Will we see the first suspension? (1 Viewer)

[Bad_Mo]

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

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

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

That (the bolded) doesn't matter.I can't post a link because it was from an interview that an NFL VP gave on Mike and Mike the day after the NFL had issued their new "enforcing the letter of the rule" policy.

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

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

You are going in circles,,,the NFL has repeatedly said that they have NOT changed the rules and you are basing your whole arguement on what some guy supposedly said.The rules haven't changed and the rules, (as several have repeatedly pointed out to you), forget about what some guy said that you can't even post a link for (doesn't matter). The rules as written do include intent; the rules haven't changed only a change in point of emphasis.

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

Polamalu is just pissed that Brady is getting more coverage about his hair than he is. Brady jumped up and spiked the ball as if it were a Head and Shoulders bottle.By the way, who actually buys Head and Shoulders?

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I don't see a single thing wrong with that hit.

I'm all for the recent crack down on careless hits, but I don't think that one even warrants a $5 fine. Hines was dropping so low that you can't expect the defenders to go even lower. I'll be surprised if the NFL does anything on that one.

 

[two_dollars]

We are watching this play in slow motion, the game is played at fast speed. The defender was ready to make a clean tackle, and was already in the "process" (NFL loves that word) of the tackle when another players hit lowered Wards head just enough to make some helmet contact. If the other player does not pull Ward it is a chest to chest, or shoulder to shoulder contact.There is no way any NFL player can react fast enough to pull up on that..it is impossible.I have no dog in this fight. I say clean hit..no fine.

I agree with you, except the NFL has said they will look at slow motion, and according to the rule, it doesn't matter. If the defender made a form tackle at the waist we wouldn't be having this discussion.

According to what written rule does it (what) not matter? Please post.

Doesn't matter how it looks in full speed vs slow motion. If they need to slow it down for a better look, they will.

 

[switz]

You are going in circles,,,the NFL has repeatedly said that they have NOT changed the rules and you are basing your whole arguement on what some guy supposedly said.The rules haven't changed and the rules, (as several have repeatedly pointed out to you), forget about what some guy said that you can't even post a link for (doesn't matter). The rules as written do include intent; the rules haven't changed only a change in point of emphasis.BTW, The dirtiest play of the night is what Polamolu did to Brady after he scored the rushing touchdown and after he was down. I am sure he was frustrated with how the games was going, but unlike the play of Sanders on Ward, Polamolu's was clearly intentional.

How am I going in circles?I posted the rules, and the rules don't say ANYTHING about intent. Please show me where it mentions intent.

You are arguing semantics. The rules say "violently or unnecessarily", which implies intent. Neither hit was violent in the sense of "with intent to injure" and neither unnecessary.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

You are going in circles,,,the NFL has repeatedly said that they have NOT changed the rules and you are basing your whole arguement on what some guy supposedly said.

The rules haven't changed and the rules, (as several have repeatedly pointed out to you), forget about what some guy said that you can't even post a link for (doesn't matter). The rules as written do include intent; the rules haven't changed only a change in point of emphasis.

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

How am I going in circles?I posted the rules, and the rules don't say ANYTHING about intent. Please show me where it mentions intent.

???Yes you did - http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=12575292

When you posted the rules, it included the following:

(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;

Lets stop posting excerpts of an interview and stick to the rules; intent does still matter.

 

[az_prof]

I don't see how you can call the helmet contact "incidental" and it wasn't "his facemask" hitting Ward's helmet. Merriweather takes about a six yard running jump and the top of his helmet hits Ward's helmet, while ward is being held and pulled to the ground, defenseless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjm3sEVhsM4

Again, I have no problem with this being a legal hit--but the rules right now are so obtuse that it makes for inconstent enforcement that leads to confusion among players and possible favortism that can influence games. I don't think it was a coicidence that immediately after this play a NE defenders hits Wallace in the helmet--because basically NE flouted the rule on Ward's play and got away with it. These two plays established the physicality of the game and NE was allowed to play more physical.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

I don't see how you can call the helmet contact "incidental" and it wasn't "his facemask" hitting Ward's helmet. Merriweather takes about a six yard running jump and the top of his helmet hits Ward's helmet, while ward is being held and pulled to the ground, defenseless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjm3sEVhsM4

Again, I have no problem with this being a legal hit--but the rules right now are so obtuse that it makes for inconstent enforcement that leads to confusion among players and possible favortism that can influence games. I don't think it was a coicidence that immediately after this play a NE defenders hits Wallace in the helmet--because basically NE flouted the rule on Ward's play and got away with it. These two plays established the physicality of the game and NE was allowed to play more physical.

I know you are a hater so this is a frutiless endeavor, but if you watch the utube video and are honest about it you will see that far from taking a 6 yard running Jump, Sanders virtually stops flat footed at the 40yd line when ward is at the 39. It is primarily Wards momentum, not Sanders that is the impetus for the contact. That is why there was no penalty and shouldn't be a fine. There is no 6 yard running jump and in fact Sanders is almost standing flat foot still.

 

[Bayhawks]

You are going in circles,,,the NFL has repeatedly said that they have NOT changed the rules and you are basing your whole arguement on what some guy supposedly said.The rules haven't changed and the rules, (as several have repeatedly pointed out to you), forget about what some guy said that you can't even post a link for (doesn't matter). The rules as written do include intent; the rules haven't changed only a change in point of emphasis.BTW, The dirtiest play of the night is what Polamolu did to Brady after he scored the rushing touchdown and after he was down. I am sure he was frustrated with how the games was going, but unlike the play of Sanders on Ward, Polamolu's was clearly intentional.

How am I going in circles?I posted the rules, and the rules don't say ANYTHING about intent. Please show me where it mentions intent.

You are arguing semantics. The rules say "violently or unnecessarily", which implies intent. Neither hit was violent in the sense of "with intent to injure" and neither unnecessary.

"Violentey and unnecassarily" has nothing to do with intent. Football is a violent game, anytime a 200 lb man smashes into another 200 lb man at full speed, it is violent. Please post where in the rules it says a player's intention factors into it.

 

[az_prof]

You are going in circles,,,the NFL has repeatedly said that they have NOT changed the rules and you are basing your whole arguement on what some guy supposedly said.The rules haven't changed and the rules, (as several have repeatedly pointed out to you), forget about what some guy said that you can't even post a link for (doesn't matter). The rules as written do include intent; the rules haven't changed only a change in point of emphasis.BTW, The dirtiest play of the night is what Polamolu did to Brady after he scored the rushing touchdown and after he was down. I am sure he was frustrated with how the games was going, but unlike the play of Sanders on Ward, Polamolu's was clearly intentional.

How am I going in circles?I posted the rules, and the rules don't say ANYTHING about intent. Please show me where it mentions intent.

You are arguing semantics. The rules say "violently or unnecessarily", which implies intent. Neither hit was violent in the sense of "with intent to injure" and neither unnecessary.

"Violentey and unnecassarily" has nothing to do with intent. Football is a violent game, anytime a 200 lb man smashes into another 200 lb man at full speed, it is violent. Please post where in the rules it says a player's intention factors into it.

Pretty sure intent does not matter. Not to mention that it is almost impossible to ascertain intent.

 

[switz]

"Violentey and unnecassarily" has nothing to do with intent. Football is a violent game, anytime a 200 lb man smashes into another 200 lb man at full speed, it is violent. Please post where in the rules it says a player's intention factors into it.

The rules use the terms "violently or unnecessarily." The NFL would have to flag every hit if they viewed things the way that you do, that every collision is violent.The reason violent is paired with unnecessary is that the pairing implies intent. If you hit a player unnecessarily, your intent is not merely to stop a player from making a play, it's too injure that player so they cannot compete the rest of that game. Violent used in that context also implies intent.The wording of that all but explicitly states intent.Edited for typos

 

[parrot]

I don't see how you can call the helmet contact "incidental" and it wasn't "his facemask" hitting Ward's helmet. Merriweather takes about a six yard running jump and the top of his helmet hits Ward's helmet, while ward is being held and pulled to the ground, defenseless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjm3sEVhsM4

The guy doing the hitting is James Sanders, not Merriweather. I just thought you might want to edit that so as to have one thing right in that passage. No need to thank me.

 

[Bayhawks]

???

Yes you did - http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=12575292

When you posted the rules, it included the following:

(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;

Lets stop posting excerpts of an interview and stick to the rules; intent does still matter.

OK, I'm not sure how my posts in that other thread show me "going in circles?"And I'm still not seeing the word "intent" in the section of the rules that I posted. Please, show me where these NFL rules specify that the defensive player's intention is relevant.

 

[PahtyTom]

no chance

 

[Bayhawks]

"Violentey and unnecassarily" has nothing to do with intent. Football is a violent game, anytime a 200 lb man smashes into another 200 lb man at full speed, it is violent.

Please post where in the rules it says a player's intention factors into it.

The rules use the terms "violently or unnecessarily." The NFL would have to flag every hit if they viewed things the way that you do, that every collision is violent.

No they wouldn't. If they were enforcing the "letter of the law," as they claimed they were going to begin doing a few weeks ago, they would have to flag every hit that involved helmet-to-helmet hits on defenseless players. That is what this discussion is about. If you are going to try to dissect the rules, you have to keep in mind the context of this specific rule. This rule is dealing with helmet-to-helmet hits, and the sections I'm discussing deal specificially with defenseless players (the NFL's interpretations of those terms, at least). Peyton Hillis running up the middle and getting drilled by Ray Lewis, in a hit that involved helmet-to-helmet contact, wouldn't need to be flagged, as Hills wouldn't be defenseless. If Hillis was being held up by two other Ravens, and Lewis launched himself, leading with his helmet, and then hit Hillis, helmet-to-helmet, that would warrant a flag.

The reason violent is paired with unnecessary is that the pairing implies intent. If you hit a player unnecessarily, your intent is not merely to stop a player from making a play, it's too injure that player so they cannot compete the rest of that game. Violent used in that context also implies intent.

The wording of that all but explicitly states intent.

This is not true, at all. Unnecessary doesn't have anything to do with intent. If a player is flagged for a late hit, because he didn't hear the whistle, or realize the runner was out of bounds, that's an unnecessary hit, but it doesn't mean he INTENDED to hurt anyone. You are choosing to infer a meaning that isn't there.

It doesn't matter anyway. Read the NFL rules. At the beginning of Rule 12, section 2, article 8, it says this:

(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:

Note the bolded. It says violently OR unnecessarily. Based on that, your inference that using the words together explicitly states intent doesn't hold water, since the rules specifically say either factor is impermissible. It goes on to say it is impermissible against any opponent.

Those are the letters of the rule, my OP was meant to ask if the NFL would follow through on it's statement.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Honestly, even though it shouldn't result in a suspension, it wouldn't surprise me if it did. The NFL is going overboard with this stuff, and considering the love affair between the Rooneys and the NFL, it wouldn't surprise if Rooney is already in Goodell's ear, chirping about, "hey, if you are going to fine one of best players all of the time for what we considered borderline hits, then you have to fine that Patriot for knocking our player out."

 

[doowain]

Will we see the first suspension under the NFL's "tougher" interpretation of the rules regarding helmet-to-helmet hits?Ward was injured on a helmet-to-helmet hit by Patrick Chung (I think). As a result of that hit, Ward was unable to play in the remainder of the game. That hit played a big part in the outcome of the game. NE might still have won, regardless, but without Ward, the Patriots had an easier go of it.Since the league said they were going to "crack down" on these type of hits with suspensions, is Chung the first one to go?

How do you punish karma?

 

[switz]

"Violentey and unnecassarily" has nothing to do with intent. Football is a violent game, anytime a 200 lb man smashes into another 200 lb man at full speed, it is violent.

Please post where in the rules it says a player's intention factors into it.

The rules use the terms "violently or unnecessarily." The NFL would have to flag every hit if they viewed things the way that you do, that every collision is violent.

No they wouldn't. If they were enforcing the "letter of the law," as they claimed they were going to begin doing a few weeks ago, they would have to flag every hit that involved helmet-to-helmet hits on defenseless players. That is what this discussion is about. If you are going to try to dissect the rules, you have to keep in mind the context of this specific rule. This rule is dealing with helmet-to-helmet hits, and the sections I'm discussing deal specificially with defenseless players (the NFL's interpretations of those terms, at least). Peyton Hillis running up the middle and getting drilled by Ray Lewis, in a hit that involved helmet-to-helmet contact, wouldn't need to be flagged, as Hills wouldn't be defenseless. If Hillis was being held up by two other Ravens, and Lewis launched himself, leading with his helmet, and then hit Hillis, helmet-to-helmet, that would warrant a flag.

The reason violent is paired with unnecessary is that the pairing implies intent. If you hit a player unnecessarily, your intent is not merely to stop a player from making a play, it's too injure that player so they cannot compete the rest of that game. Violent used in that context also implies intent.

The wording of that all but explicitly states intent.

This is not true, at all. Unnecessary doesn't have anything to do with intent. If a player is flagged for a late hit, because he didn't hear the whistle, or realize the runner was out of bounds, that's an unnecessary hit, but it doesn't mean he INTENDED to hurt anyone. You are choosing to infer a meaning that isn't there.

It doesn't matter anyway. Read the NFL rules. At the beginning of Rule 12, section 2, article 8, it says this:

(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:

Note the bolded. It says violently OR unnecessarily. Based on that, your inference that using the words together explicitly states intent doesn't hold water, since the rules specifically say either factor is impermissible. It goes on to say it is impermissible against any opponent.

Those are the letters of the rule, my OP was meant to ask if the NFL would follow through on it's statement.

Actually I clearly said they didn't explicitly state intent. However, my argument still holds despite your continuous argument of semantics. The fact they use "or" shows they view the two on equal grounds, which, as I argued earlier speaks to intent. You haven't actually addressed my point.

 

[kencav]

Not to hijack the thread but Ward has had it coming for a long time....

Link- http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/21520127/detail.html

Ward has always been at the top of the leagues dirtiest player list when it comes to blindsiding helpless offensive players-maybe he will learn his lesson

Now back to the main topic.

 

[Workhorse]

Who knows? After Pryor got fined for making a textbook legal hit on Farve, all bets are off.

 

[Bayhawks]

Actually I clearly said they didn't explicitly state intent. However, my argument still holds despite your continuous argument of semantics. The fact they use "or" shows they view the two on equal grounds, which, as I argued earlier speaks to intent.

You haven't actually addressed my point.

You said "all but explicitly." I apologize. You are, however, still wrong. You state that the 2 word are "paired together" and that this "all but explicitly states intent." It, in fact, does no such thing. Violence or necessity have nothing to do with intent. A player can intend to hurt another player completely within the rules, and a player can break a rule with no intent to do so. BTW, You are the one arguing semantics.

semantics-the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc

The rules are what they are; they are in this thread for all to see. You are trying to say that the use of the words violent or unnecessary means intent. That is semantics.

Show me where the rules specifically mention intent. That isn't semantics, because the word intent meant intent. There's no interpretation involved. You can't show me this, because the rules don't mention intent, because it's not relevant. Why do you think defenders get called for roughing the passer when their hand brushes the QB's helmet when they are trying to bat down a pass? Obviously, there's no intent to injure there, but it is penalized.

 

[Da Guru]

Not to hijack the thread but Ward has had it coming for a long time....

Link- http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/21520127/detail.html

Ward has always been at the top of the leagues dirtiest player list when it comes to blindsiding helpless offensive players-maybe he will learn his lesson

Now back to the main topic.

Ward would have been suspended for that hit in 2010.

 

[Bayhawks]

Actually I clearly said they didn't explicitly state intent. However, my argument still holds despite your continuous argument of semantics. The fact they use "or" shows they view the two on equal grounds, which, as I argued earlier speaks to intent.

Oh, really? NFL VP Ray Anderson on "intent"5 paragraphs down:

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.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

???

Yes you did - http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=12575292

When you posted the rules, it included the following:

(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;

Lets stop posting excerpts of an interview and stick to the rules; intent does still matter.

OK, I'm not sure how my posts in that other thread show me "going in circles?"And I'm still not seeing the word "intent" in the section of the rules that I posted. Please, show me where these NFL rules specify that the defensive player's intention is relevant.

It is circles because you keep claiming that according to the rules, intent doesn't matter when it logically and obviously does. You want to ignore logic and words like "Forcibly", "Violently" and "Unnecesarily" which clearly indicate/imply that intent does matter. The defender in question basically stopped and was standing flat footed when the contact was made and the "Forcibly", "Violently" and "Unnecesarily" aspect of the penalty just isn't there. Maybe with the new "Point of Emphasis" on helmet to helmet they will fine him, but IMHO it would be insane if they do.

 

[Bayhawks]

???

Yes you did - http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=12575292

When you posted the rules, it included the following:

(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;

Lets stop posting excerpts of an interview and stick to the rules; intent does still matter.

OK, I'm not sure how my posts in that other thread show me "going in circles?"And I'm still not seeing the word "intent" in the section of the rules that I posted. Please, show me where these NFL rules specify that the defensive player's intention is relevant.

It is circles because you keep claiming that according to the rules, intent doesn't matter when it logically and obviously does. You want to ignore logic and words like "Forcibly", "Violently" and "Unnecesarily" which clearly indicate/imply that intent does matter. The defender in question basically stopped and was standing flat footed when the contact was made and the "Forcibly", "Violently" and "Unnecesarily" aspect of the penalty just isn't there. Maybe with the new "Point of Emphasis" on helmet to helmet they will fine him, but IMHO it would be insane if they do.

See the post right above yours. I included a link to the interview with Ray Anderson, NFL VP.He says intent doesn't matter. If an NFL VP says officials don't need to determine intent, doesn't that say intent doesn't matter? How can you argue that intent does matter to the NFL, when an NFL VP says intent doesn't matter?

Wait, you're not Roger Goodell, are you? Because if you're not, I think your opinion that intent does matter carries a whole lot less weight than Ray Anderson's statement that intent doesn't matter.

 

[switz]

???

Yes you did - http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=12575292

When you posted the rules, it included the following:

(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;

Lets stop posting excerpts of an interview and stick to the rules; intent does still matter.

OK, I'm not sure how my posts in that other thread show me "going in circles?"And I'm still not seeing the word "intent" in the section of the rules that I posted. Please, show me where these NFL rules specify that the defensive player's intention is relevant.

It is circles because you keep claiming that according to the rules, intent doesn't matter when it logically and obviously does. You want to ignore logic and words like "Forcibly", "Violently" and "Unnecesarily" which clearly indicate/imply that intent does matter. The defender in question basically stopped and was standing flat footed when the contact was made and the "Forcibly", "Violently" and "Unnecesarily" aspect of the penalty just isn't there. Maybe with the new "Point of Emphasis" on helmet to helmet they will fine him, but IMHO it would be insane if they do.

I'm done arguing with him. His whole argument is based on a line he claims someone said which isn't even a quote. And he ignores all the factual evidence of other hits that have happened in the NFL. There's no reasoning with him.

 

[Godsbrother]

Not to hijack the thread but Ward has had it coming for a long time....

Link- http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/21520127/detail.html

Ward has always been at the top of the leagues dirtiest player list when it comes to blindsiding helpless offensive players-maybe he will learn his lesson

Now back to the main topic.

Ward would have been suspended for that hit in 2010.

What is the point in trying to apply the current rules to hits that occurred in previous years? The way the NFL is right now most of the great defensive players in the history of the game would be fined or suspended out of the league.

 

[moondog]

The hit will get a fine at the minimum.

 

[kencav]

Not to hijack the thread but Ward has had it coming for a long time....

Link- http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/21520127/detail.html

Ward has always been at the top of the leagues dirtiest player list when it comes to blindsiding helpless offensive players-maybe he will learn his lesson

Now back to the main topic.

Ward would have been suspended for that hit in 2010.

What is the point in trying to apply the current rules to hits that occurred in previous years? The way the NFL is right now most of the great defensive players in the history of the game would be fined or suspended out of the league.

I believe you misunderstood the meaning of the post Trying to point out karma here, not compare the legality of the hits.

 

[The_Man]

Not to hijack the thread but Ward has had it coming for a long time....

Link- http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/21520127/detail.html

Ward has always been at the top of the leagues dirtiest player list when it comes to blindsiding helpless offensive players-maybe he will learn his lesson

Now back to the main topic.

Ward would have been suspended for that hit in 2010.

What is the point in trying to apply the current rules to hits that occurred in previous years? The way the NFL is right now most of the great defensive players in the history of the game would be fined or suspended out of the league.

Ray Lewis continues to be regarded as a great defensive player, who deals out punishing hits without having a reputation or history of helmet-to-helmet contact. His hit on Dustin Keller in the MNF opener is a textbook example of a form tackle where he struck the receiver in the chest with his shoulder.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1gkvmaNm6g

 

[Godsbrother]

Not to hijack the thread but Ward has had it coming for a long time....

Link- http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/21520127/detail.html

Ward has always been at the top of the leagues dirtiest player list when it comes to blindsiding helpless offensive players-maybe he will learn his lesson

Now back to the main topic.

Ward would have been suspended for that hit in 2010.

What is the point in trying to apply the current rules to hits that occurred in previous years? The way the NFL is right now most of the great defensive players in the history of the game would be fined or suspended out of the league.

I believe you misunderstood the meaning of the post Trying to point out karma here, not compare the legality of the hits.

Doesn't karma mean a person's actions determining his destiny in his next incarnation? If that is the case then does karma mean that because Ward gave out hits in the past that would have been fined today that he has now received a hit that should have been fined?

 

[Carver]

Clean hit by the NE DB.

Harrison diving at Tom Brady's knees was much worse IMO. WTH is wrong with that guy? Every week he finds a way to do something questionable and it appears to be intentional.

 

[Godsbrother]

Not to hijack the thread but Ward has had it coming for a long time....

Link- http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/21520127/detail.html

Ward has always been at the top of the leagues dirtiest player list when it comes to blindsiding helpless offensive players-maybe he will learn his lesson

Now back to the main topic.

Ward would have been suspended for that hit in 2010.

What is the point in trying to apply the current rules to hits that occurred in previous years? The way the NFL is right now most of the great defensive players in the history of the game would be fined or suspended out of the league.

Ray Lewis continues to be regarded as a great defensive player, who deals out punishing hits without having a reputation or history of helmet-to-helmet contact. His hit on Dustin Keller in the MNF opener is a textbook example of a form tackle where he struck the receiver in the chest with his shoulder.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1gkvmaNm6g

You are aware that Ray Lewis has been fined multiple times by the league for illegal hits right?

 

[The_Man]

Not to hijack the thread but Ward has had it coming for a long time....

Link- http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/21520127/detail.html

Ward has always been at the top of the leagues dirtiest player list when it comes to blindsiding helpless offensive players-maybe he will learn his lesson

Now back to the main topic.

Ward would have been suspended for that hit in 2010.

What is the point in trying to apply the current rules to hits that occurred in previous years? The way the NFL is right now most of the great defensive players in the history of the game would be fined or suspended out of the league.

Ray Lewis continues to be regarded as a great defensive player, who deals out punishing hits without having a reputation or history of helmet-to-helmet contact. His hit on Dustin Keller in the MNF opener is a textbook example of a form tackle where he struck the receiver in the chest with his shoulder.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1gkvmaNm6g

You are aware that Ray Lewis has been fined multiple times by the league for illegal hits right?

I know he was fined for a hit last year on Ochocinco that was deserved, and that it was a very uncharacteristic hit for him. So one or two fines in a 15-year career (including none this year) is a far cry from being fined or suspended out of the league.

 

[kencav]

Not to hijack the thread but Ward has had it coming for a long time....

Link- http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/21520127/detail.html

Ward has always been at the top of the leagues dirtiest player list when it comes to blindsiding helpless offensive players-maybe he will learn his lesson

Now back to the main topic.

Ward would have been suspended for that hit in 2010.

What is the point in trying to apply the current rules to hits that occurred in previous years? The way the NFL is right now most of the great defensive players in the history of the game would be fined or suspended out of the league.

I believe you misunderstood the meaning of the post Trying to point out karma here, not compare the legality of the hits.

Doesn't karma mean a person's actions determining his destiny in his next incarnation? If that is the case then does karma mean that because Ward gave out hits in the past that would have been fined today that he has now received a hit that should have been fined?

Ah, no- it means that Ward got what was coming to him getting knocked out of the gameI think you are overcomplicating a simple observation.

 

[Godsbrother]

Ah, no- it means that Ward got what was coming to him getting knocked out of the gameI think you are overcomplicating a simple observation.

I got that. I was just trying to see the relevancy of the statement that Ward's hit a few years ago would have been fined today.

 

[NJJets]

The hit will get a fine at the minimum.

No fine for the hit as it was the First tackler Driving him into the second Tackler that caused the H2H hit the same way that it was for the Austin Collie hit in the Eagles/Colts game last week.

 

[Bayhawks]

???

Yes you did - http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&p=12575292

When you posted the rules, it included the following:

(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;

Lets stop posting excerpts of an interview and stick to the rules; intent does still matter.

OK, I'm not sure how my posts in that other thread show me "going in circles?"And I'm still not seeing the word "intent" in the section of the rules that I posted. Please, show me where these NFL rules specify that the defensive player's intention is relevant.

It is circles because you keep claiming that according to the rules, intent doesn't matter when it logically and obviously does. You want to ignore logic and words like "Forcibly", "Violently" and "Unnecesarily" which clearly indicate/imply that intent does matter. The defender in question basically stopped and was standing flat footed when the contact was made and the "Forcibly", "Violently" and "Unnecesarily" aspect of the penalty just isn't there. Maybe with the new "Point of Emphasis" on helmet to helmet they will fine him, but IMHO it would be insane if they do.

I'm done arguing with him. His whole argument is based on a line he claims someone said which isn't even a quote. And he ignores all the factual evidence of other hits that have happened in the NFL. There's no reasoning with him.

Wait, let me get this straight. Your whole line of reasoning is some weak attempt to infer that the terms "violence" and "unnecessary," when used together, somehow means intent, but there's no reasoning with me? And you want to talk about factual evidence? What factual evidence have you even mentioned? You can't discuss hits that happened before this "letter of the rule" policy was concocted.

But, don't argue then. Address the interview Ray Anderson did with Mike & Mike that I linked. Explain how him saying that the league won't have to determine intent can IN ANY WAY be construed to mean that intent is at all a part of the officials decision-making.

You won't, because you can't.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I don't think the hit should be fined or rise to the level of a suspension...but Harrison's hit on Massaquoi shouldn't have either. The crackdown by the NFL has been ridiculous overreaction.

That said, switz is getting his ### handed to him. Bayhawks making actual, logical arguments (I think his conclusion is likely to be wrong because of disparate enforcement, not for failure of the argument).

 

[David Yudkin]

I heard on the radio this morning that James Sanders (who hit Ward) was named AFC Defensive Player of the Week. No mention at all about a fine or suspension.

 

[parrot]

I heard on the radio this morning that James Sanders (who hit Ward) was named AFC Defensive Player of the Week. No mention at all about a fine or suspension.

Interesting, I thought Chung actually had a better game, including breaking up the pass that ended up in Sanders' hands for the pick-six.