Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 111
  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    9,260
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/p...g4K/story.html

    In upholding Smith-Schuster’s one-game suspension on Tuesday, Vincent said the NFL didn’t consider Smith-Schuster standing over Burfict and taunting him after the play.

    “Taunting was never considered, at least from our office,” Vincent said. “It was the act of hitting Vontaze Burfict in the head area. The talking was not considered. Are we sending a mixed message? We’ve been very consistent, fair, firm.”

    Vincent said the NFL will consider a “targeting rule” similar to the one in college football in which players could be automatically ejected for delivering hits to the head.
    So I guess they believe Smith-Schuster had intent to injure on that block = targeting. If so that would explain why his punishment was equal to what Gronkowski received.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    42,274
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    But Smith-Schuster didn't launch himself at Burfict!?

    The only source I found of Vincent saying that are some tweets and a rinky-dink Steelers fan site. Do you have the exact quote? The letter from Runyan to Smith-Schuster clearly stated that the "celebration" factored into the decision.

    PROCESSING

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    19,072
    His feet didn't completely leave the ground but it does look like he launched himself into him.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    9,260
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Launching implies he left the ground.
    Last edited by QB_Eagles; 12-07-2017 at 02:49 PM.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,498
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Yup.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,498
    I'm shocked that they didn't consider the taunting aspect of it.

    This is the exact hit that they're trying to get rid of in football though. It's a blindsided hit where the player launches himself at another player, leads with the crown of his helmet, and hits the the other player square in the facemask with the crown of his helmet.

    This absolutely should have been a suspension. Gronk should have been suspended longer, but there's no place for hits like this in football.
    Last edited by mgjohnson7851; 12-07-2017 at 03:30 PM.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    67,160
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    100% launching.

    You seem to be trying a weee bit too hard to defend JuJu now.

    Carson, trust me, even if you turn out to be a really bad QB, BDawk4Prez will always defend you on PSD.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bethlehem
    Posts
    36,328
    If launching is this:

    illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body. (This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered to be a defenseless player, as defined in Article 7.)
    https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules...seless-player/

    I don't think that was launching. I don't think he left his feet.

    He definitely positioned himself to spring forward and upward into Burfict but if it's only considering launching if he did that AND left his feet, I wouldn't consider it launching.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Blades View Post
    I don't consider Brand New indie. I consider them ****ing awesome and don't belong to a genre.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    42,274
    Quote Originally Posted by koldjerky View Post
    If launching is this:



    https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules...seless-player/

    I don't think that was launching. I don't think he left his feet.

    He definitely positioned himself to spring forward and upward into Burfict but if it's only considering launching if he did that AND left his feet, I wouldn't consider it launching.
    Exactly.

    PROCESSING

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    67,160
    Quote Originally Posted by koldjerky View Post
    If launching is this:



    https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules...seless-player/

    I don't think that was launching. I don't think he left his feet.

    He definitely positioned himself to spring forward and upward into Burfict but if it's only considering launching if he did that AND left his feet, I wouldn't consider it launching.
    Launching can happen without leaving both feet though.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    42,274
    Quote Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez View Post
    Launching can happen without leaving both feet though.
    Except the rule states leaving both feet from the ground.

    PROCESSING

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,498
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Except the rule states leaving both feet from the ground.
    Watch the hit and tell me that Juju's feet wouldn't have completely left the ground had there been even a foot more of separation between him and Burfict. The intent was clearly there. He had completed the motion of a launch. He just hit Burfict before his feet were clearly off the ground.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    42,274
    It also wasn’t a “crack back block” (aka Heinz Ward Rule) by the rulebook either. JuJu first made contact shoulder to chest. Burfict wasn’t looking that direction but that doesn’t make it a crack back block. The things that got JuJu was the helmet going to the chin, the speed at which it happened. Then there was taunting. The taunting is a different issue.

    But that actual hit, we’ve seen it a bunch without much more than a fine, and now they set a precedent that this is now the penalty for any hit to the head. So if it happens tonight they have put themselves to have to suspend and uphold a 1 game bad because of Troy Vincent’s statement.

    PROCESSING

  14. #104
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    9,260
    Quote Originally Posted by koldjerky View Post
    If launching is this:



    https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules...seless-player/

    I don't think that was launching. I don't think he left his feet.

    He definitely positioned himself to spring forward and upward into Burfict but if it's only considering launching if he did that AND left his feet, I wouldn't consider it launching.
    In the tweet I posted above, it looks pretty clear to me that he left his feet.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    9,260
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    It also wasn’t a “crack back block” (aka Heinz Ward Rule) by the rulebook either. JuJu first made contact shoulder to chest. Burfict wasn’t looking that direction but that doesn’t make it a crack back block. The things that got JuJu was the helmet going to the chin, the speed at which it happened. Then there was taunting. The taunting is a different issue.
    That rule is irrelevant in this situation. Burfict was a defenseless player according to this:

    A player who receives a “blindside” block when the path of the offensive blocker is toward or parallel to his own end line.
    Some people simply use blindside block or crackback block synonymously. They are pretty similar but distinct in the NFL rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    But that actual hit, we’ve seen it a bunch without much more than a fine, and now they set a precedent that this is now the penalty for any hit to the head. So if it happens tonight they have put themselves to have to suspend and uphold a 1 game bad because of Troy Vincent’s statement.
    As I said above, I assume that the issue is targeting. The intent to injure was pretty obvious.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •