Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Ndaumkong Suh fined for hit on Brandon Weeden
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BlackandBlue


Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 2304
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep, do you think the fine was warranted or not?


That's a tough question to answer. And it's really not my intention to argue whether it is or not. I am tired of arguing over these fines after so many of them. But here's my 2 cents, absolutely free of charge.

I think it was a ricky tick fine. I think in a vacuum I would call that fine utter garbage. Yes, there was some contact with the crown of the helmet under the chin in my view. But certainly not enough to warrant a fine. It wasnt a jarring hit. It didnt phase Weeden. It's football, let it go. For the love of god, let them play.

But this isnt a vacuum, so I look at the same play and, because of Suh's personal history, I am forced to look at the play under the microscope. Just like the NFL is. Just like the NFL rightfully should. And when you do, you see that Suh is being Suh. Trying to get a lick in. That's what he does. Which isnt necessarily bad in and of itself. That's football. But the NFL has put him on notice. Getting a lick in will draw scrutiny and if its even questionable, theyre going to probably nail him. Becaquse they want him to be smarter and safer when getting those licks in.

So in the end, yeah, I think it was warranted. I see the logic behind it. And I probably agree with it more than disagree with it. Based more on Suh's history than the play itself. And, as I have said before, I like Suh. Well, most of the time. He's a throwback. A relic born too late. Butkus is celebrated to this day for the same kind of play style. Lots of players are. Suh plays football with a nasty streak. And, as an old school fan, that makes me a fan. But unfortunately, this isnt the 70's. New rules, new focus, new style.

Just like Rick James, Suh is a perpetual line stepper. And the NFL has to check him. Like it or not, that's the NFL now. You make contact with a chinstrap with the crown of your helmet, you better believe the NFL is going to take a look at it. And if you are Suh, you better expect a fine.


That is not what the fine was for.

Quote:
"No. 90 hits the quarterback, lowers his head, and it was not called. (That's a) potential helmet to the body," Blandino said at the NFL's officiating headquarters in this video.


http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2013/10/report_detroit_lions_ndamukong_4.html

It was for contact to Weeden's body with Suh's helmet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30084
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep, do you think the fine was warranted or not?


That's a tough question to answer. And it's really not my intention to argue whether it is or not. I am tired of arguing over these fines after so many of them. But here's my 2 cents, absolutely free of charge.

I think it was a ricky tick fine. I think in a vacuum I would call that fine utter garbage. Yes, there was some contact with the crown of the helmet under the chin in my view. But certainly not enough to warrant a fine. It wasnt a jarring hit. It didnt phase Weeden. It's football, let it go. For the love of god, let them play.

But this isnt a vacuum, so I look at the same play and, because of Suh's personal history, I am forced to look at the play under the microscope. Just like the NFL is. Just like the NFL rightfully should. And when you do, you see that Suh is being Suh. Trying to get a lick in. That's what he does. Which isnt necessarily bad in and of itself. That's football. But the NFL has put him on notice. Getting a lick in will draw scrutiny and if its even questionable, theyre going to probably nail him. Becaquse they want him to be smarter and safer when getting those licks in.

So in the end, yeah, I think it was warranted. I see the logic behind it. And I probably agree with it more than disagree with it. Based more on Suh's history than the play itself. And, as I have said before, I like Suh. Well, most of the time. He's a throwback. A relic born too late. Butkus is celebrated to this day for the same kind of play style. Lots of players are. Suh plays football with a nasty streak. And, as an old school fan, that makes me a fan. But unfortunately, this isnt the 70's. New rules, new focus, new style.

Just like Rick James, Suh is a perpetual line stepper. And the NFL has to check him. Like it or not, that's the NFL now. You make contact with a chinstrap with the crown of your helmet, you better believe the NFL is going to take a look at it. And if you are Suh, you better expect a fine.


That is not what the fine was for.

Quote:
"No. 90 hits the quarterback, lowers his head, and it was not called. (That's a) potential helmet to the body," Blandino said at the NFL's officiating headquarters in this video.


http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2013/10/report_detroit_lions_ndamukong_4.html

It was for contact to Weeden's body with Suh's helmet.


What he got fined for specifically is kinda irrelevant to the point. He got fined for crown of helmet to the body instead of crown of helmet to the head. But if you prefer:

That's a tough question to answer. And it's really not my intention to argue whether it is or not. I am tired of arguing over these fines after so many of them. But here's my 2 cents, absolutely free of charge.

I think it was a ricky tick fine. I think in a vacuum I would call that fine utter garbage. Yes, there was some contact with the crown of the helmet to the body in my view. But certainly not enough to warrant a fine. It wasnt a jarring hit. It didnt phase Weeden. It's football, let it go. For the love of god, let them play.

But this isnt a vacuum, so I look at the same play and, because of Suh's personal history, I am forced to look at the play under the microscope. Just like the NFL is. Just like the NFL rightfully should. And when you do, you see that Suh is being Suh. Trying to get a lick in. That's what he does. Which isnt necessarily bad in and of itself. That's football. But the NFL has put him on notice. Getting a lick in will draw scrutiny and if its even questionable, theyre going to probably nail him. Becaquse they want him to be smarter and safer when getting those licks in.

So in the end, yeah, I think it was warranted. I see the logic behind it. And I probably agree with it more than disagree with it. Based more on Suh's history than the play itself. And, as I have said before, I like Suh. Well, most of the time. He's a throwback. A relic born too late. Butkus is celebrated to this day for the same kind of play style. Lots of players are. Suh plays football with a nasty streak. And, as an old school fan, that makes me a fan. But unfortunately, this isnt the 70's. New rules, new focus, new style.

Just like Rick James, Suh is a perpetual line stepper. And the NFL has to check him. Like it or not, that's the NFL now. You make contact with a chest and chinstrap with the crown of your helmet, you better believe the NFL is going to take a look at it. And if you are Suh, you better expect a fine.
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30084
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So let me ask you a question BnB. Since I answered yours.

Do you think this is "only a penalty because it was Suh"? Do you think "the NFL doesnt even look at hits like this if its anyone else?"

In the video segment where Blandino makes that statement (prior to the actual review) they're surrounded by screens and are reviewing all kinds of plays from all kinds of players. Is it possible that the NFL staged that whole scene to make it seem that they look at all kinds of questionable plays, or is it more likely that the NFL actually does look at those same plays no matter who is making them?
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BlackandBlue


Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 2304
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep, do you think the fine was warranted or not?


That's a tough question to answer. And it's really not my intention to argue whether it is or not. I am tired of arguing over these fines after so many of them. But here's my 2 cents, absolutely free of charge.

I think it was a ricky tick fine. I think in a vacuum I would call that fine utter garbage. Yes, there was some contact with the crown of the helmet under the chin in my view. But certainly not enough to warrant a fine. It wasnt a jarring hit. It didnt phase Weeden. It's football, let it go. For the love of god, let them play.

But this isnt a vacuum, so I look at the same play and, because of Suh's personal history, I am forced to look at the play under the microscope. Just like the NFL is. Just like the NFL rightfully should. And when you do, you see that Suh is being Suh. Trying to get a lick in. That's what he does. Which isnt necessarily bad in and of itself. That's football. But the NFL has put him on notice. Getting a lick in will draw scrutiny and if its even questionable, theyre going to probably nail him. Becaquse they want him to be smarter and safer when getting those licks in.

So in the end, yeah, I think it was warranted. I see the logic behind it. And I probably agree with it more than disagree with it. Based more on Suh's history than the play itself. And, as I have said before, I like Suh. Well, most of the time. He's a throwback. A relic born too late. Butkus is celebrated to this day for the same kind of play style. Lots of players are. Suh plays football with a nasty streak. And, as an old school fan, that makes me a fan. But unfortunately, this isnt the 70's. New rules, new focus, new style.

Just like Rick James, Suh is a perpetual line stepper. And the NFL has to check him. Like it or not, that's the NFL now. You make contact with a chinstrap with the crown of your helmet, you better believe the NFL is going to take a look at it. And if you are Suh, you better expect a fine.


That is not what the fine was for.

Quote:
"No. 90 hits the quarterback, lowers his head, and it was not called. (That's a) potential helmet to the body," Blandino said at the NFL's officiating headquarters in this video.


http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2013/10/report_detroit_lions_ndamukong_4.html

It was for contact to Weeden's body with Suh's helmet.


What he got fined for specifically is kinda irrelevant to the point. He got fined for crown of helmet to the body instead of crown of helmet to the head. But if you prefer:

That's a tough question to answer. And it's really not my intention to argue whether it is or not. I am tired of arguing over these fines after so many of them. But here's my 2 cents, absolutely free of charge.

I think it was a ricky tick fine. I think in a vacuum I would call that fine utter garbage. Yes, there was some contact with the crown of the helmet to the body in my view. But certainly not enough to warrant a fine. It wasnt a jarring hit. It didnt phase Weeden. It's football, let it go. For the love of god, let them play.

But this isnt a vacuum, so I look at the same play and, because of Suh's personal history, I am forced to look at the play under the microscope. Just like the NFL is. Just like the NFL rightfully should. And when you do, you see that Suh is being Suh. Trying to get a lick in. That's what he does. Which isnt necessarily bad in and of itself. That's football. But the NFL has put him on notice. Getting a lick in will draw scrutiny and if its even questionable, theyre going to probably nail him. Becaquse they want him to be smarter and safer when getting those licks in.

So in the end, yeah, I think it was warranted. I see the logic behind it. And I probably agree with it more than disagree with it. Based more on Suh's history than the play itself. And, as I have said before, I like Suh. Well, most of the time. He's a throwback. A relic born too late. Butkus is celebrated to this day for the same kind of play style. Lots of players are. Suh plays football with a nasty streak. And, as an old school fan, that makes me a fan. But unfortunately, this isnt the 70's. New rules, new focus, new style.

Just like Rick James, Suh is a perpetual line stepper. And the NFL has to check him. Like it or not, that's the NFL now. You make contact with a chest and chinstrap with the crown of your helmet, you better believe the NFL is going to take a look at it. And if you are Suh, you better expect a fine.


Say what? No it isn't. Stafford was involved in a hit that involved helmet to body contact in the very same game and no fine was handed out. And that hit was actually flagged, meaning the same crew that looked at Suh's hit automatically looked at the other one.

To answer your question: if the NFL is to be taken at face value, then no, I don't think most other defenders receive a fine for that hit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30084
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep, do you think the fine was warranted or not?


That's a tough question to answer. And it's really not my intention to argue whether it is or not. I am tired of arguing over these fines after so many of them. But here's my 2 cents, absolutely free of charge.

I think it was a ricky tick fine. I think in a vacuum I would call that fine utter garbage. Yes, there was some contact with the crown of the helmet under the chin in my view. But certainly not enough to warrant a fine. It wasnt a jarring hit. It didnt phase Weeden. It's football, let it go. For the love of god, let them play.

But this isnt a vacuum, so I look at the same play and, because of Suh's personal history, I am forced to look at the play under the microscope. Just like the NFL is. Just like the NFL rightfully should. And when you do, you see that Suh is being Suh. Trying to get a lick in. That's what he does. Which isnt necessarily bad in and of itself. That's football. But the NFL has put him on notice. Getting a lick in will draw scrutiny and if its even questionable, theyre going to probably nail him. Becaquse they want him to be smarter and safer when getting those licks in.

So in the end, yeah, I think it was warranted. I see the logic behind it. And I probably agree with it more than disagree with it. Based more on Suh's history than the play itself. And, as I have said before, I like Suh. Well, most of the time. He's a throwback. A relic born too late. Butkus is celebrated to this day for the same kind of play style. Lots of players are. Suh plays football with a nasty streak. And, as an old school fan, that makes me a fan. But unfortunately, this isnt the 70's. New rules, new focus, new style.

Just like Rick James, Suh is a perpetual line stepper. And the NFL has to check him. Like it or not, that's the NFL now. You make contact with a chinstrap with the crown of your helmet, you better believe the NFL is going to take a look at it. And if you are Suh, you better expect a fine.


That is not what the fine was for.

Quote:
"No. 90 hits the quarterback, lowers his head, and it was not called. (That's a) potential helmet to the body," Blandino said at the NFL's officiating headquarters in this video.


http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2013/10/report_detroit_lions_ndamukong_4.html

It was for contact to Weeden's body with Suh's helmet.


What he got fined for specifically is kinda irrelevant to the point. He got fined for crown of helmet to the body instead of crown of helmet to the head. But if you prefer:

That's a tough question to answer. And it's really not my intention to argue whether it is or not. I am tired of arguing over these fines after so many of them. But here's my 2 cents, absolutely free of charge.

I think it was a ricky tick fine. I think in a vacuum I would call that fine utter garbage. Yes, there was some contact with the crown of the helmet to the body in my view. But certainly not enough to warrant a fine. It wasnt a jarring hit. It didnt phase Weeden. It's football, let it go. For the love of god, let them play.

But this isnt a vacuum, so I look at the same play and, because of Suh's personal history, I am forced to look at the play under the microscope. Just like the NFL is. Just like the NFL rightfully should. And when you do, you see that Suh is being Suh. Trying to get a lick in. That's what he does. Which isnt necessarily bad in and of itself. That's football. But the NFL has put him on notice. Getting a lick in will draw scrutiny and if its even questionable, theyre going to probably nail him. Becaquse they want him to be smarter and safer when getting those licks in.

So in the end, yeah, I think it was warranted. I see the logic behind it. And I probably agree with it more than disagree with it. Based more on Suh's history than the play itself. And, as I have said before, I like Suh. Well, most of the time. He's a throwback. A relic born too late. Butkus is celebrated to this day for the same kind of play style. Lots of players are. Suh plays football with a nasty streak. And, as an old school fan, that makes me a fan. But unfortunately, this isnt the 70's. New rules, new focus, new style.

Just like Rick James, Suh is a perpetual line stepper. And the NFL has to check him. Like it or not, that's the NFL now. You make contact with a chest and chinstrap with the crown of your helmet, you better believe the NFL is going to take a look at it. And if you are Suh, you better expect a fine.


Say what? No it isn't. Stafford was involved in a hit that involved helmet to body contact in the very same game and no fine was handed out. And that hit was actually flagged, meaning the same crew that looked at Suh's hit automatically looked at the other one.

To answer your question: if the NFL is to be taken at face value, then no, I don't think most other defenders receive a fine for that hit.


Yes, it is irrelevant to my point. Because my point is I disagree with the call in a vacuum but agree with it based on the perpetrator. How does changing the action from "crown of the helmet to the head" to "crown of the helmet to the body" change my point???

And you really didnt answer my question. A fellow Lions fan said "it's only a fine because Suh did it." And that the NFL "doesnt even look at hits like that if it's someone else." Do you agree with either of those statements?
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
buno67


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 31944
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

clean players will get ticky tack calls to go for them
dirty players will get ticky tack calls to go against them
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
BlackandBlue


Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 2304
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Pep 4 Step wrote:


Yes, it is irrelevant to my point. Because my point is I disagree with the call in a vacuum but agree with it based on the perpetrator. How does changing the action from "crown of the helmet to the head" to "crown of the helmet to the body" change my point???

And you really didnt answer my question. A fellow Lions fan said "it's only a fine because Suh did it." And that the NFL "doesnt even look at hits like that if it's someone else." Do you agree with either of those statements?


So in other words... if you were the NFL, you would only have given out the fine because Suh did it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30084
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:


Yes, it is irrelevant to my point. Because my point is I disagree with the call in a vacuum but agree with it based on the perpetrator. How does changing the action from "crown of the helmet to the head" to "crown of the helmet to the body" change my point???

And you really didnt answer my question. A fellow Lions fan said "it's only a fine because Suh did it." And that the NFL "doesnt even look at hits like that if it's someone else." Do you agree with either of those statements?


So in other words... if you were the NFL, you would only have given out the fine because Suh did it?


You still havent answered my questions. I was more than willing to sit down and honestly answer your question. And I am willing to sit down and honestly answer this one once you reciprocate.
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BlackandBlue


Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 2304
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:


Yes, it is irrelevant to my point. Because my point is I disagree with the call in a vacuum but agree with it based on the perpetrator. How does changing the action from "crown of the helmet to the head" to "crown of the helmet to the body" change my point???

And you really didnt answer my question. A fellow Lions fan said "it's only a fine because Suh did it." And that the NFL "doesnt even look at hits like that if it's someone else." Do you agree with either of those statements?


So in other words... if you were the NFL, you would only have given out the fine because Suh did it?


You still havent answered my questions. I was more than willing to sit down and honestly answer your question. Please reciprocate.


I believe the only reason that specific hit was a fine was because of the person doing it. "In a vacuum" (using your words, I don't think the NFL hands out a fine, but did so because of the "perpetrator".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30084
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:


Yes, it is irrelevant to my point. Because my point is I disagree with the call in a vacuum but agree with it based on the perpetrator. How does changing the action from "crown of the helmet to the head" to "crown of the helmet to the body" change my point???

And you really didnt answer my question. A fellow Lions fan said "it's only a fine because Suh did it." And that the NFL "doesnt even look at hits like that if it's someone else." Do you agree with either of those statements?


So in other words... if you were the NFL, you would only have given out the fine because Suh did it?


You still havent answered my questions. I was more than willing to sit down and honestly answer your question. Please reciprocate.


I believe the only reason that specific hit was a fine was because of the person doing it. "In a vacuum" (using your words, I don't think the NFL hands out a fine, but did so because of the "perpetrator".


You are answering a question I am not asking.

Do you think the NFL only looks at plays like that if it is Suh? That, in other words, the NFL doesnt even review plays of this nature if other players other than Suh are involved?

Do you think it was only a fine because it was Suh? That the play was perfectly legal. That no other player could or would get fined for the same hit.
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30084
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:


Yes, it is irrelevant to my point. Because my point is I disagree with the call in a vacuum but agree with it based on the perpetrator. How does changing the action from "crown of the helmet to the head" to "crown of the helmet to the body" change my point???

And you really didnt answer my question. A fellow Lions fan said "it's only a fine because Suh did it." And that the NFL "doesnt even look at hits like that if it's someone else." Do you agree with either of those statements?


So in other words... if you were the NFL, you would only have given out the fine because Suh did it?


As a fan, I wouldnt have given him a fine. As the NFL, I would have. But I wouldnt have given him a fine ONLY because Suh did it. I would have given him a fine because it is an illegal play AND Suh did it.

Again, I see an illegal hit. And I see a player with a long history of line stepping. As a fan, I am comfortable with this particular hit. As a governing body, I am not. But make no mistake, in the end he was fined because the hit was illegal. The NFL didnt make up a rule to enforce after the play because it was Suh. It was an illegal play before Suh did it and its still an illegal play.
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Keleth


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 2912
Location: Restaurant at the end of the universe
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:


Yes, it is irrelevant to my point. Because my point is I disagree with the call in a vacuum but agree with it based on the perpetrator. How does changing the action from "crown of the helmet to the head" to "crown of the helmet to the body" change my point???

And you really didnt answer my question. A fellow Lions fan said "it's only a fine because Suh did it." And that the NFL "doesnt even look at hits like that if it's someone else." Do you agree with either of those statements?


So in other words... if you were the NFL, you would only have given out the fine because Suh did it?


As a fan, I wouldnt have given him a fine. As the NFL, I would have. But I wouldnt have given him a fine ONLY because Suh did it. I would have given him a fine because it is an illegal play AND Suh did it.

Again, I see an illegal hit. And I see a player with a long history of line stepping. As a fan, I am comfortable with this particular hit. As a governing body, I am not. But make no mistake, in the end he was fined because the hit was illegal. The NFL didnt make up a rule to enforce after the play because it was Suh. It was an illegal play before Suh did it and its still an illegal play.


So every player who makes this exact same tackle should now be fined ?
You cannot seriously expect the NFL next time this exact same tackle happens to not fine someone if they're not Suh ?
All this business with fines has now got to such a joke stage that we even have players saying other players should get fined for such and such a tackle.
By your stance on this play I presume you're ok with the NFL judging fines for tackles etc on the reputation of players rather than the actual tackle ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30084
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keleth wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
BlackandBlue wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:


Yes, it is irrelevant to my point. Because my point is I disagree with the call in a vacuum but agree with it based on the perpetrator. How does changing the action from "crown of the helmet to the head" to "crown of the helmet to the body" change my point???

And you really didnt answer my question. A fellow Lions fan said "it's only a fine because Suh did it." And that the NFL "doesnt even look at hits like that if it's someone else." Do you agree with either of those statements?


So in other words... if you were the NFL, you would only have given out the fine because Suh did it?


As a fan, I wouldnt have given him a fine. As the NFL, I would have. But I wouldnt have given him a fine ONLY because Suh did it. I would have given him a fine because it is an illegal play AND Suh did it.

Again, I see an illegal hit. And I see a player with a long history of line stepping. As a fan, I am comfortable with this particular hit. As a governing body, I am not. But make no mistake, in the end he was fined because the hit was illegal. The NFL didnt make up a rule to enforce after the play because it was Suh. It was an illegal play before Suh did it and its still an illegal play.


So every player who makes this exact same tackle should now be fined ?


Have you read anything I have said? This is a matter of judgement. There are inherent gray areas in a rule like this as well as in its enforcement. Stop trying to paint the subject or my opinion as black and white.

The whole "its gotta be entirely one way or the other" approach around here gets so tiring.

Quote:
You cannot seriously expect the NFL next time this exact same tackle happens to not fine someone if they're not Suh?


What? Was that a question? I dont understand what youre saying/asking.

Quote:
All this business with fines has now got to such a joke stage that we even have players saying other players should get fined for such and such a tackle.


I agree. I have complained plenty about the fines and the penalties. Not sure what youre getting at.

Quote:
By your stance on this play I presume you're ok with the NFL judging fines for tackles etc on the reputation of players rather than the actual tackle ?


No. But I am okay with them deciding whether to fine someone or not (as well as the amount) based in part on the reputation of the players. I am a fan of allowing the league, parents, judges, etc to use their heads when considering culpability and punishment. Are you saying you arent?
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nagahide13


Joined: 25 Apr 2008
Posts: 11138
Location: Stumptown
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Suh has a history of doing ridiculously stupid things on the field that deserve punishment. He also has a history of being fined for making common/legal football plays.

If you're trying to teach him a lesson, stop fining him when he doesn't actually deserve it. Start/continue escalating the fines he deserves.

He plays professional football. Let him play professional football. Discipline him harder when he crosses the line, but stop moving the line and making the line easier to cross.
_________________
LION KING wrote:
I actually feel nothing anymore !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nagahide13


Joined: 25 Apr 2008
Posts: 11138
Location: Stumptown
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Pep 4 Step wrote:

No. But I am okay with them deciding whether to fine someone or not (as well as the amount) based in part on the reputation of the players. I am a fan of allowing the league, parents, judges, etc to use their heads when considering culpability and punishment. Are you saying you arent?


You shouldn't take reputation into account when deciding to punish someone. You SHOULD take it into account when deciding the severity of the punishment.
_________________
LION KING wrote:
I actually feel nothing anymore !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 12 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group