SEPatsFan

Here is the rule:

I guess it depends if they consider Chandler "defenseless" or not.

SSDD

VrabelJr

Chandler can't be defenseless anymore. It's an INT, he's the defender now.

Haley

No way that would happen. Wilfork's head hit the ball (they showed it happen in slow motion from a good angle). This is what dislodged the ball and made the fumble happen. I can't see a fine coming for this when there was no helmet contact.

Regarding Spikes, he will probably get fined. It was no where near the textbook display Wilfork put on. Still, a brutal, game-changing hit! #POWWWW

AndyJohnson

powwwwwwwwww

AndyJohnson

He could only be deemed defenseless if defenseless inbcludes not paying attention.
Sadly, injury = fine now.

UK_Pat37

He isn't defenceless in my eyes but you're asking or a fine when you leave your feet and launch at someone anywhere from the neck up. I loved the hit but knew straight away that would draw a FedEx from NY!

Definitely a fine. No arguments but hell, lets see more of that!

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

unoriginal

That rule was expanded in 2010 as a "point of emphasis" to apply to all players on the football field, not just receivers. First, it was just illegal, but not called uniformly. Then, it became a point of emphasis to call it on hits against defenseless receivers. Finally, it was reapplied to everybody.

The unnecessary roughness rule you posted a small excerpt of applies to all players on the football field, not just those who are receivers or considered defenseless players. Those are just points of emphasis added to the rule. Striking an opponent with your helmet is "spearing," which has been illegal for a long, long time, and which is described as illegal in subsection (f), "Impermissible Use of the Helmet and Facemask." It carries the same fines as Illegal Launching, the part of the rule you quoted.

The whole unnecessary roughness rule has been unnecessarily padded with all these redundant and overlapping subsections because the NFL wants (a) to look very serious about preventing helmet hits and concussions in particular and (b) doesn't want anybody to skip over a more concise or clear formulation of the rule as "not important" when skimming the rulebook.

juny

will have to look at the replay. but if it is anyway similar to warren sapp's hit from a few years that injured an OL on a turnover then there will be a big fine.

to person earlier in thread, ed reed did get fined for his hit on branch.

37Harrison

Beat me to it.

__________________
S.H.E.S.

ausbacker

I've just taken to calling him The Thumper. The two thumps on Spiller and Jackson creating two forced fumble recoveries for the Patriots reinforced that notion for me.