Dirty hits by Clark and Nakamura

[t.j 35]

No, what Simms was talking about was that there were specific rules pertaining to helmet to helmet contact with a QB or defenseless WR. What's special about those rules is that they deal with the helmet of the player that is getting hit. But Simms' explanation is inadequate because he ignores the fact that there are other rules which deal with player that doing the hitting spearing or using the crown of his helmet, which are not specific to QBs or defenseless WRs.

 

From the same link above, here's a listed penalty that I missed earlier:

Summary of Penalties

15 yards

A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent.

 

Doesn't mention on the ground. Clark certainly speared/rammed his opponent.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

No, what Simms was talking about was that there were specific rules pertaining to helmet to helmet contact with a QB or defenseless WR. What's special about those rules is that they deal with the helmet of the player that is getting hit. But Simms' explanation is inadequate because he ignores the fact that there are other rules which deal with player that doing the hitting spearing or using the crown of his helmet, which are not specific to QBs or defenseless WRs.

 

From the same link above, here's a listed penalty that I missed earlier:

Doesn't mention on the ground. Clark certainly speared/rammed his opponent.

 

If you look back to last year, Mike Pereira, who is the head of NFL officials stated that they were to a new "point of emphasis" on helmet to helmet contact. At that time, he stated that QB's and defenseless WR's would be covered under that rule as the hits are "unnecessary".

 

Remember, the rules as written only cover a certain portion. The Competition Committee works with the officials to either change the rules or, if the rule is already in place, they choose how to enforce that rule.

[GettnHuge 1]

Sure they lower their head, because that is what they are trained to do. What else are they supposed to do? Stand straight up and open themselves up for a huge hit and possible injury. I find it hilarious that you homers will continue to put blame on McGahee when he was the one that was taking the hit. It is pretty obvious which player was trying to make a big hit... like I said if you watched the replay without the homer shades on you would probably see that differently and not be so ridiculously defensive.

 

Once again, I never said that the hit was illegal, just said that it probably should be. All the rules are becoming so technical and I am not sure how that is helping anyone.

 

Haven't made it to the 2nd/3rd pages yet but gotta stop here...

 

what they are 'trained to do' is to "see what you hit", which means not putting your head down because someone will get paralyzed.

 

NFL Digest of Rules

15 yards

 

13. A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent.

 

14. Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.

 

Spearing - tackling or otherwise contacting an opponent with one's helmet. (This technique is illegal because of the risk of neck injuries to the tackler.) Referee signal: arm extended, bent at the elbow, touching the side of his head with a closed fist.

 

 

before this season, the NFL advised officials to get tougher on these hits and told them to EJECT players committing the most

flagrant of these hits.

---->

Posted 9 months ago

NFL telling officials to eject players for helmet-to-helmet hits

Associated Press

 

NEW YORK -- The NFL has told its officiating crews to start ejecting players for flagrant helmet-to-helmet hits.

 

 

 

intentional or not doesn't matter, but he left his feet, put his helmet down, and hit the offensive player in the facemask with it.

Should be 15yds, fine, and either an ejection or 1 game suspension.

[buffalobillsffl2003 0]

Too bad McGahee didn't die on that play...great legal hit.

 

[Snuff 10]

I saw Clark go in with his shoulder, at the time Willis was looking ahead, then he saw Clark, lowered his head, and happened to hit Clark's helmet which Clark was in the position to tackle Willis correctly with his shoulder. Not Clark's fault Willis lowered his head at that time. Also, things in the NFL go a little faster than when you idiots watch it in slow motion and pause it at every 1/10th of a second.

Not a dirty hit. Brutal, but not dirty. Anyone who says otherwise is a troll, doesn't understand the rules, or never played a down in their life and does not understand the speed of the game, which is obviously even faster in the pros.

[t.j 35]

If you look back to last year, Mike Pereira, who is the head of NFL officials stated that they were to a new "point of emphasis" on helmet to helmet contact. At that time, he stated that QB's and defenseless WR's would be covered under that rule as the hits are "unnecessary".

 

I don't give a rat's ass about the points of emphasis. When the league does points of emphasis, it only means they've been doing a bad job in the past of enforcing the rules that are already there. That doesn't mean that other things that don't fall under the umbrella of points of emphasis are not illegal.

ETA: And as GettnHuge pointed out, the point of emphasis had to do with ejections.

 

Remember, the rules as written only cover a certain portion.

 

You're wrong. That's true if you're talking about the two irrelevant rules that Simms mentioned, but it's not true if you consider the other, relevant rules, as I pointed out in my previous post.

[Dan 59]

You're wrong that he led the hit with his shoulder pads. Pause the video at 53 seconds, as close as you can before the hit. First contact is clealy between the crown of Clark's helmet, and McGahee's earhole. (http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t193/similar222/Clark_McGahee.png) The fact that shoulder-to-shoulder contact followed is entirely irrelevant, the damage had already been done.

 

Not all hits involving two helmets are the same. Contact with the defensive player's facemask is taught and acceptable. Contact with the crown of the helmet where the player launches himself is the big thing I have a problem with. People can complain about other types of hits if they like. This is the type of hit though that I think is particularly dangerous.

 

McGahee did lower his head, in an defensive and reactionary way. He caught the ball, looked at #57, turned, saw Clark, and reacted out of surprise. Don't watch it on slow-mo only, it happened very fast. He certainly was not trained to scrunch up like that. You're supposed to keep your neck straight or bent slightly back, the neck is most vulnerable when bent forward. Clark had the full force of his body going through his spine culminating with the crown of his helmet. That's why it's called spearing, because the body and head are in a straight line and moving straight ahead like a spear. McGahee's head was just out there with no momentum behind it. If he had not made this reactionary adjustment with his head, he might have been better off, but he still probably would have taken the crown of Clark's helmet on the chin, which is also very dangerous.

 

Do I think Clark intended to take McGahee out of the game? Certainly not. I believe 99% of players out there, including Clark probably, don't want to see anyone hurt. But as long as officials do not throw flags on these types of plays, and occassional fines are the only repercussion, players will continue to use the crown of the crown of their helmet as a weapon without regard for the safety of the opponent. You can call it an "accident" if you like, but it's a serious one that happens too often because players don't have enough incentive to make an effort to avoid it.

 

Really struggling with how you're getting the crown of Ryan Clark's helmet on Willis McGahee's. Struggling because it doesn't happen. You really sound determined to hang onto your interpretation, despite the fact that he CLEARLY turns himself befor contact. Debating it makes you look belligerent. Clark spins in continuity with the angle he had set himself at.

 

No one ever denied that their helmets collided. But to call it dirty seems to state that the intention was to use the helmet to clobber McGahee. Clearly that is not the intention.

[t.j 35]

Not Clark's fault Willis lowered his head at that time.

 

It is Clark's fault that he speared with the top of his own helmet. If he would make an effort to tackle legally, this kind of thing could be avoided.

[Durtee 0]

I saw Clark go in with his shoulder, at the time Willis was looking ahead, then he saw Clark, lowered his head, and happened to hit Clark's helmet which Clark was in the position to tackle Willis correctly with his shoulder. Not Clark's fault Willis lowered his head at that time. Also, things in the NFL go a little faster than when you idiots watch it in slow motion and pause it at every 1/10th of a second.

Not a dirty hit. Brutal, but not dirty. Anyone who says otherwise is a troll, doesn't understand the rules, or never played a down in their life and does not understand the speed of the game, which is obviously even faster in the pros.

 

And yet another homer chimes in... hey superstar read GettnHuge post, the one that explains the rules. Honestly I am not sure how anyone is making a case that McGahee lowered his head and that is why it was helmet to helmet. You can watch it live or in slow motion and it is completely obvious that regardless of McGahee lowering his head or not, it was going to be helmet to helmet.

[Dan 59]

And yet another homer chimes in... hey superstar read GettnHuge post, the one that explains the rules. Honestly I am not sure how anyone is making a case that McGahee lowered his head and that is why it was helmet to helmet. You can watch it live or in slow motion and it is completely obvious that regardless of McGahee lowering his head or not, it was going to be helmet to helmet.

 

I'm sorry, but you calling anyone "homer" is hypocrisy. I know, you didn't have a dog in the fight, but you have made it extremely clear how you feel about Pittsburgh. So you're not a fan, you're an "anti-fan", and I guarantee your perspective has been just as biased as the average Steeler fan. I think you should take a closer look at yourself. It's much cooler when we can discuss what happened, instead of trying to position oneself as having a better viewpoint based on your ideals.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I don't give a rat's ass about the points of emphasis. When the league does points of emphasis, it only means they've been doing a bad job in the past of enforcing the rules that are already there. That doesn't mean that other things that don't fall under the umbrella of points of emphasis are not illegal.

ETA: And as GettnHuge pointed out, the point of emphasis had to do with ejections.

You're wrong. That's true if you're talking about the two irrelevant rules that Simms mentioned, but it's not true if you consider the other, relevant rules, as I pointed out in my previous post.

 

GettnHuge skipped some key parts in his post. I will fill in those gaps for you.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3103608

 

Updated: November 11, 2007, 8:13 AM ET

NFL reminds officials to begin ejecting players for helmet-to-helmet hitsComment Email Print ESPN.com news services

 

NEW YORK -- The NFL reminded its officiating crews Saturday that they can eject players for flagrant helmet-to-helmet hits.

 

NFL supervisor of officials Mike Pereira sent out a memo on the subject, which was obtained by The Associated Press. It followed two fines last weekend for what the officiating department had determined were hits against players in defenseless positions.

 

One fine was against Washington Redskins safety LaRon Landry, who will forfeit a game check of $16,764 for a helmet-to-helmet hit on New York Jets quarterback Kellen Clemens. The other was against Philadelphia defensive tackle LaJuan Ramsey, who was fined his game check of $21,176 for spearing Dallas' Julius Jones.

 

Two weeks ago, San Diego cornerback Drayton Florence was fined $15,000 for a helmet-to-helmet hit that gave Houston quarterback Matt Schaub a concussion.

 

"Officials will be reminded this week to pay strict attention to these rules and disqualify the fouling player if the action is judged to be flagrant," Pereira wrote in the memo sent to the 32 NFL teams. "Actions that involve flagrant helmet to helmet contact are the likely acts that will include disqualification. Our commissioner and this office remain very focused on the safety of our players."

 

In the memo fining Landry and Ramsey, NFL director of football operations Gene Washington said emphasis would be on hits against players in defenseless positions.

 

Please note the bolded parts. Two QB's were hit and one RB while he was down on the ground and was speared.

 

ETA: I can't believe that I am agreeing with a Steelers fan.

[Dan 59]

It is Clark's fault that he speared with the top of his own helmet. If he would make an effort to tackle legally, this kind of thing could be avoided.

 

You're grasping, because he DIDN'T hit with the top of his helmet. And that seems to be the empirical point of difference here, and the video clearly shows him turning before the hit.

[Snuff 10]

And yet another homer chimes in... hey superstar read GettnHuge post, the one that explains the rules. Honestly I am not sure how anyone is making a case that McGahee lowered his head and that is why it was helmet to helmet. You can watch it live or in slow motion and it is completely obvious that regardless of McGahee lowering his head or not, it was going to be helmet to helmet.

 

Aw, name calling, how cute. I am arguing with yet another high school kid. Wonderful. Now I remember why I left this site.

Why would I read someone else's post, I know what the rules are, and I understand the speed of the game. 2 things you apparently do not.

I clearly saw Willis lower his head. How you didn't is beyond me. It's quite clear.

And when a defensive back is charging to make a tackle, helmets are going to hit. That's football. If he ran up and broke down to make the tackle, helmets would hit. Deal with it.

[PackYourNut 47]

Legal hit... Why are there so many pansies these days?

[t.j 35]

Really struggling with how you're getting the crown of Ryan Clark's helmet on Willis McGahee's. Struggling because it doesn't happen. You really sound determined to hang onto your interpretation, despite the fact that he CLEARLY turns himself befor contact. Debating it makes you look belligerent. Clark spins in continuity with the angle he had set himself at.

 

You are so full of it.

Clark's body turns when his shoulder makes contact, not at the initial helmet contact. To deny that Clark initiated contact with the crown of his helmet is foolishness.

 

No one ever denied that their helmets collided.

 

Skinny_Bastard said, wrongly, "Clark lead the hit with his shoulder pats."

That is what I was responding to.

 

But to call it dirty seems to state that the intention was to use the helmet to clobber McGahee. Clearly that is not the intention.

 

Your interpretation of my usage of the word "dirty" is incorrect. It's dirty because speared (led with the crown of his helmet with his body in a straight line behind his helmet), not because of intent to hit McGahee's helmet.

[Durtee 0]

Aw, name calling, how cute. I am arguing with yet another high school kid. Wonderful. Now I remember why I left this site.

Why would I read someone else's post, I know what the rules are, and I understand the speed of the game. 2 things you apparently do not.

I clearly saw Willis lower his head. How you didn't is beyond me. It's quite clear.

And when a defensive back is charging to make a tackle, helmets are going to hit. That's football. If he ran up and broke down to make the tackle, helmets would hit. Deal with it.

 

1st of all, nobody called you a name. You made it clear that if anyone does not agree with you, then they must know nothing or never played a down in there life. Since you know everything and are apparently a "superstar", then I thought it would be appropriate to read the post that you somehow overlooked. Where did I say that McGahee did not lower his head? I just want to know how the hit would have not been helmet to helmet either way. BTW- way to be an adult and name call yourself...

[Dan 59]

t.j. -

 

I think I'll dismiss part of the last comment, because I have no intention to deceive myself, or anyone else, in this. I think you know that, but if it helps your argument to suggest that I'm "full of it," then so be it.

 

The video that you keep referencing clearly shows that he turned before contact. It also shows that McGahee dips his head before contact. You're so very quick to point out that "intent doesn't matter" in reference to Clark's hit, and suggesting that McGahee is an innocent victim here because his intention was to protect, not plow. Sorry I'm missing this, but that seems like a marked double standard.

 

In my mind, intention is the very core of this argument. If Clark was intending to spear, or use his helmet as a weapon, he should be penalized and fined. However, I don't think you can conclusively state that, except to suggest that no one else can see the video correctly except you and Durtee, who somehow have the crown hitting McGahee's helmet, and thus causing the turn. Never mind that this is physically impossible. Keep doggedly holding onto that concept, because it's all you have left to support your argument.

[Snuff 10]

1st of all, nobody called you a name. You made it clear that if anyone does not agree with you, then they must know nothing or never played a down in there life. Since you know everything and are apparently a "superstar", then I thought it would be appropriate to read the post that you somehow overlooked. Where did I say that McGahee did not lower his head? I just want to know how the hit would have not been helmet to helmet either way. BTW- way to be an adult and name call yourself...

 

No name calling, correct. It's not like we can scroll up and see for ourselves. I am sure you meant homer and superstar in the most rightousness of ways.

You aren't gonna change my mind about the hit, and I am not gonna change yours. But I will say, when the overwhelming majority of people on these boards, on other football boards, in the media, on sports shows, the referees, the coaches, the players, etc...say it wasn't a dirty hit, I would bet that it wasn't.

[Durtee 0]

I'm sorry, but you calling anyone "homer" is hypocrisy. I know, you didn't have a dog in the fight, but you have made it extremely clear how you feel about Pittsburgh. So you're not a fan, you're an "anti-fan", and I guarantee your perspective has been just as biased as the average Steeler fan. I think you should take a closer look at yourself. It's much cooler when we can discuss what happened, instead of trying to position oneself as having a better viewpoint based on your ideals.

 

How am I positioning myself for anything? So because my opinion is the opposite of Steeler fans, I must have some sort of hidden agenda? Get of it homers... I still have not said anything about the hit being illegal or intentionally dirty or would have changed the outcome of the game.... AGAIN all that I said was that the hit was unnecessary and probably should be a penalty.

[TD Ryan2 314]

Watch the replay again.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1ssVchGUm0

 

at the 0:06 second mark, Clark has left his feet, lead with his shoulder and head (impossible to tell which is first), and hit McGahee high. McGahee is pretty straight up and appears to be recoiling a bit from the impending impact.

here's a screen capture (it is tough to stop youtube at the exact frame):

The Hit at 0:06

 

is that a legal hit? who knows.

As posted earlier, the NFL has so over-complicated the rules and the game, that it's hard to tell anymore.

[Dan 59]

I am with TJ on this one. I realize that it was not an illegal hit due to the technicality of the rule, but it sure looked dirty. Even on the replay you can see the helmets hit each other. The part that I find amusing is that they call it a catch and fumble, but yet Santonio's catch and dive into the end zone was an incomplete pass. Bottom line is the NFL has gotten way too technical with their calls/ non calls.

 

How are you not calling it dirty? Oh, right. I guess "technically" you didn't, but we're debating semantics, aren't we?

 

And I hold to my suggestion, since you've written off a few arguments now with suggesting that there is the "homer view" and the "unbiased view."

 

I don't think you have a hidden agenda, but like anyone in an argument, you want to be right. I just think that you're falling onto some questionable tactics. I am a Steelers' fan. I won't deny it. I know that others will look at my view as tainted because of that, and I'll accept that, and any argument that I come up with is going to more deliberately go back to what we know empirically. You ride the idea of having no bias, which is disingenuous, and present your ideas as though you don't have to support or prove your point. And every time you fall back on calling some of us homers, as you just did to me again, you do the same thing, and reinforce my point. That's all I'm saying.

[GettnHuge 1]

And yet another homer chimes in... hey superstar read GettnHuge post, the one that explains the rules. Honestly I am not sure how anyone is making a case that McGahee lowered his head and that is why it was helmet to helmet. You can watch it live or in slow motion and it is completely obvious that regardless of McGahee lowering his head or not, it was going to be helmet to helmet.

 

funny how the homers seem to think just saying 'it was legal' is good enough and aren't posting the actual rule about it.

Oh well, there are plenty of statements by the league to use...

 

The NFL prohibits "using any part of a player's helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) or facemask to butt, spear or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily."

 

remember this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz9eZM_FcoQ...feature=related

 

People said the same thing about it, wasn't intentional, boldin was coming down, etc.

 

Helmet-to-helmet collisions hurt NFL players - even if just in the wallet

October 31, 2008 - 11:25 AM

 

CHARLOTTE - NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has spent a good part of the year trying to educate his players about the dangers of helmet-to-helmet collisions.

 

Even if it means hitting them where it counts - in the wallet.

 

This year, the cost of the fines associated with illegal helmet-to-helmet hits handed out by the NFL has increased dramatically, generally ranging from $10,000 to $50,000, depending on the severity of the hit and the player's past history of helmet-to-helmet hits.

 

The stiffest punishment handed out this season went to New York Jets safety Eric Smith, who was fined $50,000 and suspended without pay for one game for his helmet-to-helmet hit on Arizona receiver Anquan Boldin.

 

Julius Peppers of the Carolina Panthers was fined $10,000 earlier this year for his hit on Atlanta quarterback Matt Ryan, even though Peppers barely grazed Ryan's helmet with his on a quarterback pressure.

 

It hardly mattered that Peppers' had no intention of hurting Ryan. Intent doesn't matter. All players are held liable for their actions regardless of whether there is intent, according to the rules.

 

Earlier this year, Goodell laid down the law, instructing all NFL team executives, coaches and general managers to read or distribute a memo from him to every player on their team.

 

Goodell wrote in the memo: "Player safety on the field is important to all of us in the NFL. Football is a tough game and we need to do everything possible to protect all players - offense, defense, and special teams - from unnecessary injury caused by illegal and dangerous hits. From this point forward, you should be clear on the following point: Any conduct that unnecessarily risks the safety of other players has no role in the game of football and will be disciplined at increased levels, including on a first offense. Playing by the rules shows respect for your fellow players. No one wants to see unnecessary injuries."

 

 

 

and my fav part which blows up a lot of these 'defenseless player' arguments

 

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8(g) of the NFL Official Playing Rules: "(The league prohibits)... using any part of a player's helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/'hairline' parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protect those players who are in virtually defenseless postures."

[Durtee 0]

No name calling, correct. It's not like we can scroll up and see for ourselves. I am sure you meant homer and superstar in the most rightousness of ways.

You aren't gonna change my mind about the hit, and I am not gonna change yours. But I will say, when the overwhelming majority of people on these boards, on other football boards, in the media, on sports shows, the referees, the coaches, the players, etc...say it wasn't a dirty hit, I would bet that it wasn't.

 

So your not a homer? Even though it says your location is "just south of Pittsburgh", you labeled yourself and I pointed it out. Either way I am not trying to change your mind.. I am really starting to wonder if you are reading my posts. AGAIN, I did not say that the hit was illegal or dirty, so what are you trying to change my mind about? But your right the majority must be right.. especially when the majority that are saying it wasn't dirty are "objective" Steeler fans.

[t.j 35]

t.j. -

 

I think I'll dismiss part of the last comment, because I have no intention to deceive myself, or anyone else, in this. I think you know that, but if it helps your argument to suggest that I'm "full of it," then so be it.

 

Funny, you're the one who chimed in and started out by saying that I'm "belligerent" if I argue with you. A little taste of your own medicine there.

 

The video that you keep referencing clearly shows that he turned before contact.

 

It clearly does NOT, despite the fact that you keep saying this.

 

It also shows that McGahee dips his head before contact. You're so very quick to point out that "intent doesn't matter" in reference to Clark's hit, and suggesting that McGahee is an innocent victim here because his intention was to protect, not plow. Sorry I'm missing this, but that seems like a marked double standard.

 

Read this very slowly and carefully. It doesn't matter whether Clark intended to hit McGahee's head. It does matter that Clark intended to launch his body, top of the head first, with the full weight of his body behind his head in a straight line. That is spearing, whether the opponent gets hit in the head, back, wherever. McGahee certainly is an innocent victim, although one that might have suffered less injury were he able to make a better split-second decision when he realized what was coming. Once a player like Clark launches himself like that, he subjects the opponent to danger and only a lucky saving throw by the ball carrier can avoid injury.

 

If Clark was intending to spear, or use his helmet as a weapon, he should be penalized and fined.

 

I like this statement and I would like it even more without the misplaced "If" at the beginning.

 

However, I don't think you can conclusively state that,

 

Ridiculous. Clark had plenty of time to line up that hit against basically a sitting duck. There is no justification to say that he didn't intentionally spear McGahee.

 

who somehow have the crown hitting McGahee's helmet, and thus causing the turn. Never mind that this is physically impossible.

 

Apparently you didn't read my previous post carefully. I pointed out that the helmet contact did not cause the turn. The later shoulder contact caused the turn.

I'm logging off now and I'll take your straw man comments off the air.

[Durtee 0]

How are you not calling it dirty? Oh, right. I guess "technically" you didn't, but we're debating semantics, aren't we?

 

And I hold to my suggestion, since you've written off a few arguments now with suggesting that there is the "homer view" and the "unbiased view."

 

I don't think you have a hidden agenda, but like anyone in an argument, you want to be right. I just think that you're falling onto some questionable tactics. I am a Steelers' fan. I won't deny it. I know that others will look at my view as tainted because of that, and I'll accept that, and any argument that I come up with is going to more deliberately go back to what we know empirically. You ride the idea of having no bias, which is disingenuous, and present your ideas as though you don't have to support or prove your point. And every time you fall back on calling some of us homers, as you just did to me again, you do the same thing, and reinforce my point. That's all I'm saying.

 

I did not call it dirty and I do not think that Clark meant it to be dirty. Honestly the rule could be interpreted differently and I think that is the debate that is going on here. My understanding of the rule is that it was a legal hit, however if that is the case then I disagree with the rule. I believe that the hit should have been illegal, regardless of the technicality of the rule. That is the point that I have been making over and over.

[Snuff 10]

So your not a homer? Even though it says your location is "just south of Pittsburgh", you labeled yourself and I pointed it out. Either way I am not trying to change your mind.. I am really starting to wonder if you are reading my posts. AGAIN, I did not say that the hit was illegal or dirty, so what are you trying to change my mind about? But your right the majority must be right.. especially when the majority that are saying it wasn't dirty are "objective" Steeler fans.

 

The majoirty of media types, players and coaches, refs, NFL management, sports talk show guys from around the country are all Steeler fans huh? Look, I know Steeler Nation is huge, but it's not that huge.

And also, LOL at your thought that because I live south of Pittsburgh makes me a Steeler homer, automatically, without a doubt. You love assumptions huh?

[parrot 789]

Clark is a dirty player. He head hunts constantly. I hate the guy.

 

With that said, I think the hit on Willis was legal.

 

Clark tends to walk this line a lot. I think he's one of those guys you love if he's on your team, not so much if he's not.

[listen2me 23 1,541]

I didn't care who won the Ravens/Steelers game, but that just digusted me.

 

I don't care what Phil Simms says, that is not a legal hit. That is unnecessary roughness all the way. Simms is an idiot, announcers will go along with anything that is ruled on the field and find a way to justify it.

 

We see it all the time. Guys get lead with the crown of their helmet and they don't call it on the field. It's only later in the week when the fine is handed down that anything is done. That's why players will continue to spear opponents with no regard for player safety, because they might get fined but they aren't going to lose 15 yards and their coaches will be happy. In this case, McGahee fumbled because he was probably unconscious before he hit the ground. They call that correctly, they keep the ball and 15 yards, they have a chance. Instead Pitt gets it back with 2:30 left, game over, and who knows when McGahee will be ok.

 

Pull your heads out of your ass and un-staple your flags from your pockets, ref.

 

Terrible post.

 

If he was defensless in the air sure. But helemt to helmet happens on every running play. Unless you tackle the legs or waist a part of the helmets will hit. Hate to see a guy get hurt like that, but there was nothing illegal or dirty about it.

 

I can't see where you are coming from.

 

I am not a Steelers fan and wanted the Ravens to win.

[Durtee 0]

The majoirty of media types, players and coaches, refs, NFL management, sports talk show guys from around the country are all Steeler fans huh? Look, I know Steeler Nation is huge, but it's not that huge.

And also, LOL at your thought that because I live south of Pittsburgh makes me a Steeler homer, automatically, without a doubt. You love assumptions huh?

 

So your not a Steeler fan? I guess I do love assumptions, but apparently you do as well, since you are assuming that the majority are all saying....what exactly? Everything you read or see on ESPN etc... is confusion and debate on whether the play was dirty or not.

[Snuff 10]

So your not a Steeler fan? I guess I do love assumptions, but apparently you do as well, since you are assuming that the majority are all saying....what exactly? Everything you read or see on ESPN etc... is confusion and debate on whether the play was dirty or not.

 

Just saying that on all the football boards I look at each day (there are quite a few), this topic has come up. The vast, and I mean VAST majority of people believe it was not a dirty hit. And to take it a step further, everything I heard on the radio and tv thus far has followed the same route. And to take it a small step further, even the outdated newspapers and their writers agree. So I am not sure what you guys are seeing that the vast majority of people/experts do not see. It was a brutal hit, no doubt. But it wasn't dirty. And to take the film of it, and alalyze it frame by frame, is ridiculous, and borderline retarded. The game isn't played in slow-motion, and the thought process these players have certainly isn't in slow motion when they have split second decisions to make.

That said, even when you DO take the film and analyze it frame by frame, you guys are still wrong.

[GettnHuge 1]

Terrible post.

 

If he was defensless in the air sure. But helemt to helmet happens on every running play. Unless you tackle the legs or waist a part of the helmets will hit. Hate to see a guy get hurt like that, but there was nothing illegal or dirty about it.

 

I can't see where you are coming from.

 

I am not a Steelers fan and wanted the Ravens to win.

 

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8(g) of the NFL Official Playing Rules: "(The league prohibits)... using any part of a player's helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/'hairline' parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protect those players who are in virtually defenseless postures."

[Durtee 0]

Just saying that on all the football boards I look at each day (there are quite a few), this topic has come up. The vast, and I mean VAST majority of people believe it was not a dirty hit. And to take it a step further, everything I heard on the radio and tv thus far has followed the same route. And to take it a small step further, even the outdated newspapers and their writers agree. So I am not sure what you guys are seeing that the vast majority of people/experts do not see. It was a brutal hit, no doubt. But it wasn't dirty. And to take the film of it, and alalyze it frame by frame, is ridiculous, and borderline retarded. The game isn't played in slow-motion, and the thought process these players have certainly isn't in slow motion when they have split second decisions to make.

That said, even when you DO take the film and analyze it frame by frame, you guys are still wrong.

 

Now I am certain that you are not reading my posts. I never said that the hit was dirty, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I do believe that the hit should be illegal...that is my opinion. The part that gets me is you guys keep saying "you guys are wrong"... how is my opinion of the technicality of a rule wrong? I guess we will wait to see what Goodell thinks about the hit. I get the feeling that there will be a fine.

[dave32 14]

Seriously, how else do you want Clark to tackle him, just with his arms?

[Durtee 0]

Seriously, how else do you want Clark to tackle him, just with his arms?

 

He could have lowered his body and drove through the chest/waist, that was by no means a regular tackle. With the way those two teams hate each other, I am completely 100% convinced that he was trying to make a highlight hit. Not saying that he intended it to be dirty or cause injury, but make a big impact.

[t.j 35]

Just saying that on all the football boards I look at each day (there are quite a few), this topic has come up. The vast, and I mean VAST majority of people believe it was not a dirty hit. And to take it a step further, everything I heard on the radio and tv thus far has followed the same route.

 

That is in no doubt due in a large part due to the misleading information spewed by Simms on the live broadcast. Not to mention the tendency of the media to give officials and the league the benefit of the doubt.

[t.j 35]

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8(g) of the NFL Official Playing Rules: "(The league prohibits)... using any part of a player's helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/'hairline' parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protect those players who are in virtually defenseless postures."

 

GettnHuge won this thread.

[Durtee 0]

GettnHuge won this thread.

+1

[Law 220]

You aren't gonna change my mind about the hit, and I am not gonna change yours. But I will say, when the overwhelming majority of people on these boards, on other football boards, in the media, on sports shows, the referees, the coaches, the players, etc...say it wasn't a dirty hit, I would bet that it wasn't.

 

Thread was ended right there.

 

But for a few Nancy Boys who think football isn't a contact sport - that defensive players must first politely ask an offensive player if it's ok to gently touch them - the people who actual play and govern game said nothing of the sort, that the play was NOT dirty.

 

And to answer your later point Snuff, "So I am not sure what you guys are seeing that the vast majority of people/experts do not see." - they "see" what they want to see, even if it is not at all based in reality. But let's not further delude the delusional. And yes, I'll go with delusional instead of perhaps the more correct term - stupid.

[FlaHawker 24]

If you look back to last year, Mike Pereira, who is the head of NFL officials stated that they were to a new "point of emphasis" on helmet to helmet contact. At that time, he stated that QB's and defenseless WR's would be covered under that rule as the hits are "unnecessary".

 

Remember, the rules as written only cover a certain portion. The Competition Committee works with the officials to either change the rules or, if the rule is already in place, they choose how to enforce that rule.

Sorry but when I see Mike Pereira, officials, and enforcement of rules in the same post I just can't stop from laughing. Gold, Jerry, fockin GOLD!

[lambert58 56]

I'll bet that Dan Rooney melts down the 6 rings and then makes it into a crown.. Wears it on his head like a halo.