PDA

View Full Version : The Official Fines Thread


Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 01:22 PM
Figured there was an official Thread for everything else:

Yup. Woodley Was fined by the Officials on his sack of Jason Campbell:

Linebacker LaMarr Woodley is the latest player to get fined by the NFL. Woodley was reportedly docked $10,000 for his sack of Redskins quarterback Jason Campbell, who was thrown to the ground and banged his head on the turf during the tackle.

"I can't believe it," said teammate James Farrior when discussing the latest player to be fined docked by the NFL. "It's getting worse and worse. We're not able to do the things required of playing the game. I guess throwing a guy down is intimidating or something."

When the spate of fines against the Steelers began, defensive back Troy Polamalu said the NFL was becoming a "pansy" league because of fines leveled for plays on which no penalty was called. There was no foul called on Woodley during the nationally televised game.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08312/926220-66.stm


Anyone else for Flags yet?

Twiddler
11-07-2008, 01:32 PM
Jesus man, from the looks of it, you must lose hours of sleep just worrying about your favorite players getting penalized/fined. Wow...

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 01:33 PM
Jesus man, from the looks of it, you must lose hours of sleep just worrying about your favorite players getting penalized. Wow...

Don't lose sleep.

I just can't understand the leagues such strong stand against classic football.

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 01:37 PM
Justin Tuck deservingly got fined.

Number 10
11-07-2008, 01:39 PM
Don't lose sleep.

I just can't understand the leagues such strong stand against classic football.

If you don't agree with it, thats one thing. I can respect that. But for you to not understand why is pretty elementary.

You'll see stories done on retired football players and how badly their bodies are beat up, but thats only the beginning of what some of these guys are going through. NFL conducted a study on how badly these guys are left after their careers are over in the NFL, and not just physically. You need to know they are trying to protect the livelihood of these players. Like I said, you don't need to agree with it but you should understand why.

CashmoneyDrew
11-07-2008, 01:39 PM
Justin Tuck deservingly got fined.

I don't think so. I also don't think Jevon Kearse should've been fined for "horse collaring" Aaron Rodgers. **** is getting ridiculous.

Number 10
11-07-2008, 01:40 PM
Justin Tuck deservingly got fined.

hahahahaha

I never even saw he got fined, figured he would though. I still don't understand what even happened there.

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 01:40 PM
I don't think so. I also don't think Jevon Kearse should've been fined for "horse collaring" Aaron Rodgers. **** is getting ridiculous.

I think it's in the rules that you can't tackle the quarterback and drive him into the ground with your shoulder, which was what Tuck did.

ChezPower4
11-07-2008, 01:41 PM
The NFL must like taking players money, maybe there not making as much money as the say they are......

Twiddler
11-07-2008, 01:41 PM
If you don't agree with it, thats one thing. I can respect that. But for you to not understand why is pretty elementary.

You'll see stories done on retired football players and how badly their bodies are beat up, but thats only the beginning of what some of these guys are going through. NFL conducted a study on how badly these guys are left after their careers are over in the NFL, and not just physically. You need to know they are trying to protect the livelihood of these players. Like I said, you don't need to agree with it but you should understand why.

That and let's be honest, the NFL is a very offense based product so it is in their best interest to protect their star offensive starters. Again, that's only part of it, but whether or not its fair, its another factor (at least I think).

CashmoneyDrew
11-07-2008, 01:43 PM
Tuck hit him square in the chest as soon as he released the ball. He didn't lift and slam him. He didn't hit him in the head. He didn't lead with the helmet. It was a chicken **** call and it's even worse that he's getting fined for it.

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 01:44 PM
Tuck hit him square in the chest as soon as he released the ball. He didn't lift and slam him. He didn't hit him in the head. He didn't lead with the helmet. It was a chicken **** call and it's even worse that he's getting fined for it.

Dude, when you tackle someone, if you're strong enough you can drive him back and into the ground with your shoulder, which is what Tuck did. What don't you understand.

Number 10
11-07-2008, 01:47 PM
Dude, when you tackle someone, if you're strong enough you can drive him back and into the ground with your shoulder, which is what Tuck did. What don't you understand.

Tuck was flagged because he "used his full body weight", exact quote.

He did not drive anyone into the ground, he simply lunged into the midsection and tackled him. Because he is so strong it looked like he drive him into the ground. Kiwanuka was flagged a couple years ago for driving David Carr into the ground and while it is a dumb call, it was the right one. Tuck did not put any extra effort into driving him into the ground.

CashmoneyDrew
11-07-2008, 01:47 PM
I understand that the league is becoming more sissy-fyed with every one of these lame calls. It's getting to the point where no one can tackle a QB anymore. If a guy can't use his natural born strength to run through a tackle and take someone to the ground, then the league is losing its credibility.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 01:48 PM
If you don't agree with it, thats one thing. I can respect that. But for you to not understand why is pretty elementary.

You'll see stories done on retired football players and how badly their bodies are beat up, but thats only the beginning of what some of these guys are going through. NFL conducted a study on how badly these guys are left after their careers are over in the NFL, and not just physically. You need to know they are trying to protect the livelihood of these players. Like I said, you don't need to agree with it but you should understand why.

Ok..

Here's my question:

if it's SO dangerous to be tackled like that.. Why isn't there a fine everytime the RB/WR/TE is tackled like that?

Why is the QB the only person you really get fined for hitting non-excessively.


I'm aware with the Studies, and I even read the story done in 2 different magazines.

But at the same time, that is the risk these players take by playing a violent game.

Just like Coal Miners took risks of Black Lung and toxic gases. It's a job risk.


The fact of the matter is, You can't "Play football" anymore. Because while your acting and reacting instinctively.. You have to now put a 3rd process into: Acting, Reacting and is this going to cost me a fine?

So, players are going to hit, be hit and still have damage done to their mind and bodies, the only difference is, some will be left way less money in the pocket.

and the worst part about that, is the positions that pays the highest per year rate, is the only one getting fines for non-excessive hits.


I hope that makes sense. If not I can reword it.

SuperKevin
11-07-2008, 01:48 PM
Justin Tuck deservingly got fined.

That tackle was textbook. Didn't go too high, didn't go too low. How do you get fined for hitting someone in the numbers?

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 01:51 PM
Tuck was flagged because he "used his full body weight", exact quote.

He did not drive anyone into the ground, he simply lunged into the midsection and tackled him. Because he is so strong it looked like he drive him into the ground. Kiwanuka was flagged a couple years ago for driving David Carr into the ground and while it is a dumb call, it was the right one. Tuck did not put any extra effort into driving him into the ground.

But it's plays like this that lead to guys Like Kiwi NOT TACKLING THE QB, and losing a game for his team because he's afraid of being flagged and/or fined.

How can you play the game if everytime you do your job your afraid of a fine or other penalty.

Yes there is tons of players that are 70-80 and in terrible shape due to their playing days, but then you have the Lamberts, Ditkas, Singletarys, etc that think the game is such a pansy league anymore.

Number 10
11-07-2008, 01:52 PM
Ok..

Here's my question:

if it's SO dangerous to be tackled like that.. Why isn't there a fine everytime the RB/WR/TE is tackled like that?

Why is the QB the only person you really get fined for hitting non-excessively.


I'm aware with the Studies, and I even read the story done in 2 different magazines.

But at the same time, that is the risk these players take by playing a violent game.

Just like Coal Miners took risks of Black Lung and toxic gases. It's a job risk.


The fact of the matter is, You can't "Play football" anymore. Because while your acting and reacting instinctively.. You have to now put a 3rd process into: Acting, Reacting and is this going to cost me a fine?

So, players are going to hit, be hit and still have damage done to their mind and bodies, the only difference is, some will be left way less money in the pocket.

and the worst part about that, is the positions that pays the highest per year rate, is the only one getting fines for non-excessive hits.


I hope that makes sense. If not I can reword it.

QBs are unprotected against hits more often than not. I would think that is why they protect them more but you are seeing more flags when RBs/TEs/WRs get hit by a defender leading with thier helmet as well, so its not just the QB.

I see where you are coming from, and I don't refute it in the least. You disagree with where the game is headed, I understand. I'm just saying that you need to know why this is happening.

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 01:53 PM
That tackle was textbook. Didn't go too high, didn't go too low. How do you get fined for hitting someone in the numbers?

Watch the video. When Bollinger releases the ball is a split second before Tuck makes contact. After the contact, Tuck takes two steps with his shoulder/facemask in his chest, and lands with all his weight on him. It's a textbook tackle if it's in the open field. But it's a quarterback getting rid of the ball in the pocket, not Brian Westbrook running a toss.

Number 10
11-07-2008, 01:54 PM
But it's plays like this that lead to guys Like Kiwi NOT TACKLING THE QB, and losing a game for his team because he's afraid of being flagged and/or fined.

How can you play the game if everytime you do your job your afraid of a fine or other penalty.

Yes there is tons of players that are 70-80 and in terrible shape due to their playing days, but then you have the Lamberts, Ditkas, Singletarys, etc that think the game is such a pansy league anymore.

Again, I'm in agreement that it plays mind games with the players. I went nuts on the league when Kiwanuka let go of Vince Young because he didn't want to get flagged....and well...lets not go there.

But picking up a QB and then basically throwing him down onto the ground with your full body weight is and should be a penalty. Players should know that.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 01:56 PM
QBs are unprotected against hits more often than not. I would think that is why they protect them more but you are seeing more flags when RBs/TEs/WRs get hit by a defender leading with thier helmet as well, so its not just the QB.

I see where you are coming from, and I don't refute it in the least. You disagree with where the game is headed, I understand. I'm just saying that you need to know why this is happening.

I do understand that first and foremost this is a business.

And I understand the over-protection of the faces of the Franchises. In financial terms.

Just like I thought just in the years prior to Goodell that Manning/Brady would get flags more often than not.



As far as it goes though. I would rather see them adjust the rules and make it more understood.

It's almost ******** when someone plays a great game then gets fined 10-20k after the game for their play, it's almost counterproductive.

Twiddler
11-07-2008, 01:56 PM
Ok..

Here's my question:

if it's SO dangerous to be tackled like that.. Why isn't there a fine everytime the RB/WR/TE is tackled like that?

Why is the QB the only person you really get fined for hitting non-excessively.


I'm aware with the Studies, and I even read the story done in 2 different magazines.

But at the same time, that is the risk these players take by playing a violent game.

Just like Coal Miners took risks of Black Lung and toxic gases. It's a job risk.


The fact of the matter is, You can't "Play football" anymore. Because while your acting and reacting instinctively.. You have to now put a 3rd process into: Acting, Reacting and is this going to cost me a fine?

So, players are going to hit, be hit and still have damage done to their mind and bodies, the only difference is, some will be left way less money in the pocket.

and the worst part about that, is the positions that pays the highest per year rate, is the only one getting fines for non-excessive hits.


I hope that makes sense. If not I can reword it.

QB's get prefferential treatment in the NFL, like I said before. If you haven't figured that our by now then I don't know how anyone on here can help you.

SuperKevin
11-07-2008, 01:57 PM
Watch the video. When Bollinger releases the ball is a split second before Tuck makes contact. After the contact, Tuck takes two steps with his shoulder/facemask in his chest, and lands with all his weight on him. It's a textbook tackle if it's in the open field. But it's a quarterback getting rid of the ball in the pocket, not Brian Westbrook running a toss.

I just watched it in slo-mo on Sportscenter and you can see Tuck pulls his hand out to brace himself before they hit the turf. Doesn't sound like he just let his weight flop on Bollinger.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 01:58 PM
Watch the video. When Bollinger releases the ball is a split second before Tuck makes contact. After the contact, Tuck takes two steps with his shoulder/facemask in his chest, and lands with all his weight on him. It's a textbook tackle if it's in the open field. But it's a quarterback getting rid of the ball in the pocket, not Brian Westbrook running a toss.


So why do QB's have way more official protection than the rest of the players in the league?

I just don't get the difference between hitting a QB Squarely and knocking him down as he throws or right 1 step after he throws. Or a RB Running a sweep.



And I'd like to Mention Roethlisberger has only gotten 1 roughing the passer call when I see the rest of these hits he should have had atleast 10.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 01:59 PM
QB's get prefferential treatment in the NFL, like I said before. If you haven't figured that our by now then I don't know how anyone on here can help you.

Ok.

If you haven't figured out by now that I'm not debating that, but asking WHY that is the case.... Then I don't know if anyone can help you.

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 01:59 PM
I just watched it in slo-mo on Sportscenter and you can see Tuck pulls his hand out to brace himself before they hit the turf. Doesn't sound like he just let his weight flop on Bollinger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GnOWxHveMw

Watch from :31 on, and tell me if extending his arm slightly stopped him from getting his noodle rocked on the ground.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 02:01 PM
Solution..

Can we put Flags on the QB? You get Fined or Flag for any hit, sometimes both.

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 02:01 PM
So why do QB's have way more official protection than the rest of the players in the league?

I just don't get the difference between hitting a QB Squarely and knocking him down as he throws or right 1 step after he throws. Or a RB Running a sweep.



And I'd like to Mention Roethlisberger has only gotten 1 roughing the passer call when I see the rest of these hits he should have had atleast 10.

Because a Quarterback's first priority is to throw the ball, and as he's throwing the ball he's more susceptible to injury from a hit than a runningback with the ball in his hands, knowing that he's gonna be hit soon and bracing himself for the hit. What the hell is wrong with you? It's not that hard to understand.

Twiddler
11-07-2008, 02:02 PM
Because a Quarterback's first priority is to throw the ball, and as he's throwing the ball he's more susceptible to injury from a hit than a runningback with the ball in his hands, knowing that he's gonna be hit soon and bracing himself for the hit. What the hell is wrong with you? It's not that hard to understand.

Exactly, this isn't that hard of a concept to get. That and offense = money. And QB = star of offense. So, therefore, for the NFL, QB's = money.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 02:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GnOWxHveMw

Watch from :31 on, and tell me if extending his arm slightly stopped him from getting his noodle rocked on the ground.

You said he picked up and drove him to the ground. Tuck just wrapped him up and went straight through.

What they need to do is invent a device that allows a defender to stop a tackle in mid air so he can not land on the QB.

I mean. Even the announcers, who are usually fighting to the teeth for Rights of the QB are just appalled by the call.

Tuck got flagged for a textbook tackle.

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 02:06 PM
Bollinger was slightly elevated and Tuck bulldozed through him and took him into the ground. While making a throw. What don't you understand?

Number 10
11-07-2008, 02:06 PM
Yes, Tuck does use his hand to prevent fully landing on him. That hit could have been A LOT worse.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 02:07 PM
Because a Quarterback's first priority is to throw the ball, and as he's throwing the ball he's more susceptible to injury from a hit than a runningback with the ball in his hands, knowing that he's gonna be hit soon and bracing himself for the hit. What the hell is wrong with you? It's not that hard to understand.

You're right, a Quarterbacks first instinct is to throw the ball. How novice.

My point is, when a QB steps up to throw, He sees the Pressure coming, and knows he's going to get hit.


It's part of the freaking game. Why not just outlaw tackling the QB and do 2 hand tag.


MY point being. If you can't tackle him textbook or otherwise without putting out a pillow and a blanket. Devise some other way for Defenders to earn their paychecks.

Getting fined for sacks that had no flags and getting flagged for sacks on textbooks tackles is beyond moronic.

If you can't tackle the Quarterback, come up with some other friggin' mechanic that actually allows the defense to play.

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 02:08 PM
Yes, Tuck does use his hand to prevent fully landing on him. That hit could have been A LOT worse.

The damage was done regardless. Had he gone at him just a tad bit faster, Bollinger's head would have just ping-ponged off the grass.

Number 10
11-07-2008, 02:10 PM
The damage was done regardless. Had he gone at him just a tad bit faster, Bollinger's head would have just ping-ponged off the grass.

So what are you saying? Tuck was rightfully penalized because he didn't go as hard as he could?

SuperKevin
11-07-2008, 02:10 PM
MS17, if it was DeMarcus Ware making the same hit on Eli Manning would you have the same opinion?

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 02:11 PM
Bollinger was slightly elevated and Tuck bulldozed through him and took him into the ground. While making a throw. What don't you understand?

I understand that.

For sake of you repeating yourself endlessly because you think you're so smart.

MY POINT IS:

IF EVERY GOD DAMN SACK IS A PF... COME UP WITH A NEW WAY SO DEFENDERS CAN ACTUALLY STOP A PLAY.

Whether it be flags or 2 hand touch. Players getting fined because the QB's "Health" is in question is a joke.

If there is no rule that you can't tackle a QB, then you get fined after the game for tackling a QB "too Rough" without really providing another solution as to how to fix the problem, you shouldn't be fining people or throwing flags?


Now what part of that dont' you get?

tjsunstein
11-07-2008, 02:12 PM
The damage was done regardless. Had he gone at him just a tad bit faster, Bollinger's head would have just ping-ponged off the grass.

Is it his fault for doing his job and tackling the guy? You should fine every lineman whose responsibility it was to block that guy on certain plays if you fine a guy for tackling the quarterback.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 02:15 PM
Is it his fault for doing his job and tackling the guy? You should fine every lineman whose responsibility it was to block that guy on certain plays if you fine a guy for tackling the quarterback.

Forget it. Even though there's 4 guys providing reasons why it should not be illegal, Metsox17 will continue to put his fingers in his ears and scream..

"LALALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU"..

Because he doesn't want to be wrong.

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 02:21 PM
So what are you saying? Tuck was rightfully penalized because he didn't go as hard as he could?
No, he was rightfully penalized because of the way he tackled Bollinger. It's in the rules, and you've admitted to it already, so what exactly are we arguing?

MS17, if it was DeMarcus Ware making the same hit on Eli Manning would you have the same opinion?
I'm insulted that you would even bring this up
I understand that.

For sake of you repeating yourself endlessly because you think you're so smart.

MY POINT IS:

IF EVERY GOD DAMN SACK IS A PF... COME UP WITH A NEW WAY SO DEFENDERS CAN ACTUALLY STOP A PLAY.

Whether it be flags or 2 hand touch. Players getting fined because the QB's "Health" is in question is a joke.

If there is no rule that you can't tackle a QB, then you get fined after the game for tackling a QB "too Rough" without really providing another solution as to how to fix the problem, you shouldn't be fining people or throwing flags?


Now what part of that dont' you get?

There are plenty of ways of hitting the quarterback. If you're too dumb to either understand or follow the said rules, you deserve to be fined.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 02:32 PM
No, he was rightfully penalized because of the way he tackled Bollinger. It's in the rules, and you've admitted to it already, so what exactly are we arguing?


I'm insulted that you would even bring this up


There are plenty of ways of hitting the quarterback. If you're too dumb to either understand or follow the said rules, you deserve to be fined.

Too bad the rules don't dictate all scenarios.

The rules almost act like you have to hit them in a perfect scenario (IE no blockers). But the fact is, you can never contemplate pre-snap or in motion how you're going to tackle him. The fact is one the play starts all I know is the player is going to do everything to get his hand on the quarterback and put him on the ground.

This is the official text of the NFL Playbook on roughing the Passer.



1. By interpretation, a pass begins when the passer -- with possession of ball -- starts to bring his hand forward. If ball strikes ground after this action has begun, play is ruled an incomplete pass. If passer loses control of ball prior to his bringing his hand forward, play is ruled a fumble.
2. When a passer is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional movement forward of his arm starts a forward pass. If a defensive player contacts the passer or the ball after forward movement begins, and the ball leaves the passerís hand, a forward pass is ruled, regardless of where the ball strikes the ground or a player.
3. No defensive player may run into a passer of a legal forward pass after the ball has left his hand (15 yards). The Referee must determine whether opponent had a reasonable chance to stop his momentum during an attempt to block the pass or tackle the passer while he still had the ball.
4. No defensive player who has an unrestricted path to the quarterback may hit him flagrantly in the area of the knee(s) or below when approaching in any direction.
5. Officials are to blow the play dead as soon as the quarterback is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler, and his safety is in jeopardy.





3. No defensive player may run into a passer of a legal forward pass after the ball has left his hand (15 yards). The Referee must determine whether opponent had a reasonable chance to stop his momentum during an attempt to block the pass or tackle the passer while he still had the ball.

As part as #4 and #3... The hit was not Flagrant attempt to injure, nor could he stop his momentum. Nor did he pick up and "Drive" to the ground.


Refute please.

TitleTown088
11-07-2008, 02:39 PM
Jerred Allen fined for his hit on Shaub.

http://blogs.startribune.com/vikingsblog/

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 02:42 PM
Watch the video. When Bollinger releases the ball is a split second before Tuck makes contact. After the contact, Tuck takes two steps with his shoulder/facemask in his chest, and lands with all his weight on him. It's a textbook tackle if it's in the open field. But it's a quarterback getting rid of the ball in the pocket, not Brian Westbrook running a toss.

The Referee must determine whether opponent had a reasonable chance to stop his momentum during an attempt to block the pass or tackle the passer while he still had the ball.

Already did, buddy.

ChezPower4
11-07-2008, 02:43 PM
QBs are unprotected against hits more often than not. I would think that is why they protect them more but you are seeing more flags when RBs/TEs/WRs get hit by a defender leading with thier helmet as well, so its not just the QB.

I see where you are coming from, and I don't refute it in the least. You disagree with where the game is headed, I understand. I'm just saying that you need to know why this is happening.

I should matter that QBs are unproteced, it part of the position and all QBs know that. The league is making guys think twice about hitting QBs, which sucks it's FOOTBALL, it's a violent game. QBs are football players too just like everyone else and i hate these p**** A** calls that are being called now. If a guy clearly hits a QB late then they should throw the flag 100% of the time but if the QB gets hit right as he's realesing the ball and then the refs throw the flag i have a huge problem with that. Like I said before it's a violent game and getting hit is apart of the game and a lot of the hits that players are getting fined for, is just the league being rediculous.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 02:44 PM
Jerred Allen fined for his hit on Shaub.

http://blogs.startribune.com/vikingsblog/

I'm on the fence on this one.

By rule I'd have to agree with the fine, He came in low and hit without assistance of the OL.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 02:45 PM
Already did, buddy.

Right, so 282lb+ Tuck is going to stop on a dime in mid tackle.

He has less agility than you give him credit for.

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 02:49 PM
Right, so 282lb+ Tuck is going to stop on a dime in mid tackle.

He has less agility than you give him credit for.

No, but he had no intention of stopping either. Bollinger was getting rid of the ball as Tuck hit him, yet he still drove two steps and landed on top of him with an arm wrapped around.

It sure as hell didn't seem like he WANTED to stop.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 02:51 PM
No, but he had no intention of stopping either. Bollinger was getting rid of the ball as Tuck hit him, yet he still drove two steps and landed on top of him with an arm wrapped around.

It sure as hell didn't seem like he WANTED to stop.

1) Now you're assuming what Tuck was thinking.

2) Tuck by rule doesn't have to stop. His momentum was going forward, he hit within a reasonable time frame, and he didn't lift to drive/Intent to flagrantly injure.

If Tuck somehow stops on a dime, and Bollinger didn't throw the ball, He runs away from Tuck vintage VY on Kiwi.

Tuck did 0 wrong, stop trying to twist the rule. There is nothing in those rules that says it's an illegal hit.

It was intent to tackle, not injure.

The question you have to ask.. if Bollinger didn't get rid of the ball, would you still say it's Roughing the passer?

It's not.

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 02:55 PM
1) Now you're assuming what Tuck was thinking.

2) Tuck by rule doesn't have to stop. His momentum was going forward, he hit within a reasonable time frame, and he didn't lift to drive/Intent to flagrantly injure.

If Tuck somehow stops on a dime, and Bollinger didn't throw the ball, He runs away from Tuck vintage VY on Kiwi.

Tuck did 0 wrong, stop trying to twist the rule. There is nothing in those rules that says it's an illegal hit.

It was intent to tackle, not injure.

The question you have to ask.. if Bollinger didn't get rid of the ball, would you still say it's Roughing the passer?

It's not.

I don't care if his intent was to tackle, if he gets injured as a result, it doesn't take away from the injury. Obviously the NFL agrees with the way i see it, and all you can do is whine and moan, so get the hell over it. I'm done with this.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 02:57 PM
I don't care if his intent was to tackle, if he gets injured as a result, it doesn't take away from the injury. Obviously the NFL agrees with the way i see it, and all you can do is whine and moan, so get the hell over it. I'm done with this.

So any tackle that "Could" result in injury should result in a flag? I'm not whining and moaning.

Just asking when will we get back to real football.

No, You agree with the way the NFL is seeing it, which isn't agreeing with their definitions of the rules. They should update their rulebook or stop calling the ******** calls.

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 03:00 PM
So any tackle that "Could" result in injury should result in a flag? I'm not whining and moaning.

Just asking when will we get back to real football.

No, You agree with the way the NFL is seeing it, which isn't agreeing with their definitions of the rules. They should update their rulebook or stop calling the ******** calls.

No, you're the one saying that he was trying to tackle him and not injure him, therefore he doesn't deserve to be fined/flagged.

You ARE whining and moaning. Look at the whole thread. It's about people complaining that the NFL is taking away from the game. Tough $***. If you don't like it, too freakin' bad.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 03:07 PM
No, you're the one saying that he was trying to tackle him and not injure him, therefore he doesn't deserve to be fined/flagged.

You ARE whining and moaning. Look at the whole thread. It's about people complaining that the NFL is taking away from the game. Tough $***. If you don't like it, too freakin' bad.

I thought you were done?

We get it, you're better than the 4 people arguing that there was nothing wrong with Tucks sack.

I will come to you from now on all knowing Guru.

Splat
11-07-2008, 05:55 PM
Vikings' Jared Allen fined $50K for low hits (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-vikings-allen&prov=ap&type=lgns)

PackerLegend
11-07-2008, 06:00 PM
They are making it a sissy *** game with all the fines but $10,000 of million dollar contracts has no impact. But basically soon tackling the QB will not be allowed.

Mr. Stiller
11-07-2008, 06:11 PM
They are making it a sissy *** game with all the fines but $10,000 of million dollar contracts has no impact. But basically soon tackling the QB will not be allowed.

10k was also the same fine for someone gouging someone in the eye...

10k vs. Million dollar contracts is not the point.


A 1 dollar fine vs. someones 1k Paycheck is not a big deal, but if the person is not doing something wrong or against the rules, why are they fined in the first place?

renegade
11-07-2008, 06:17 PM
I hate Goodell. He is a tyrant, he keeps fining players for dumb reasons, I'm starting to believe the NFL just needs the money. Football is a contact sport, guys getting hit and hurt comes with the territory. I understand it is for player safety but at some point it becomes rediculous.

The Justin Tuck fine is just dumb, perfect form tackle nothing more nothing less and he was fined.

Also LET THE PLAYERS CELEBRATE! I fail to see what the issue is, they're playing a game that gets adrenaline going and the celebrations are fun to watch. You know you thought TO and CJ were entertaining and if you didn't, did you have a problem with it?

It is getting to the point that a player can't even raise a fist to celebrate a TD and to support the new president elect. Ridiculous.

On DeSean Jackson's first career PR for a TD he and Quintin Demps crossed their arms, looked at eachother and nodded their heads. Then they were fined 10 K each for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCzGiMwzQhs
^^
If you want an example, it is at the end of this interview. BTW they're both awesome.

Gay Ork Wang
11-07-2008, 06:17 PM
Why do people actually care when those guys who have millions of dollars pay 10k? Its not like they change their play style at all. They keep playing, keep getting fined, keep moaning and it starts from the beginning. Some guys sound like those fines totally changed how the defense tackles/plays.

I for myself couldnt care less who gets fined as long as it isnt a suspension

CroomDawgs
11-07-2008, 06:19 PM
This is pathetic. Anyone who has ever played the game of football should be disgusted by this. Mark Schlereth was completely right with his rant today. ITS FOOTBALL. Theres tackling and helmets and pads for a reason. Its guys knocking the piss of each other. Take the QBs off the freakin pedestal Aiello. Late or obviously dirty hits are one thing, but laying a lick on the QB? Gimme a break. Don't turn this into pussyass soccer and let the men play.

Gay Ork Wang
11-07-2008, 06:24 PM
some people on this board dont respect soccer enough. basketball on the other side...

CroomDawgs
11-07-2008, 06:24 PM
I said this a while ago, Goodell is a crap comissioner. The suspensions have been warranted because they were obvious but the fines and rule changes? Give me a break. Paul Tagliabue was a terrific Commisioner not just for pulling the NFL out of a potential lockout disaster, but also because he kept the sport fun. WHo cares about the celebrations? Obviously ones that delay the game like TO running to hte star would be one thing, but like Chris Johnson on the Bongo drums? It was creative and shouldn't of been fine.

Few years back In OT Atlanta lost to seattle on a long Alexander TD run and he waved bye to the fans jogging around the endzone. Atlanta thought it was fine-worthy. Tagliabue? It made him laugh.

Roger Goodell...you suck

SuperKevin
11-07-2008, 06:30 PM
I like fines. They take money that these greedy athletes would normally spend on useless crap like watches and 22 inch rims and gives it to charities that really need the money

Paranoidmoonduck
11-07-2008, 06:34 PM
I understand certain fines. I understand giving Jared Allen some financial motivation to make sure he doesn't go flying into quarterback's knees. I understand that you want to minimize head injuries and need to financially motivate defensive backs not to headhunt on passes across the middle.

What I don't understand is fining a player for how he brings a player to the ground once he initiated a textbook tackle. Both the Woodley and Tuck sacks needed no flag and needed no fine. I get worried that the NFL is targeting a time where quarterbacks get shoved to the ground instead of tackled to the ground; where the tackling method on quarterbacks becomes entirely different than tackling other offensive players and becomes more akin to how one tackles punters (not at all).

I have no problem with the NFL trying to promote player safety, but it can never be at the expense of the game. Where that line is drawn depends on the person, but I think we're crossing the line right now, and it's hard to see.

Paranoidmoonduck
11-07-2008, 06:36 PM
I like fines. They take money that these greedy athletes would normally spend on useless crap like watches and 22 inch rims and gives it to charities that really need the money

I've never seen any proof that NFL Fines go into charity. In fact, the NFL has seemed pretty tight lipped on where these fines go.

SuperKevin
11-07-2008, 06:40 PM
I've never seen any proof that NFL Fines go into charity. In fact, the NFL has seemed pretty tight lipped on where these fines go.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/10/10/so-where-do-the-fines-go/

Paranoidmoonduck
11-07-2008, 06:48 PM
That's slightly re-assuring, although a bit less so when it would seem that player fines are tax deductible. Considering the forefront the fines are taking in the NFL landscape, I'd love to see an actual list of where these things are going, because what Aiello said was pretty vague.

Turtlepower
11-07-2008, 07:50 PM
Metsox, I seriously can't believe that you think Tuck deserved a penalty...

skiinginNJ
11-07-2008, 10:49 PM
Metsox, I seriously can't believe that you think Tuck deserved a penalty...


roger goodell thinks it shouldnt have been a fine, and it isnt anymore


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3689275

MetSox17
11-07-2008, 10:51 PM
he unnecessarily drove the opposing quarterback to the ground.

Not all penalties deserve a fine, like Goodell said, but he was flagged properly. At least we won't have to hear any more whining and moaning from Giants fans.

Paranoidmoonduck
11-07-2008, 11:02 PM
I competely disagree that what Tuck did was unneccesary. He hit the quarterback square in the chest and his momentum carried them both back a couple yards with Tuck landing on top. That rule was inacted for players who had the quarterback wrapped up and then threw them into the ground or lifted the quarterback and body slammed them. Tuck did neither.

What I think bugs me the most about these things is that the NFL has come out and said exactly what they envision a safer league looking like. So we're either in a position where it looks like the NFL is fairly randomly and zealously flagging plays and fining players for playing normal football, or we're in a position where the NFL is trying to get their brand of football to change through fiscal punishment and haven't bothered to fill us in. Either way, it worries me.

Dam8610
11-08-2008, 02:14 AM
roger goodell thinks it shouldnt have been a fine, and it isnt anymore


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3689275

Roger Goodell SUCKS! BRING BACK TAGS!

tjsunstein
11-08-2008, 02:20 AM
MetSox, you're wrong on this. No disrespect.

Addict
11-08-2008, 07:02 AM
wow... this is going a bit far IMO (besides, that hit on Campbell looked amazing)

Number 10
11-08-2008, 05:13 PM
Hey Metsox-

Goodell took the fine on Tuck away, saying it was appropriate.

Thoughts?

MetSox17
11-08-2008, 07:07 PM
Hey Metsox-

Goodell took the fine on Tuck away, saying it was appropriate.

Thoughts?

I wouldn't use Roger Goodell as a model of consistency, so i don't think this means much. I gave my thoughts on this already previously. If he didn't deem it worthy of a fine, that's okay with me. If he did, i would have supported it as well. I'm not gonna sit here and cry on how he should have been fined, but the referee deemed the tackle unnecessary, and during the game, that's whose opinion mattered most.

Gay Ork Wang
11-08-2008, 07:10 PM
NFL is a buisness. There is no fair or consistency ever in buisnesses. The QBs are there stars, they basically make the NFL the most money. What do buisnesses do? Try to protect that. They could fine everyone for no reason, as long as they still keep playing, the NFL doesnt care

Number 10
11-08-2008, 07:17 PM
I wouldn't use Roger Goodell as a model of consistency, so i don't think this means much. I gave my thoughts on this already previously. If he didn't deem it worthy of a fine, that's okay with me. If he did, i would have supported it as well. I'm not gonna sit here and cry on how he should have been fined, but the referee deemed the tackle unnecessary, and during the game, that's whose opinion mattered most.

I can't remember a time where Goodell came in and took a fine away for a hit. It should not have been a penalty, it was a textbook tackle. Mistake by the ref.

MetSox17
11-08-2008, 07:18 PM
NFL is a buisness. There is no fair or consistency ever in buisnesses. The QBs are there stars, they basically make the NFL the most money. What do buisnesses do? Try to protect that. They could fine everyone for no reason, as long as they still keep playing, the NFL doesnt care

When it comes to laying down the law in something that's written in text (how you should and shouldn't tackle the quarterback), there absolutely needs to be consistency. Same thing with the suspensions on rumors being spread about players. This is their livelihood, and it can be taken away by the commissioner if he doesn't like the way the media reacted to a certain occurrence. Roger Goodell appeals to public opinion way too much in his rulings. He basically sand-bagged the people that hand out fines by rescinding it, simply because the way the media reacted to the Justin Tuck fining. I mean seriously, he didn't see the play until friday? Yeah right.

Number 10
11-08-2008, 07:20 PM
When it comes to laying down the law in something that's written in text (how you should and shouldn't tackle the quarterback), there absolutely needs to be consistency. Same thing with the suspensions on rumors being spread about players. This is their livelihood, and it can be taken away by the commissioner if he doesn't like the way the media reacted to a certain occurrence. Roger Goodell appeals to public opinion way too much in his rulings. He basically sand-bagged the people that hand out fines by rescinding it, simply because the way the media reacted to the Justin Tuck fining. I mean seriously, he didn't see the play until friday? Yeah right.

Like the way the media has dealt with the Matt Jones fiasco?

MetSox17
11-08-2008, 07:23 PM
Like the way the media has dealt with the Matt Jones fiasco?

Did they ever make as big a fuss about it as they did anything with Tank Johnson, or Adam Jones, or Odell Thurman? No. Is he still playing? Yes.

Gay Ork Wang
11-08-2008, 07:24 PM
When it comes to laying down the law in something that's written in text (how you should and shouldn't tackle the quarterback), there absolutely needs to be consistency. Same thing with the suspensions on rumors being spread about players. This is their livelihood, and it can be taken away by the commissioner if he doesn't like the way the media reacted to a certain occurrence. Roger Goodell appeals to public opinion way too much in his rulings. He basically sand-bagged the people that hand out fines by rescinding it, simply because the way the media reacted to the Justin Tuck fining. I mean seriously, he didn't see the play until friday? Yeah right.
well he is consistently handing out fines.

MetSox17
11-08-2008, 07:25 PM
well he is consistently handing out fines.

It's not him, personally, that hands out the fine. The league office does so. Which is why i said he basically sandbagged them, after never butting into their business before.

Number 10
11-08-2008, 07:27 PM
Did they ever make as big a fuss about it as they did anything with Tank Johnson, or Adam Jones, or Odell Thurman? No. Is he still playing? Yes.

So now you're keeping a scale of the amount of attention each player gets for questionable activity on and off the field.

Who has gotten more pub, the Tuck fine or the Jones cocaine scenario? Jones has yet to be penalized, Tuck's fine was taken away. There goes your theory.

Number 10
11-08-2008, 07:28 PM
It's not him, personally, that hands out the fine. The league office does so. Which is why i said he basically sandbagged them, after never butting into their business before.

But Goodell has the final word on each fine.

MetSox17
11-08-2008, 07:29 PM
So now you're keeping a scale of the amount of attention each player gets for questionable activity on and off the field.

Who has gotten more pub, the Tuck fine or the Jones cocaine scenario? Jones has yet to be penalized, Tuck's fine was taken away. There goes your theory.

How does that throw out my theory? They had about 85 "analysts" on BSPN all freakin' week long complaining that he shouldn't have been fined, and then all of a sudden, Roger Goodell sees the play on Friday "for the first time" and rescinds the fine? It's a crock.

MetSox17
11-08-2008, 07:30 PM
But Goodell has the final word on each fine.

If he gives a crap, he does. If he doesn't, or if he doesn't have reason to give a crap, he'll just let the league office take care of it. But since there was shows on TV all week long talking about it, he decided to step in. How convenient.

Number 10
11-08-2008, 07:31 PM
How does that throw out my theory? They had about 85 "analysts" on BSPN all freakin' week long complaining that he shouldn't have been fined, and then all of a sudden, Roger Goodell sees the play on Friday "for the first time" and rescinds the fine? It's a crock.

Keep on exaggerating, it makes this easier for all of us.

Perhaps Goodell has something that we call a schedule? Perhaps he had more important things to do before checking out the Tuck hit? I mean, he is the the commisioner of a billion dollar business ya know. Again, how come he was not influenced by the media with the Matt Jones situation?

Number 10
11-08-2008, 07:32 PM
If he gives a crap, he does. If he doesn't, or if he doesn't have reason to give a crap, he'll just let the league office take care of it. But since there was shows on TV all week long talking about it, he decided to step in. How convenient.

Dude when you wake up tomorrow morning, read everything you posted from start to finish in this thread. It is beyond ridiculous.

MetSox17
11-08-2008, 07:34 PM
Keep on exaggerating, it makes this easier for all of us.

Perhaps Goodell has something that we call a schedule? Perhaps he had more important things to do before checking out the Tuck hit? I mean, he is the the commisioner of a billion dollar business ya know. Again, how come he was not influenced by the media with the Matt Jones situation?

The only thing i exaggerated on was the number of analysts, since i most certainly do not have an accurate number, but i watch enough of that channel to know that just about every show for two or three days straight talked about it, and they each had their respective "analysts" complaining about the fine.

When the Matt Jones situation occurred it got very little coverage. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

MetSox17
11-08-2008, 07:35 PM
Dude when you wake up tomorrow morning, read everything you posted from start to finish in this thread. It is beyond ridiculous.

How so? What's ridiculous is your homerism on everything Giants related.

Number 10
11-08-2008, 07:36 PM
There has been a very good amount of coverage about Matt Jones not receiving any punishment from the league. Like, 85 analysts!

Perhaps the reason the Tuck fine got so much pub was, dare I say it, it was the most ridiculous fine of the season? Could you ever even come close to admitting that?

Number 10
11-08-2008, 07:38 PM
How so? What's ridiculous is your homerism on everything Giants related.

I was hoping you'd use that cop out. Saw it coming from a mile away. Since you are really good at counting, go count how many people in this thread said the Tuck fine was not right. And then, call all of them Giants homers.

Thanks.

MetSox17
11-08-2008, 07:39 PM
There has been a very good amount of coverage about Matt Jones not receiving any punishment from the league. Like, 85 analysts!

Perhaps the reason the Tuck fine got so much pub was, dare I say it, it was the most ridiculous fine of the season? Could you ever even come close to admitting that?

The only problem with your ridiculous statements is that i actually did keep up with what BSPN covered during the cocaine bust. It was one for one day, and it never showed up again. Ask anyone else.

I've already gone through two pages explaining why i feel it wasn't a ridiculous flag or fine, you can go back and read them if you'd like. I'm done discussing this with a Giants fan, your homerism will never allow you to think outside the box. Anyone else offering an objective opinion, i'm all ears.

Edit-
I was hoping you'd use that cop out. Saw it coming from a mile away. Since you are really good at counting, go count how many people in this thread said the Tuck fine was not right. And then, call all of them Giants homers.

Thanks.
My previous experience in discussions with you has shown me more than enough to make the assumption that you are a ridiculous homer.

Number 10
11-08-2008, 07:43 PM
Done counting yet? It may take you awhile.

Is there one person in this thread that agreed Tuck's hit was worthy of that penalty, other than you, a Giants hater?

captainjack27
11-08-2008, 08:18 PM
Whatever happened to the jack tatum days???

Gay Ork Wang
11-09-2008, 04:27 AM
So now you're keeping a scale of the amount of attention each player gets for questionable activity on and off the field.

Who has gotten more pub, the Tuck fine or the Jones cocaine scenario? Jones has yet to be penalized, Tuck's fine was taken away. There goes your theory.
um i thought matt jones is gonna get a 4 week suspension

Twiddler
11-09-2008, 11:25 AM
um i thought matt jones is gonna get a 4 week suspension

Yeah, as far as I know, the only reason he is still able to play is because he is appealing his suspension, which I think was 3 games instead of 4.

NY+Giants=NYG
11-09-2008, 02:29 PM
I was hoping you'd use that cop out. Saw it coming from a mile away. Since you are really good at counting, go count how many people in this thread said the Tuck fine was not right. And then, call all of them Giants homers.

Thanks.

Yeah I was following along read this thread, and was waiting for him to say that too. LOL.