging players earlier. When they finally decide things have gone too far then you need to acknowledge that you let the offending player be pushed to that point.

 

[Chef Boyardee]

I can't find anything, has Joey Porter received his fine yet?

 

[Blick]

I can't find anything, has Joey Porter received his fine yet?

 

[poopdawg]

It's a fine line to walk. I personally am not too likely to ##### about defenders taking huge head shots at guys -- either those on my team or on opposing teams. I just don't have a ton of respect for players taking the shot, then crying about the flag afterwards. It's pretty freaking clear that those types of hits are going to draw some laundry nowadays. Price is worth paying to set the tone early in the game, IMO. But don't take the shot then cry about the penalty / fine / suspension afterwards.

I dont recall Burfict, or anybody else, for that matter complaining much about that penalty. It was pretty clear cut.

Both penalties were absolutely clear cut. Yet people are crying.

Again, I don't think people are saying that they weren't penalties. People wanted Porter flagged as well.

There's no basis to flag Porter that I can discern.

Even if someone wants to argue that Porter violated the rule that states asst. coaches are not allowed on the field during injury timeouts, and ignore the fact that the rule is rarely enforced, and hadn't been enforced earlier in the same game during the Bernard injury, they would still have to provide evidence that the correct penalty for violating the rule is a 15-yard penalty. Nowhere have I seen anything pointing to this.

As for the trash talk, that surely had been going on all night. You can't let Porter and the Bengals call each other #####es all game long, and then suddenly throw a flag for it, on just one guy, in the last minute. It's absurd, frankly.

Pacman grabbed a ref from behind and pulled him. It's not because he was trash talking. Did you watch the video?

 

[Steeler]

If you're going to let instigation happen all game, it's just as much on you when someone finally reacts. They should have been flagging players earlier. When they finally decide things have gone too far then you need to acknowledge that you let the offending player be pushed to that point.

Again, this misses the main point. Pac Man did not get a flag for trash talking, he got the flag for bumping an official. As was said previously, trash talking was permitted during the game and while AB was injured, but bumping an official is never allowed.

 

[Fariq]

AS A DEVOUT STEELERS FAN, I CAN ASSURE YOU THE STEELERS DID NOTHING WRONG. ALL YOU GUYS HATING ON THEM ARE HATERS. JOEY PORTER WAS ALLOWED ON THE FIELD. OBVIOUSLY HE WOULD HAVE BEEN FLAGGED FOR BEING ON THE FIELD IF IT WAS AGAINST THE RULES AS THE OFFICIALS DON'T MAKE MISTAKES LIKE THAT.

STEELERS FOR LIFE.

 

[Fariq]

ALSO TO BENGALS FANS-

I FART IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION

 

[dparker713]

If you're going to let instigation happen all game, it's just as much on you when someone finally reacts. They should have been flagging players earlier. When they finally decide things have gone too far then you need to acknowledge that you let the offending player be pushed to that point.

Again, this misses the main point. Pac Man did not get a flag for trash talking, he got the flag for bumping an official. As was said previously, trash talking was permitted during the game and while AB was injured, but bumping an official is never allowed.

It really doesn't. I've not claimed bumping an official should be tolerated. Then again, instigating someone to get them to bump an official also should not be tolerated.

 

[3C's]

I can't find anything, has Joey Porter received his fine yet?

Have a feeling even if there is a fine we won't hear about it.