Wilfork fined..again

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

    Wilfork fined..again

    [Quote]Heat - did you see a video of the Wilfork hit, if so where? According to reports I read, it was on the team video (not broadcast video).

    As for the hit on Brady, I still am amazed that you and other pats fans are still complaining about this and comparing it to other QB hits that received a fine.

    At the time of the hit, Brady still had the ball in his hands and helped the the acl tear by torquing the stationary leg with his follow through on the throw.[/Quote]

    ud, often you are pretty spot on with your posts and I appreciate them, but this theme has been entirely ridiculous.

    The entire event happened in less than 1 second - do you think that you would have stopped your throwing motion in that time or do you think that you would naturally, as an athlete who has trained at this position for x years, follow through. You should look again - The ball wasn't "in his hands" which implies he was still looking for an open receiver. He had already started his throw as he was being hit. It is just ridiculous to attempt to blame him for following through.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Wilfork fined..again

    Enoch -

    I agree There is absolutely no way Brady could have stopped.

    I will accept your comment and rephrase. Brady was in his motion. He had found his receiver. But the ball was in his hands at the time of the hit.

    I do not blame brady for his tear, but I am saying that the perfect storm of events contributed to it. Maybe it would have torn without his additional torque. I tore one of mine in a similar way to the way losman tore his. leg extended, foot planted, not moving, but hit in the right spot.

    so it is entirely plausible that Brady could have torn his ACL from the hit alone, but with his added torque (not his fault), he virtually guaranteed it.

    But again my point still stands. That hit is not fineable. You cannot fine a defensive player for attempting to tackle the QB while the QB has the ball in his hands.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Wilfork fined..again

    [Quote]Look at this Haynesworth hit on manning Monday night. Haynesworth ended up hitting manning below the knee after the ball was released. I have no knowledge that a fine was levied, and I don't hear anyone calling for one.

    Not only was the ball out of manning's hands, but Haynesworth was on his feet lunging for Manning's legs and not being taken down by a blocker.

    In Brady's case, the ball was still in Brady's hands at the time of the hit. The defender was coming from a ground position (does the rule state that one must be on his feet to hit a QB) due to being wrestled down by his blocker. Brady is fair game when the ball is in his hands.


    [/Quote]

    Don't start this again. Pollard wasn't "wrestled down" by his blocker. Pollard went low on Morris and ended up on the ground after which Morris can keep hitting him as he tries to get up. Also, anything below his knee is not fair game according to the so-called rules of the NFL.

    Now think about this - when Brady was hit, the NFL had "reviewed" the video and stated Sunday night - several hours after the game - that the hit was legal. Normally, they take a few days and review. Why did they come out so quickly with this ruling? With Wilfork, he is getting attention two weeks later (a full week after fines are issued for the previous week's games) and the NFL even states that there was no intent but that he is being fined for a "pattern of aggression". Last time I looked, pro football was played by very large men trying to get by very large men who are hitting them in order to tackle another large man who is running at them. What is Goodell thinking? Wilfork should just be assertive? "Uhh, guys, these two gaps are mine and I would appreciate you leaving them to me to stuff. Thanks." I doesn't work that way.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Wilfork fined..again

    [Quote][Quote]

    You can knock a QB out for the season with a low hit with no repercussions but a little tap to the head will get a $35K fine? I don't get it!

    And Wally - there are plenty of "thugs" as you define it who don't get penalized or fined...so shut UP!!!

    [/Quote]

    Three-time offender. So you can shut UP!!!

    Thugs who don't get penalized or fined? Oh, wake up bubba, time for smelling salts. Adam Jones, Michael Vick, Tank Johnson (suspended or out of football). How would you liked it if Joey Porter elbowed Tom Brady in the head? No big deal right, cuz its just a love tap.[/Quote]

    Geez Wally, you don't seem to understand that the three you mentioned - Jones, Vick and Johnson - were not suspended for anything they did on the field. It was their off field behaviour that got them in trouble.

    You are comparing Wilfork to these guys, but the comparison is just wrong. Compare Wilfork to a guy who gets fined for aggressive play like say Hines Ward. Based on your incorrect analogy, he is a thug too. He is actually just a football player playing within the rules until someone watches a video much later and decides he wasn't.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Wilfork fined..again

    [Quote][Quote]



    "MVP was right about you" waaa waaa...I don't applaud dirty hits by anybody but you guys are making excuses for your boys in the name of winning. I hate Philip Rivers but your boy Vrabel leg whipped him last year in the playoffs. You can deny it all you want but thats just dirty. Vrabel doesn't need to be doing that kind of crap. He's too good and too smart but by denying he does it (which I'm sure all you good Patsie fans will do) is turning a blind eye to the obvious.

    [/Quote]

    Wally, Does Anybody know of the leg whip other than You? Did ya get to prepare and send in a report to the Commissioner's Office yet?[/Quote]

    SG,

    There was a hit on Cutler by Vrabel with his leg. They replayed it several times. Subjective call on whether or not it was an intentional leg whip as the blocker, as the pivot, was spinning Vrabel as Vrabel was trying to get around him. It ended up that Vrabel's leg takes down Rivers.

    I did not hear of any fine after the game so I guess the league reviewed it and decided it was within the rules.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Wilfork fined..again

    Root,

    Look I can't argue with someone who thinks the NFL has an agenda against Pats.

    I have no problem with the play between pollard and morris. My point is that Pollard was down (not on his feet). His position was low, so his lunge was obviously going to be low.

    in the case of Losman, and Palmer, and the Manning photo above, all of the defenders were on their feet and lunged low. Additionally, in each case the ball had left the QB's hands, whereas that is not the case with Brady. I am not looking for a penalty on Haynesworth, and I don't think their should have been one on Pollard.

    Finally, yes the rule does state hits below the knee on a QB are illegal, but if I recall correctly the rule also includes the word flagrant, and I don't think you can assign that label to the pollard hit.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Wilfork fined..again

    [Quote]Enoch -

    I agree There is absolutely no way Brady could have stopped.

    I will accept your comment and rephrase. Brady was in his motion. He had found his receiver. But the ball was in his hands at the time of the hit.

    I do not blame brady for his tear, but I am saying that the perfect storm of events contributed to it. Maybe it would have torn without his additional torque. I tore one of mine in a similar way to the way losman tore his. leg extended, foot planted, not moving, but hit in the right spot.

    so it is entirely plausible that Brady could have torn his ACL from the hit alone, but with his added torque (not his fault), he virtually guaranteed it.

    But again my point still stands. That hit is not fineable. You cannot fine a defensive player for attempting to tackle the QB while the QB has the ball in his hands.[/Quote]

    Thanks, ud.

    I think the direct hit of Pollard's helmet to Brady;s knee easily hyper-extends the knee and damage occurs. Whether it all happened at that point or due to added pressure after, to me, doesn't really matter as it was part of the same play and no damage would have occurred without the initial hit.

    We do disagree in that the hit was legal. I thought it was on first review during the game, but after watching it a few days after - and again this morning - it is clear that Pollard is going for a hit below the knee. Pollard is down and Morris is on top of him. Moris can't stay on top of him or it is holding so Morris eases up. Pollard then throws himself at Brady on a low hit - there is no way one can think that he would ever be able to get above the knee from his angle and the proximity of Brady. So, he isn't being blocked as he tries to make the tackle - Morris is clearly moving off him - and he puts his helmet directly into Brady's knee. I am not sure if the NFL gave a rationale for saying it was legal - perhaps they thought Pollard was restricted to the QB.

    You should know though that the NFL can fine anyone for anything pretty much. If they wanted to, they could have said that Pollard's hit while legal deserved a fine for whatever reason. They fined Wilfork for a "pattern of aggression" which to me is just ridiculous. And they have fined Hines Ward several times this year for aggressive play.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Wilfork fined..again

    [Quote]Root,

    Look I can't argue with someone who thinks the NFL has an agenda against Pats.

    I have no problem with the play between pollard and morris. My point is that Pollard was down (not on his feet). His position was low, so his lunge was obviously going to be low.

    in the case of Losman, and Palmer, and the Manning photo above, all of the defenders were on their feet and lunged low. Additionally, in each case the ball had left the QB's hands, whereas that is not the case with Brady. I am not looking for a penalty on Haynesworth, and I don't think their should have been one on Pollard.

    Finally, yes the rule does state hits below the knee on a QB are illegal, but if I recall correctly the rule also includes the word flagrant, and I don't think you can assign that label to the pollard hit.[/Quote]

    ud,

    I actually don't think they have an agenda against the Pats. I can see though that it looks that way from my comments. I am just puzzled by some of the rulings they have come up with. It does seem that Goodell tends to target players and then feels the need to vindicate that. I can understand that people think Wilfork is dirty especially from the hits on Losman (not intentional, in my eyes) and the finger through the facemask against the Giants (intentional and stupid as Wilfork will tell you himself), but to fine him on a legal hit because he has a "pattern of aggression" is beyond me. Also, that Goodell seems to be targeting Hines Ward is crazy to me. If you want a receiver who is team oriented, will block anyone anywhere and has great hands, this is your guy. He exemplifies what you look for in a receiver and a player. The hits he has been fined for are incomprehensible.

    I don't see these guys as dirty players. I see them as football players. The fines are eroding football.

    The Haynesworth play above - I'd have to see in motion, but it doesn't look kosher on its face as he does look, as you said, like he is going low on purpose. For a guy who was suspended for stomping someone's head, I wonder why the league hasn't fined him for this. There just seems to be no real consisteny with these fines.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Wilfork fined..again

    Underdogg Haynsworth should have been fined for that hit, hitting the QB below the knee is not ok what so ever for anybody I dont restrict that to just Brady, Pollard should have been fined for what he did it was dirty and Haynsworth should have been fined as well its not like we sit here and say oh well its ok for one player to go low but not another. If Patriot made a cheap shot like that and ended Manning season I would be ashamed of that player.

    Wally the fact that you are even compearing Wilfork to Mike Vick just shows how retarded you are. Mike Vick broke the law and murdered inocent dogs for abosolutly no reason what so ever as he was alreay a multi millionare and Vince Wilfork is a big fat jolly black santa clause looking dude who has done some minor things on the field poking a guy in the face might be sh*tty but it was not a big deal hell even Jacobs came out and said it was nothing, the hit on JP can still be debated as a clean hit by some and Wilfork paid his fine and handled it with class and if he wanted to end Losmen season with the hit he could have but he didnt because he didnt mean to hit him low like that i mean if a monster like VW wants to hurt you he will hurt you. And as for this fine again he played a little too rough but its not like he went head to head with a guy or dived it his knees or stomped on someone head like Albert Haynsworht did a few years ago. Wilfork might be a "dirty" player but he is by no means a "thug" now if we find out that Wilfork gave money to teh communittee and also had a dog fighting ring then you can compear him to Vick but until that happens he is simply a somewhat dirty player. I would love to know what you think about player like Merrimen who take roids so that they can play at a high level or is that ok in your book?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from wally69. Show wally69's posts

    Wilfork fined..again

    [Quote][Quote]


    "MVP was right about you" waaa waaa...I don't applaud dirty hits by anybody but you guys are making excuses for your boys in the name of winning. I hate Philip Rivers but your boy Vrabel leg whipped him last year in the playoffs. You can deny it all you want but thats just dirty. Vrabel doesn't need to be doing that kind of crap. He's too good and too smart but by denying he does it (which I'm sure all you good Patsie fans will do) is turning a blind eye to the obvious.


    [/Quote]

    Wally, Does Anybody know of the leg whip other than You? Did ya get to prepare and send in a report to the Commissioner's Office yet?[/Quote]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bplFfY75co

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

    Wilfork fined..again

    [Quote]

    Thanks, ud.

    I think the direct hit of Pollard's helmet to Brady;s knee easily hyper-extends the knee and damage occurs. Whether it all happened at that point or due to added pressure after, to me, doesn't really matter as it was part of the same play and no damage would have occurred without the initial hit.

    We do disagree in that the hit was legal. I thought it was on first review during the game, but after watching it a few days after - and again this morning - it is clear that Pollard is going for a hit below the knee. Pollard is down and Morris is on top of him. Moris can't stay on top of him or it is holding so Morris eases up. Pollard then throws himself at Brady on a low hit - there is no way one can think that he would ever be able to get above the knee from his angle and the proximity of Brady. So, he isn't being blocked as he tries to make the tackle - Morris is clearly moving off him - and he puts his helmet directly into Brady's knee. I am not sure if the NFL gave a rationale for saying it was legal - perhaps they thought Pollard was restricted to the QB.

    You should know though that the NFL can fine anyone for anything pretty much. If they wanted to, they could have said that Pollard's hit while legal deserved a fine for whatever reason. They fined Wilfork for a "pattern of aggression" which to me is just ridiculous. And they have fined Hines Ward several times this year for aggressive play.[/Quote]

    Root,

    I am willing to accept that there is language on the books about hitting qb's below the knee. But again I point to the concept of flagrancy in that language. Additionally, in the Brady situation, I would ask what is a defensive player who is on the ground to do in order to be "allowed" to tackle the QB who has the ball in his hands.

    Does he crawl like GI Joe or does he crawl on his knee like a baby?

    Is he required to stand first before approaching the QB, and if so, what about those who are responsible for blocking him. Once they ground the defender in the proximity of the QB must they let him up to give the defender a chance to stand and resume attacking the QB?

    Or should it be like freeze tag with kids. Once on the ground the defender may not move unless touched again by his own player?

    You cannot purely judge based on the letter of the law. Interpretation must be allowed. Could the wording be amended? Sure, but to what purpose? to lengthen the rule book?

    I am going to tell you that the key differences between the 3 QB hits discussed here, Manning, Losman and Palmer and the hit on Brady are that:

    1. the ball was out of the other 3 qb's hands while it was still in Brady's.
    2. the other 3 qb's were stationary while both Brady and pollard were moving towards each other
    3. the defenders who hit the 3 other QB's were approaching from a standing position as opposed to being on the ground.

    Now, I don't think that Haynesworth should have been penalized. I am just pointing out that it just happened to Manning and I see no one complaining about it.

    In the order of flagrancy, however, I'd rank as follows:

    1. Losman hit. Wilfork's extended elbow and the ball gone for as long as it was is just not kosher

    2. Palmer hit. The ball was out quite a long time, yet I think the offensive lineman pushed the defender into Palmer more than Wilfork was pushed into Losman

    3. Manning hit. Ball was out of manning's hands, but only by a split second. There is no way a defender could have stopped himself. That said, Haynesworth was untouched to Manning and dove at him. (Frankly, maybe this should be #1.

    4. Brady hit. QB still had ball in hand. Both moved into each other. If brady had not moved its likely the defender's helmet would not have reached Brady. Generally, the fines have been levied for hits that were late. You can't call a hit late when the ball is live and still in the QB's hands.

     

Share