Ridley Fumble

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Ridley Fumble

    I just want to say I don't like what happened at all, I understand it's a mans game and all that bull *hit and the players should be able to crush each other skulls because that shows manliness but how can you let something as major as the AFC championship swing on a turnover like that, Ridley could have done nothing about that at all it's not like he chose to get knocked out. In a sport where turnovers are so crucial and in a game that was balanced on a knife edge it's a bad way to go down. I'm not saying it's why the team lost but it certainly took away and chance they had of coming back. If there can be a tuck rule there should be a rule that governs fumble by knockout. Maybe i'm way off the mark here but i'd like to hear what you guys think!  

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    Here's what I think,

    Players will just act knocked out after each fumble

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    What if it happened to Baltimore?  Would this have been brought up?  It was a good hit and it's football.  You hit the guy hard hoping he'll drop the ball.  Sadly, it happened to the Pats.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

    Here's what I think,

    Players will just act knocked out after each fumble



    Ahh very good point, that'd pretty much ruin the game . Still it'd be hard to fake it like Ridley it's been a while since i've seen a hit like that

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to garytx's comment:

    What if it happened to Baltimore?  Would this have been brought up?  It was a good hit and it's football.  You hit the guy hard hoping he'll drop the ball.  Sadly, it happened to the Pats.



    I'm just saying man they changed the overtime rules because going out on a field goal is a terrible way for a season to end and going out on a fumble like that is a pretty bad way for a season to end. Of course there were lots of other determinants in that loss but that fumble was major

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bingobilly. Show bingobilly's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    The rule that needs to be changed is helmet to helmet (which according to the rule, I believe) was an ok hit in the Ridley play.  However, the way I saw it was Ridley put his head in a slight downward slant and the Baltimore thug rammed is helmet into Ridley's helmet.  I think the Baltimore thugs got away with "murder" throughout the entire game to begin with...

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    I'm sorry but this is just a ridiculous thread.

    The hit on Ridley was legal. Injuries are part of the game. You hit the guy hard enough and he fumbles it. Sometimes he gets hurt, sometimes he doesn't.

     

    It was a game changing hit. It happens. You're saying a game changing can't happen because someone happens to get hurt on the play?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

    Here's what I think,

    Players will just act knocked out after each fumble




    I agree with this.

    If you make a change like that then you might as well make a change for all injuries that cause a fumbel.  Can't remember who it was but a receiver caught a pass, tore his ACL was in so much pain he dropped the ball and the defense got the ball.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to bingobilly's comment:

    The rule that needs to be changed is helmet to helmet (which according to the rule, I believe) was an ok hit in the Ridley play.  However, the way I saw it was Ridley put his head in a slight downward slant and the Baltimore thug rammed is helmet into Ridley's helmet.  I think the Baltimore thugs got away with "murder" throughout the entire game to begin with...

     



    Helmet to helmet is allowed on a running back or a player in control of the ball except the QB. They should probably just change that rule to no helmet to helmet ever, you still get loads of great tackles without having to strike the helmet. Either that or you have to take away the helmets. I watch alot of rugby union because i spent the first few years of my life in Ireland and those guys hammer each other with no pads or helmets this is the difference though between rugby and football. When you turn the ball over in Rugby you have a great chance of getting it back within the next minute where it's almost impossible to get it back in a minute in football

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to bingobilly's comment:

    The rule that needs to be changed is helmet to helmet (which according to the rule, I believe) was an ok hit in the Ridley play.  However, the way I saw it was Ridley put his head in a slight downward slant and the Baltimore thug rammed is helmet into Ridley's helmet.  I think the Baltimore thugs got away with "murder" throughout the entire game to begin with...

     



    How would you have tackled Ridley if you were Pollard? He was right in front of him, Ridley lowered his head and gave Pollard a much smaller tackling radius. Even if Pollard aims for his knees, there's a decent chance of they'll still go head to head on the way down. These type of collisions happen all the time with rbs. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    They do change rules all the time.  But I still say it's part of the game.  It's a contact sport and somebody's going to get hurt.  Especailly as big and fast as these guys are today.  

    It was a bad way to end the season for the Pats, not the Ravens.  It hurt us Pat fans but not Raven fans.  I just see it as part of the game.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

    I'm sorry but this is just a ridiculous thread.

    The hit on Ridley was legal. Injuries are part of the game. You hit the guy hard enough and he fumbles it. Sometimes he gets hurt, sometimes he doesn't.

     

    It was a game changing hit. It happens. You're saying a game changing can't happen because someone happens to get hurt on the play?



    Nah it's not even about the injury it's about the monumental nature of the occasion. A team gets together in late April and works their butts off all the way into January and the season is lost partly because someone's brain can't take the impact of the hit and is momentarily knocked, it's something the player can't control, or the coaches or anyone else so that's why i think it's not fair. I know it works both ways and it could have been unfair for them but i don't agree with that either. Too much is put on the line during an NFL season for it to be lost on a play like that

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to danemcmenamin's comment:

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

     

    I'm sorry but this is just a ridiculous thread.

    The hit on Ridley was legal. Injuries are part of the game. You hit the guy hard enough and he fumbles it. Sometimes he gets hurt, sometimes he doesn't.

     

    It was a game changing hit. It happens. You're saying a game changing can't happen because someone happens to get hurt on the play?

     



    Nah it's not even about the injury it's about the monumental nature of the occasion. A team gets together in late April and works their butts off all the way into January and the season is lost partly because someone's brain can't take the impact of the hit and is momentarily knocked, it's something the player can't control, or the coaches or anyone else so that's why i think it's not fair. I know it works both ways and it could have been unfair for them but i don't agree with that either. Too much is put on the line during an NFL season for it to be lost on a play like that

     



    Injuries happen for every team. Should they have postponed the game until Gronk returned 100% healthy? Should the Jets have gotten a free pass to the playoffs because Revis got hurt.

    I don't think the 2008 season should have been aborted because Tom Brady got knocked out for the season.

     

    This is why you have 53 players on a roster when only 11 play at a time on the field. Injuries are expected to happen. It's about weathering the storm and pulling through adversity. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

    In response to bingobilly's comment:

     

    The rule that needs to be changed is helmet to helmet (which according to the rule, I believe) was an ok hit in the Ridley play.  However, the way I saw it was Ridley put his head in a slight downward slant and the Baltimore thug rammed is helmet into Ridley's helmet.  I think the Baltimore thugs got away with "murder" throughout the entire game to begin with...

     

     



    How would you have tackled Ridley if you were Pollard? He was right in front of him, Ridley lowered his head and gave Pollard a much smaller tackling radius. Even if Pollard aims for his knees, there's a decent chance of they'll still go head to head on the way down. These type of collisions happen all the time with rbs. 

     



    I'd have tried to hit below the waist and above the knees and wrapped him up like a rugby player.  I think those guys do a much better job of tackling any way much more efficient but alot less violent which is why it'll probably never work in football. A broken tackle is so crucial in rugby it can lead to a score every time, so they don't tend to miss em

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

    In response to danemcmenamin's comment:

     

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

     

    I'm sorry but this is just a ridiculous thread.

    The hit on Ridley was legal. Injuries are part of the game. You hit the guy hard enough and he fumbles it. Sometimes he gets hurt, sometimes he doesn't.

     

    It was a game changing hit. It happens. You're saying a game changing can't happen because someone happens to get hurt on the play?

     



    Nah it's not even about the injury it's about the monumental nature of the occasion. A team gets together in late April and works their butts off all the way into January and the season is lost partly because someone's brain can't take the impact of the hit and is momentarily knocked, it's something the player can't control, or the coaches or anyone else so that's why i think it's not fair. I know it works both ways and it could have been unfair for them but i don't agree with that either. Too much is put on the line during an NFL season for it to be lost on a play like that

     

     



    Injuries happen for every team. Should they have postponed the game until Gronk returned 100% healthy? Should the Jets have gotten a free pass to the playoffs because Revis got hurt.

     

    I don't think the 2008 season should have been aborted because Tom Brady got knocked out for the season.

     

    This is why you have 53 players on a roster when only 11 play at a time on the field. Injuries are expected to happen. It's about weathering the storm and pulling through adversity. 



    Man I just said it's not about the injury, it's about the patriots season going down the drain on a play that couldn't have been helped a person can't control whether or not they get knocked out! I wouldn't have wanted it to happen to the Ravens either

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to danemcmenamin's comment:

    I just want to say I don't like what happened at all, I understand it's a mans game and all that bull *hit and the players should be able to crush each other skulls because that shows manliness but how can you let something as major as the AFC championship swing on a turnover like that, Ridley could have done nothing about that at all it's not like he chose to get knocked out. In a sport where turnovers are so crucial and in a game that was balanced on a knife edge it's a bad way to go down. I'm not saying it's why the team lost but it certainly took away and chance they had of coming back. If there can be a tuck rule there should be a rule that governs fumble by knockout. Maybe i'm way off the mark here but i'd like to hear what you guys think!  



    Put skirts on 'em all and treat them like QB's.

    We don't need more rules to "protect" players. I'm also very sure that if Rice had been hit s hard by Talib in teh first half, fumbled,a dn had to leave teh game, you'd feel 180 degrees different... more along the lines of "great play!", and "Didja see that hit by Talib?". Just be honest and don't deny it.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

    In response to danemcmenamin's comment:

     

    I just want to say I don't like what happened at all, I understand it's a mans game and all that bull *hit and the players should be able to crush each other skulls because that shows manliness but how can you let something as major as the AFC championship swing on a turnover like that, Ridley could have done nothing about that at all it's not like he chose to get knocked out. In a sport where turnovers are so crucial and in a game that was balanced on a knife edge it's a bad way to go down. I'm not saying it's why the team lost but it certainly took away and chance they had of coming back. If there can be a tuck rule there should be a rule that governs fumble by knockout. Maybe i'm way off the mark here but i'd like to hear what you guys think!  

     



    Put skirts on 'em all and treat them like QB's.

     

    We don't need more rules to "protect" players. I'm also very sure that if Rice had been hit s hard by Talib in teh first half, fumbled,a dn had to leave teh game, you'd feel 180 degrees different... more along the lines of "great play!", and "Didja see that hit by Talib?". Just be honest and don't deny it.



    Yeah I probably would have, it still doesn't mean it's right though i'm a biased fan. Name another instance in the NFL where you can fumble the ball by no fault of your own

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    the way he went to the ground almost seemed like he could have done damage to his spine...imo he is very lucky to have walked away from that with maybe only a concussion. even though concussions are no joke either.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to danemcmenamin's comment:


    Helmet to helmet is allowed on a running back or a player in control of the ball except the QB. They should probably just change that rule to no helmet to helmet ever, you still get loads of great tackles without having to strike the helmet. Either that or you have to take away the helmets.

     



    This!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    Just bring back the leather helmets!!

    Patriots Old School!

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    Just bring back the leather helmets!!

    Patriots Old School!




    nice job as always TFB

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    The Ravens were head hunting the whole game. Hernandez was the recipient of many head to head collisions. It is a brutal sport and the players know the risks but at some point you have to look at protecting them better.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jam757. Show jam757's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    you can't legislate all of the hits out of the game. Then we will have flag football and nobody will watch. That was a clean badass hit layed down by Pollard. Exactly the type of player we need to instill fear in receivers coming across the middle. Also, I'm still not sure it was a fumble and it he was called down on the field they definitely would not have overturned it. Does anyone remember when the player (can't remember who?) was knocked out against the Bills and was laying out of bounds and touched the ball so the play was ruled dead and the Bills couldn't recover the fumble.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: Ridley Fumble

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

    Here's what I think,

    Players will just act knocked out after each fumble




    First off I thought Ridely did a great job of hanging onto the ball after he was clearly knocked out! You can also tell he was knocked out by the splits he was doing, in the end he was unconcious and had control of the ball and was inches away from being down. I didn't blame him on that fumble for one second!

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share