Results 169 to 180 of 224
Thread: Ed Reed suspended 1 game
-
11-20-2012, 10:57 AM #169Pro Bowl Poster
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Posts
- 1,541
-
11-20-2012, 10:58 AM #170Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
They don't dish out these suspensions on intent, nor would I want any referee trying to read into a players mind, trying to figure out if something was malicious or not.
I dont like the way the game has started to coddle the QB's as much as the next guy, but he has been the rule now for quite sometime. Ed should have known better, IMO.
-
11-20-2012, 11:00 AM #171Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Posts
- 4,464
Re: Ed Reed suspended 1 game
I have no problem with players getting flagged when they hit the QB up high (in the head). I do have a problem with the league assuming ALL such hits are deserving of suspension. I am not asking the officials to read a players intent. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the league to make a distinction.
-
Re: Ed Reed suspended 1 game
After seeing the replay it wasnt exactly what i remembered it being, but ill still defend him as he didnt appear to intentionally go high as much as Sanders reacted and ducked his head into his (which would make him a runner and not a defenseless receiver, btw). Id somewhat agree with Festivus that its the way it is and players have to play within in the rules, but i think theres a gray area when youre not holding the WR accountable at all. Sanders doesnt lower his head, Reed hits him right in the lower chest/stomach area for a text book tackle. If hes lowering his head and shoulder thats a "football move" and should declare him a runner (who arent protected by that rule). As Sanders lowered his head, Reed tried to go lower but failed to do so. Technically you have to say its helmet to helmet. however, in the spirit of the game, safety, and the intent to remove players from intentionally going high, I dont think its what they really want to go after. Suspending Harrison for having "multiple penalties" was the biggest coup the NFL could have done because every year youre going to have a good many players suspended for accidental hits now. Id be really surprised if they overturned it.
-JAB
-
11-20-2012, 11:09 AM #173Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Yeah, I am not sure how you go about judging intent. The process is far too subjective in the first place then add another layer of subjectivity to the equation and it will devolve into a hodgepodge of differing fines / suspensions that will give the appearance of favoritism.
Especially considering we are talking about a rule that's rather cut and dry. No helmet to helmet to contact is rather clear and hundreds of others players seem to have no issue complying. Hell, Ray was called out a few years ago for his hit on Dustin Keller. The league used it as an example of a perfect tackle / hit.
Another issue I can see coming out of this would be was there indeed a progressive punishment scale in place and the players did not know about it. That may have CBA implications that go far beyond Reed and his hit.
-
11-20-2012, 11:11 AM #174Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Posts
- 4,464
Re: Ed Reed suspended 1 game
Reeds suspension was the same penalty as these three hits. I'll let you decide if they are equivalent. Note that all 3 of the players that Reed hit got right back up. Not so much with Harrison's hits:
Harrison's hit on Massaquoi: http://youtu.be/oRWZ5l0nzXo
Harrison's hit on Cribbs: http://youtu.be/9r5wcE377X4
Harrison's hit on McCoy: http://youtu.be/kRhu54hPna0
-
11-20-2012, 11:15 AM #175Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Again, you're applying intent or "popping back up" when those are not the standards of the rule.
The rule doesn't care if someone was injured because of the hit. The rule is against the hit itself. The after effects of the hit don't apply into the equation.
-
11-20-2012, 11:16 AM #176Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: Ed Reed suspended 1 game
The rule doesn't even limit the foul to helmet-to-helmet or even anything-to-helmet. Before 2011 they lowered the prohibited window to the "neck area" which has been interpreted fairly conisistently as the upper sternum/collarbone type of height. There have been several fouls where a defender literally did not touch one atom of the player's helmet (all very upper chest) and still got called. And again, this is the case even if you use your shoulder (and none of your helmet touches the "defenseless player").
The rule has basically become one where you have to hit the guy with your shoulder in his midsection (middle of numbers to waist). Essentially your goal has to be to have your hit fold the guy in half at the waist. If it is too high to fold him in half (double him over), but instead causes him to have his feet fly forward out from under him, you run the risk of the ref throwing the flag.Last edited by Haloti92; 11-20-2012 at 11:21 AM.
-
11-20-2012, 11:18 AM #177Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 8,743
-
11-20-2012, 11:22 AM #178Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Posts
- 4,464
Re: Ed Reed suspended 1 game
I understand that.
I am only pointing out that both Reed and Harrison were penalized exactly the same.
If the intent of the suspension rule is to protect players from injury, it doesn't make sense. Suspend Reed for a game, fine. Then Harrison should have been suspended for (much) more than 1 game.
If the intent of the suspension rule - if as you as you seem to be stating - is to prevent (or penalize) helmet-to-helmet contact, of ALL kinds, then the league needs to have someone working full-time looking at all the games and tracking the 75% of helmet-to-helmet contact that is not called, and suspending those players accordingly.
-
11-20-2012, 11:26 AM #179
Re: Ed Reed suspended 1 game
Even Ryan Clark is on Ed's side...
Link
-
11-20-2012, 11:27 AM #180
Re: Ed Reed suspended 1 game
There were two memos that were distributed to players at the beginning of the season. One was a fine schedule that only included fines for 2 offenses, but did say that players who received fines going back to 2010 would be treated as repeat offenders. The other said that 3rd offenses and egregious hits could be fined more or could result in suspensions.
Not saying I agree with it, but the NFLPA could have objected at that time, and didn't. The NFLPA is really in a tough spot on this issue and basically ceded authority on player safety to the league in the last CBA negotiations.Last edited by B-more Ravor; 11-20-2012 at 12:21 PM.
Bookmarks