Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Gronkowski is so injury prone. He's a like a piece of glass.

(01-27-2018, 01:11 PM)Jags02 Wrote: [ -> ]I know the league is intent on keeping helmets from knocking like that, but this fine seems a bit steep when you consider there wasn' t much he could have done to avoid it. He was leading with his shoulder... not his head. 

Like I said earlier, that he got a huge fine for playing the way he was supposed to while Cyp got no fine for launching headfirst at a guy's helmet says a lot about what [BLEEP] the league is and the fight against the wind the Jaguars are facing to succeed.

(01-27-2018, 08:40 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2018, 12:05 AM)Scarecrow Wrote: [ -> ]He missed a game check and that's $281k.

But did he get fined?

He missed a game and lost $281,000.  No he didn't get fined but let's not act like he didn't lose more than a $24k fine.

The fine against Church is [BLEEP].

And the hits just keep on coming, pun intended. Between all the non calls from refs, no punishment to AJ Green and Michael Bennett, and bogus fines I'm over the league. There is obvious bias against this team and it sucks. Still gonna watch the Jags every Sunday, but could careless about anything else with the league. Interested in the revived XFL when it debuts.

Oh for god sake, you lot clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're all talking about intention and crown of the helmet when neither of those things are at all relevant to the penalty or the fine. The rules are very clear: if you hit a defenseless receiver helmet to helmet you get flagged and you get fined. The CBA even stipulates the exact amount of the fine. It doesn't matter that Church didn't intent to hit Gronkowski helmet to helmet or that he didn't lead with the crown of the helmet, what matter is that Church's helmet hit Gronkowski's helmet while Gronkowski was clearly still a defenseless receiver.

2 things....

1. He shouldn't be fined for it. I'm totally shocked the league is even allowing this.

But number 2...The ref totally blew the call. Should have never even threw the flag.

Anybody know the ref who threw the flag?

(01-27-2018, 03:07 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]Oh for god sake, you lot clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're all talking about intention and crown of the helmet when neither of those things are at all relevant to the penalty or the fine. The rules are very clear: if you hit a defenseless receiver helmet to helmet you get flagged and you get fined. The CBA even stipulates the exact amount of the fine. It doesn't matter that Church didn't intent to hit Gronkowski helmet to helmet or that he didn't lead with the crown of the helmet, what matter is that Church's helmet hit Gronkowski's helmet while Gronkowski was clearly still a defenseless receiver.

With respect, rules or not.. everyone is still entitled to an opinion.

Regardless of how the rules are written, I personally think that intent (or lack of) SHOULD come in to it. No two incidents are the same unless there's malice involved. Sure, players can be reckless, but when all is said and done, the game is played at such a high pace that some things are unavoidable. That's where, I believe, that everything should be judged per incident and not a blanket rule across the board.

(01-27-2018, 03:24 PM)JagFanatic24 Wrote: [ -> ]2 things....

1. He shouldn't be fined for it. I'm totally shocked the league is even allowing this.

But number 2...The ref totally blew the call. Should have never even threw the flag.

Anybody know the ref who threw the flag?

All of them I think. I remember seeing at least two flags hit the ground.

(01-27-2018, 03:07 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]Oh for god sake, you lot clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're all talking about intention and crown of the helmet when neither of those things are at all relevant to the penalty or the fine. The rules are very clear: if you hit a defenseless receiver helmet to helmet you get flagged and you get fined. The CBA even stipulates the exact amount of the fine. It doesn't matter that Church didn't intent to hit Gronkowski helmet to helmet or that he didn't lead with the crown of the helmet, what matter is that Church's helmet hit Gronkowski's helmet while Gronkowski was clearly still a defenseless receiver.

Oh for god's sake- shut up about it already. This is football and stuff happens unintentionally when you have guys hitting each other and the rules in place don't account for that at all. That doesn't mean a guy has to be fined for it. If the NFL feels compelled to do something about it then they can give him a warning. As it is they completely overlooked other players who intentionally led with their helmets which makes this even more asinine. 

I didn't like the hit either because I never like to see a guy get hurt, but to penalize Church and not others is straight up wrong.

24k? Wow. Seems pretty steep

He’ll appeal and fine win/should be reduced.
First contact was with shoulder.

(01-27-2018, 03:59 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2018, 03:07 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]Oh for god sake, you lot clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're all talking about intention and crown of the helmet when neither of those things are at all relevant to the penalty or the fine. The rules are very clear: if you hit a defenseless receiver helmet to helmet you get flagged and you get fined. The CBA even stipulates the exact amount of the fine. It doesn't matter that Church didn't intent to hit Gronkowski helmet to helmet or that he didn't lead with the crown of the helmet, what matter is that Church's helmet hit Gronkowski's helmet while Gronkowski was clearly still a defenseless receiver.

Oh for god's sake- shut up about it already. This is football and stuff happens unintentionally when you have guys hitting each other and the rules in place don't account for that at all. That doesn't mean a guy has to be fined for it. If the NFL feels compelled to do something about it then they can give him a warning. As it is they completely overlooked other players who intentionally led with their helmets which makes this even more asinine. 

I didn't like the hit either because I never like to see a guy get hurt, but to penalize Church and not others is straight up wrong.

Nowhere in the world does a person get judged based on what they intended to do. If I go 40 in a 35 zone I get a ticket for doing so, it doesn't matter if I intended to keep to the speed limit. I have no doubt Church wanted to hit Gronkowski cleanly and fairly and without giving him a concussion but he didn't and he was punished in the exact manner the NFL and the players union agreed upon in the CBA.

BTW, everybody always talks about the NFL not caring about concussions or player safety but the second one of their own players makes a play that directly endangers another player all of a sudden it's somehow preposterous to think said player might be held accountable for it. People in this thread are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

(01-27-2018, 07:26 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2018, 03:59 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh for god's sake- shut up about it already. This is football and stuff happens unintentionally when you have guys hitting each other and the rules in place don't account for that at all. That doesn't mean a guy has to be fined for it. If the NFL feels compelled to do something about it then they can give him a warning. As it is they completely overlooked other players who intentionally led with their helmets which makes this even more asinine. 

I didn't like the hit either because I never like to see a guy get hurt, but to penalize Church and not others is straight up wrong.

Nowhere in the world does a person get judged based on what they intended to do. If I go 40 in a 35 zone I get a ticket for doing so, it doesn't matter if I intended to keep to the speed limit. I have no doubt Church wanted to hit Gronkowski cleanly and fairly and without giving him a concussion but he didn't and he was punished in the exact manner the NFL and the players union agreed upon in the CBA.

BTW, everybody always talks about the NFL not caring about concussions or player safety but the second one of their own players makes a play that directly endangers another player all of a sudden it's somehow preposterous to think said player might be held accountable for it. People in this thread are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

So what about in Association Football/Soccer.. where the outcome of red cards vs yellow card and retrospective bans are based on whether the incident is deemed to have malicious intent or not.

Sure, in these cases, at the time of the incident there may be a 'straight red card' but upon review post match and appeal, they are often rescinded if there is no intent.

There are instances where that does apply.

XFL here we come! Bwahahahahaahaha in all seriousness, the league and their penalties are so inconsistent, it's a joke.

(01-27-2018, 07:46 PM)DarloJAG84 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2018, 07:26 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]Nowhere in the world does a person get judged based on what they intended to do. If I go 40 in a 35 zone I get a ticket for doing so, it doesn't matter if I intended to keep to the speed limit. I have no doubt Church wanted to hit Gronkowski cleanly and fairly and without giving him a concussion but he didn't and he was punished in the exact manner the NFL and the players union agreed upon in the CBA.

BTW, everybody always talks about the NFL not caring about concussions or player safety but the second one of their own players makes a play that directly endangers another player all of a sudden it's somehow preposterous to think said player might be held accountable for it. People in this thread are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

So what about in Association Football/Soccer.. where the outcome of red cards vs yellow card and retrospective bans are based on whether the incident is deemed to have malicious intent or not.

Sure, in these cases, at the time of the incident there may be a 'straight red card' but upon review post match and appeal, they are often rescinded if there is no intent.

There are instances where that does apply.

Very well then, almost everywhere. But the point remains the same: the rules are written as to judge what actually happened, not what a player's intention was.

(01-27-2018, 08:59 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2018, 07:46 PM)DarloJAG84 Wrote: [ -> ]So what about in Association Football/Soccer.. where the outcome of red cards vs yellow card and retrospective bans are based on whether the incident is deemed to have malicious intent or not.

Sure, in these cases, at the time of the incident there may be a 'straight red card' but upon review post match and appeal, they are often rescinded if there is no intent.

There are instances where that does apply.

Very well then, almost everywhere. But the point remains the same: the rules are written as to judge what actually happened, not what a player's intention was.

Yes, the rules are written for that, that's not being disputed.

Personally, I don't think the rules should be quite so rigid. With the technology in place, they should be able to reflect on things retrospectively and punish accordingly, rather than saying "that's what happened, so let's slap a fine on them". That's my humble opinion.

Sucks, but it's not my money, so....

The point I'm trying to make is that there is clearly bias, yes rules are in place and fines are appropriate. So what about Bennett gator rolling Linder ? Cyprien on Lewis ? Ramsey being brought down from behind twice. I'm not mouthing off about penalties and fines, mouthing off about bias

It's amazing how many people don't understand the rule. Even if it was unintentional which I believe it was. I see thread after thread on this board that are clear proof of not knowing NFL rules