(01-27-2018, 11:07 PM)Patriot71 Wrote: [ -> ]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
You're sad...leave.
The NFL is making up for it's viewership going through the floor. Half of America is done with the NFL, especially after another game handed to the Pats. Half the football fans I know are not watching the Super Bowl this year.
It’s isnt as clear-cut as some people here have said. The rules clearly state that incidental contact is legal as long as it’s a conventional tackle. It looks like he’s leading with his shoulder and (to me) looks to make contact with his shoulder just before the helmet.
Can the refs see that? Probably not. I don’t agree with the penalty but can see why they threw the flag. It doesn’t mean it’s the right call.
The NFL fined Suh for the push against Cutler, so it isn’t like they haven’t fined for legal hits before.
(01-28-2018, 12:37 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]It’s isnt as clear-cut as some people here have said. The rules clearly state that incidental contact is legal as long as it’s a conventional tackle. It looks like he’s leading with his shoulder and (to me) looks to make contact with his shoulder just before the helmet.
Can the refs see that? Probably not. I don’t agree with the penalty but can see why they threw the flag. It doesn’t mean it’s the right call.
The NFL fined Suh for the push against Cutler, so it isn’t like they haven’t fined for legal hits before.
This is kinda the point I'm making, albeit terribly (blame the night shifts).
In essence, it would appear as though the fined has to be carried out in line with the call made on the field at the time of the incident. Obviously the speed of the game plays an enormous part in this. It APPEARS as though they cannot deviate from that even following retrospective study of the tapes.
(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.
You’ve been one of my favorite posters for years DragonFury, goin back to your Calvin & Hobbes avatar days, but I gotta disagree with the “nowhere in the world are people judged by intent” statement.
I understand what you mean contextually within the rules/parameters of a football game, but to attach such a blanket statement to it is off base.
The differences between manslaughter/involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter/murder, 2nd degree murder/1st degree murder, reflect the fact that intent is, at least somewhere in the world, very definitively and seriously taken into account when judging harmful action.
(01-29-2018, 05:25 AM)RedRooster28 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.
You’ve been one of my favorite posters for years DragonFury, goin back to your Calvin & Hobbes avatar days, but I gotta disagree with the “nowhere in the world are people judged by intent” statement.
I understand what you mean contextually within the rules/parameters of a football game, but to attach such a blanket statement to it is off base.
The differences between manslaughter/involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter/murder, 2nd degree murder/1st degree murder, reflect the fact that intent is, at least somewhere in the world, very definitively and seriously taken into account when judging harmful action.
Actually, intent is exactly what constitutes a "hate" crime. And if they thought Church intended to earhole Gronk then they would've suspended him in addition to the fine.