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 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SnA ExclusiVe


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 27630
Location: Spokane, WA
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fortdetroit wrote:
I'm not sure why you guys keep arguing about if his helmet hit Weeden's helmet or not...that's not what the fine was for. The fine was for helmet to the "body."

Quote:
"Well, we're going to aggressive enforce the player safety fouls and when I looked at the play, I felt he did make contact with the forehead and hairline, lowered the head and made contact with the forehead and hairline.," Blandino said. "Not to the head or neck, but the rule does prohibit that contact to the body."


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


BREAKING NEWS: Defenders no longer allowed to tackle because if helmet contacts the ball-carriers body, it is now a 15-yard penalty, automatic ejection and suspension for an entire season.

#PlayerSafety
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31980
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^adds nothing to discussion as rule quoted applies to defenseless players. its a good rule if applied correctly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fortdetroit


Joined: 27 Dec 2011
Posts: 1707
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
^adds nothing to discussion as rule quoted applies to defenseless players. its a good rule if applied correctly.


I'm not sure what you mean. The helmet to the body rule is what Suh got fined for.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31980
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fortdetroit wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
^adds nothing to discussion as rule quoted applies to defenseless players. its a good rule if applied correctly.


I'm not sure what you mean. The helmet to the body rule is what Suh got fined for.


on a defenseless player...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fortdetroit


Joined: 27 Dec 2011
Posts: 1707
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
fortdetroit wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
^adds nothing to discussion as rule quoted applies to defenseless players. its a good rule if applied correctly.


I'm not sure what you mean. The helmet to the body rule is what Suh got fined for.


on a defenseless player...


That's the VP of officiating who said that. Are you insinuating he doesn't understand his own rules?

I tried looking in the official NFL rulebook but couldnt find it. Do you happen to have a link or something where it says it only applies to defenseless players?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31980
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fortdetroit wrote:


That's the VP of officiating who said that. Are you insinuating he doesn't understand his own rules?

I tried looking in the official NFL rulebook but couldnt find it. Do you happen to have a link or something where it says it only applies to defenseless players?


Here

3rd result


From article 9:
Quote:
Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or
shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless
player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of
the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fortdetroit


Joined: 27 Dec 2011
Posts: 1707
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
fortdetroit wrote:


That's the VP of officiating who said that. Are you insinuating he doesn't understand his own rules?

I tried looking in the official NFL rulebook but couldnt find it. Do you happen to have a link or something where it says it only applies to defenseless players?


Here

3rd result


From article 9:
Quote:
Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or
shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless
player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of
the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.


Be definition...Weeden was defenseless.

Quote:
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:
(1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass;

(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;



http://nflcommunications.com/2011/12/27/definition-of-a-defenseless-player/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31980
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you are so confused...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fortdetroit


Joined: 27 Dec 2011
Posts: 1707
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
you are so confused...


you're right. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Quote:
^adds nothing to discussion as rule quoted applies to defenseless players. its a good rule if applied correctly.


your first post seemed to be insinuating it's a good rule if applied correctly but that weeden wasn't defenseless so it was incorrectly applied. obviously I have misinterpreted what you are trying to say.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31980
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fortdetroit wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
you are so confused...


you're right. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Quote:
^adds nothing to discussion as rule quoted applies to defenseless players. its a good rule if applied correctly.


your first post seemed to be insinuating it's a good rule if applied correctly but that weeden wasn't defenseless so it was incorrectly applied. obviously I have misinterpreted what you are trying to say.


sorry - i was saying that other poster added nothing to the discussion with his wild generalization of a rule that is specific to only defenseless players.

I was saying that the rule is a good one when applied correctly (which I don't think it was in this case, or was very weak at best). I then was pointing out that Weeden was a defenseless player.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eagles101


Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 9157
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

snkhd09 wrote:

It was a ridiculous analogy, where he used the most absurd, extreme and unrealistic scenario to make his position in this argument look a lot better.

43mafia analogy is more apt if you want me to break it down.

Guy with history of speeding go 2 mph over speed limit and receive ticket by a cop. 43mafia does not agree that going 2mp over the speed limit deserve a ticket, but he doesn't feel bad due to the guy's history.

Suh, who has a history, hit weeden chest by leading with the crown of his helmet and is fine by the NFL. 43mafia does not think this action deserve a fine, but he doesn't feel bad due to Suh's history.

In both situation, the authoritative figure (cop & NFL) interprets that a law/rule was broken, however ticky tack it is. Your hang up is that 37>35 and is a definitive fact that a law was broken, while NFL rule is not as quantitative and up to interpretation of refs/whoever decide fines. You are injecting ur interpretation of the law (speeding is breaking law, suh's tackle isn't) into the analogy and makes it nonsensical in your perspective. but the interpretation of the law is not up to you, me or 43mafia, but according to the authoritative figure.

can't believe i typed all this out.

reserve the speeding tickets for walking to the store analogy when a defensive player is fined for touching someone down by gently placing his hand on him.


...

the analogy started by if mafia was the authority figure. then going on if he was the authority figure it would be how he looked at it. even though he doesnt think the person broke a law, in the analogy speeding, the guy still reaped what he sowed for speeding previously. it doesnt fit perfectly, as no analogy does, but it does fit what hes saying, as even though you dont break a rule, you reap what you sow. simplest way, even without breaking a law you can get punished and you deserve it.

the other analogy doesnt work since the driver is speeding. he is breaking a law that suh didnt. even if the nfl thought he did or not, since in the analogy its a world where mafia made the rules, in this case more so enforced. a closer analogy might be a person going the speed limit. then getting the ticket and saying thats what you get for speeding before. but of course that has less of a humor factor the poster was going for.
_________________
vikingsvikings wrote:

I don't understand most of that, but I can tell it's probably inaccurate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snkhd09


Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 791
Location: Tampa Bay
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eagles101 wrote:
snkhd09 wrote:

It was a ridiculous analogy, where he used the most absurd, extreme and unrealistic scenario to make his position in this argument look a lot better.

43mafia analogy is more apt if you want me to break it down.

Guy with history of speeding go 2 mph over speed limit and receive ticket by a cop. 43mafia does not agree that going 2mp over the speed limit deserve a ticket, but he doesn't feel bad due to the guy's history.

Suh, who has a history, hit weeden chest by leading with the crown of his helmet and is fine by the NFL. 43mafia does not think this action deserve a fine, but he doesn't feel bad due to Suh's history.

In both situation, the authoritative figure (cop & NFL) interprets that a law/rule was broken, however ticky tack it is. Your hang up is that 37>35 and is a definitive fact that a law was broken, while NFL rule is not as quantitative and up to interpretation of refs/whoever decide fines. You are injecting ur interpretation of the law (speeding is breaking law, suh's tackle isn't) into the analogy and makes it nonsensical in your perspective. but the interpretation of the law is not up to you, me or 43mafia, but according to the authoritative figure.

can't believe i typed all this out.

reserve the speeding tickets for walking to the store analogy when a defensive player is fined for touching someone down by gently placing his hand on him.


...

the analogy started by if mafia was the authority figure. then going on if he was the authority figure it would be how he looked at it. even though he doesnt think the person broke a law, in the analogy speeding, the guy still reaped what he sowed for speeding previously. it doesnt fit perfectly, as no analogy does, but it does fit what hes saying, as even though you dont break a rule, you reap what you sow. simplest way, even without breaking a law you can get punished and you deserve it.

the other analogy doesnt work since the driver is speeding. he is breaking a law that suh didnt. even if the nfl thought he did or not, since in the analogy its a world where mafia made the rules, in this case more so enforced. a closer analogy might be a person going the speed limit. then getting the ticket and saying thats what you get for speeding before. but of course that has less of a humor factor the poster was going for.

Well, if 43mafia was the authority figure in the original analogy, he would not be giving out a ticket as he has already stated he doesn't agree with the fine. Making everything after that null and void.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eagles101


Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 9157
PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

snkhd09 wrote:
eagles101 wrote:
snkhd09 wrote:

It was a ridiculous analogy, where he used the most absurd, extreme and unrealistic scenario to make his position in this argument look a lot better.

43mafia analogy is more apt if you want me to break it down.

Guy with history of speeding go 2 mph over speed limit and receive ticket by a cop. 43mafia does not agree that going 2mp over the speed limit deserve a ticket, but he doesn't feel bad due to the guy's history.

Suh, who has a history, hit weeden chest by leading with the crown of his helmet and is fine by the NFL. 43mafia does not think this action deserve a fine, but he doesn't feel bad due to Suh's history.

In both situation, the authoritative figure (cop & NFL) interprets that a law/rule was broken, however ticky tack it is. Your hang up is that 37>35 and is a definitive fact that a law was broken, while NFL rule is not as quantitative and up to interpretation of refs/whoever decide fines. You are injecting ur interpretation of the law (speeding is breaking law, suh's tackle isn't) into the analogy and makes it nonsensical in your perspective. but the interpretation of the law is not up to you, me or 43mafia, but according to the authoritative figure.

can't believe i typed all this out.

reserve the speeding tickets for walking to the store analogy when a defensive player is fined for touching someone down by gently placing his hand on him.


...

the analogy started by if mafia was the authority figure. then going on if he was the authority figure it would be how he looked at it. even though he doesnt think the person broke a law, in the analogy speeding, the guy still reaped what he sowed for speeding previously. it doesnt fit perfectly, as no analogy does, but it does fit what hes saying, as even though you dont break a rule, you reap what you sow. simplest way, even without breaking a law you can get punished and you deserve it.

the other analogy doesnt work since the driver is speeding. he is breaking a law that suh didnt. even if the nfl thought he did or not, since in the analogy its a world where mafia made the rules, in this case more so enforced. a closer analogy might be a person going the speed limit. then getting the ticket and saying thats what you get for speeding before. but of course that has less of a humor factor the poster was going for.

Well, if 43mafia was the authority figure in the original analogy, he would not be giving out a ticket as he has already stated he doesn't agree with the fine. Making everything after that null and void.


authority figure, as in the one who makes the rules. not the one who directly gives the ticket but the one who would allow the ticket to be given.
_________________
vikingsvikings wrote:

I don't understand most of that, but I can tell it's probably inaccurate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snkhd09


Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 791
Location: Tampa Bay
PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eagles101 wrote:
snkhd09 wrote:
eagles101 wrote:
snkhd09 wrote:

It was a ridiculous analogy, where he used the most absurd, extreme and unrealistic scenario to make his position in this argument look a lot better.

43mafia analogy is more apt if you want me to break it down.

Guy with history of speeding go 2 mph over speed limit and receive ticket by a cop. 43mafia does not agree that going 2mp over the speed limit deserve a ticket, but he doesn't feel bad due to the guy's history.

Suh, who has a history, hit weeden chest by leading with the crown of his helmet and is fine by the NFL. 43mafia does not think this action deserve a fine, but he doesn't feel bad due to Suh's history.

In both situation, the authoritative figure (cop & NFL) interprets that a law/rule was broken, however ticky tack it is. Your hang up is that 37>35 and is a definitive fact that a law was broken, while NFL rule is not as quantitative and up to interpretation of refs/whoever decide fines. You are injecting ur interpretation of the law (speeding is breaking law, suh's tackle isn't) into the analogy and makes it nonsensical in your perspective. but the interpretation of the law is not up to you, me or 43mafia, but according to the authoritative figure.

can't believe i typed all this out.

reserve the speeding tickets for walking to the store analogy when a defensive player is fined for touching someone down by gently placing his hand on him.


...

the analogy started by if mafia was the authority figure. then going on if he was the authority figure it would be how he looked at it. even though he doesnt think the person broke a law, in the analogy speeding, the guy still reaped what he sowed for speeding previously. it doesnt fit perfectly, as no analogy does, but it does fit what hes saying, as even though you dont break a rule, you reap what you sow. simplest way, even without breaking a law you can get punished and you deserve it.

the other analogy doesnt work since the driver is speeding. he is breaking a law that suh didnt. even if the nfl thought he did or not, since in the analogy its a world where mafia made the rules, in this case more so enforced. a closer analogy might be a person going the speed limit. then getting the ticket and saying thats what you get for speeding before. but of course that has less of a humor factor the poster was going for.

Well, if 43mafia was the authority figure in the original analogy, he would not be giving out a ticket as he has already stated he doesn't agree with the fine. Making everything after that null and void.


authority figure, as in the one who makes the rules. not the one who directly gives the ticket but the one who would allow the ticket to be given.


FourThreeMafia wrote:
NO...I...ME...FOURTHREEMAFIA...DOES NOT THINK HE BROKE A RULE.


Now if your rebuttal is that a rule wasn't broken but 43mafia allows the ticket to be given anyway, then the analogy basically twisted his word as 43mafia's original post was from a viewpoint of someone who had no control over whether the fine was given or not. To assume that if he had the authority, he would allow the fine to be handed to Suh, even if he did not agree with it, is baseless.

Not feeling bad for Suh/reap what you sow sentiment does not equal an agreement with the NFL or an indication he would not rescind the fine if he had the power. They were merely a third party opinion. But like I said, why let that get in the way of him trying to make a point.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arrowhead86


Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 4370
Location: Kansas City
PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The NFLN promo'd an interview last night (that is to be airing today) with a rules exec that basically said he felt it's his job to educate Suh.

I do think the call was ticky tack. I do think he did somewhat lower his head (crowned him) but I didn't think it was an egregious violation.

What bugged me about the comments was it clearly showed personal league bias against Suh. An almost activist level of attention. I think that certainly justifies Suh feeling treated unfairly or like there's a target on his back in a league/union that should view each player as equals.

I wish I could link the preview vid from last night but I'm not expecting it's out there. Maybe someone will see it today and post it, or the transcript, here.
_________________
Throw to score! Run to win!
2014 Adopt-A-Chief: #29 Eric Berry, S
Tackles:14/Assists:1/TFL:0/Sacks:0/FF:0/FR:0/PD:1/INT:0
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 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 8 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