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at the time of the incident there may be a 'straight red card' but upon review post match and appeal, they are often rescinded if there is no intent.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

---