vontaze burfict suspended 3 games

AndyJohnson said:

As incompetent as the management of the NFL is, and as moronic as some of their policies, this issue really has been created by fans, and the general public. There is absolutely no question that there is a vocal group protesting against the NFL for meting out punishment for off the field behavior. See Vick, Peterson, Hardy,et al. The league can't ignore the bad publicity and after all its purpose of existence is to make money, so it must make rules that are designed to protect its image in order to achieve its objectives. The league doesn't exist to be fair, it doesn't exist to care about players, it doesn't exist to be fan friendly. It exists to make money and every decision it makes has that at its core. Unfortunately it damages the product for the true fan, but again, that is not their concern.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I think it was a huge mistake by the NFL to engage with these people. Once the NFL started punishing players for off-the-field stuff, it opened the door for all of the nonsense that's come since. And the people leading these various outcries will never be satisfied. If you don't suspend Greg Hardy, you're horrible for not suspending. If you suspend him for anything less than a full season, you're horrible for not suspending him for a season. If you suspend him without violating the CBA by taking away his pay, you're horrible for not doing that. If you suspend him a season without pay, you're horrible for not banning him for life, etc.

This is one of those games where the only winning move is not to play. Leave that stuff up to the courts, and if people have a problem with it then too bad. Go watch the CFL or arena league or whatever else is out there. Of all the times the NFL has thrown its weight around in stupid ways, this is one of the few times that I think everyone would've been better off for it. Too late to unring that bell, though.

lillloyd said:

So many aspects to this:.

• BUT...the league's inconsistency should not be a deterrent for doing a better job going forward. For example, literally every punishment levied post-Ray Rice looks absurd (and by extension, 'unfair') in comparison...but that doesn't mean that the league shouldn't legislate domestic violence cases harshly now. Suh may have only gotten one game for his actions, but maybe that was too lenient, and maybe the league is reaping what it sews on this issue for not brandishing a big enough stick on chronic, consistent offenders who repeatedly attempt to deliberately injure players.

Click to expand...

If past punishments were too lenient, then there's a process that the league has to follow to fix that. The NFL should have to go into the next round of CBA negotiations demanding harsher standard punishments, and be ready to concede something in order to make that happen. I'm willing to bet that the NFLPA would accept harsher punishments in exchange for player discipline being taken out of the commissioner's unilateral hands.

But when the league just decides that was only made a penalty a few years ago is now worthy of a 3 game suspension, it'd better be prepared to fight that battle--and lose--in court. Because if Burfict is willing to take it that far, he will win.

Regarding Burfict, IMHO I think people looking at this particular play in isolation may be missing the point. For a player not named Vontaze Burfict, we might apply some benefit of the doubt. But suspensions do fact in a player's history...and every piece of prior history suggests that Burfict is a guy out there trying to injure other players. Consider that:

Click to expand...

I agree that Burfict is a scumbag, he's one of my least favorite players in the NFL. Not quite on the level of Hardy and Suggs, since AFAIK he at least keeps his violence on the field, but he's pretty far down there. By all means I should've been rooting for the Bengals this past weekend, because I'd rather the Pats played them than the Chiefs, but I flipped to rooting for the Steelers just because I didn't want to see Burfict's BS rewarded.

Having said that, that still doesn't make this the right occasion for a three game suspension. Suspend him for a game or two after he he tries to rip Cam Newton and Greg Olsen's ankles off with after-the-play gator rolls in the same game. If he'd been given a 6 game suspension for that, I wouldn't have had any problem with it at all, because that **** shouldn't be tolerated.

But going shoulder-first into the helmet of a receiver who's lowered his head going over the middle? I'm sorry, but I just can't get on board with that. If that's worthy of a 3 game suspension now, then we might as well just start playing flag football. I don't love that any leading-with-the-shoulder hit can be a 15 yard penalty now, especially since the league only did that to appear tough on head trauma. But I can live with that rule. The 3 game suspension precedent, though, has officially made it impossible to defend receivers over the middle. It simply can't be done, if that's the precedent for a receiver lowering his helmet into your shoulder.

That all said, put yourself in our shoes: as Steelers' fans we've seen a LOT of Burfict over the years, and we have a pretty good idea of what he's about. Just this year, he's taken out Bell on a very dangerous (if legal by the rules) tackle, and subsequently took a below-the-knees, after-the-throw shot on our franchise QB. The fines he's received have done nothing to curb his behavior (and in fact, as stated before he almost appears to be escalating at this point). So we all went into the playoff game wondering -- "is this guy going to take one of our guys out?"....And then he did.

Click to expand...

I'm with you there. I can't stand the guy, and he hasn't even really targeted anyone on my team. If he'd successfully taken out both my QB and RB on probably dirty plays, and WR on a play that I don't think was dirty but admittedly might if it happened to my own guy, I can see how you'd hate him 10x more than even I do. But FWIW, I totally agree that Burfict's a scumbag. I really really don't want to defend him, but the punishment was so over the top that now I kinda feel the need to.

if he had deflated Brown's head, then it would have been 4 games, 1 million and 2 first rounders.

A last note about Burfict - below is the uncut (chronologically, that is) sequence that led to the PacMan flag.


It's entirely possible that each individual on the Bengals that played a part did something that seemed (er, somewhat?!) "reasonable" to him in the moment. Gilberry knocks into Porter deliberately, because he sees him saying something to Burfict (not having seen what happened between Burfict and the trainer a couple of seconds earlier). PacMan, seeing Porter in the middle of a bunch of Bengals -- and not seeing that Gilberry was the one who knocked him there in the first place -- loses his mind and jumps from off-screen to take a shove/swing through a wall of refs. Which of course gets a flag every time.

Regardless of what you feel about Porter--or PacMan, or Gilberry for that matter--here, the bottom line is if Burfict doesn't do the weird thing with the trainer, Porter probably keeps walking (never turns to say something to Burfict), and the whole disastrous sequence of events for the Bengals--where another Bengal actually shoves Porter into the orbit of PacMan and his precarious mental state -- never happens.

Meaning that Pitt is probably lining up a 50-yarder rather than a 35-yarder...and we're probably talking about Cincy--not KC--playing at New England next weekend (!)

BradyFTW! said:

Having said that, that still doesn't make this the right occasion for a three game suspension. Suspend him for a game or two after he he tries to rip Cam Newton and Greg Olsen's ankles off with after-the-play gator rolls in the same game. If he'd been given a 6 game suspension for that, I wouldn't have had any problem with it at all, because that **** shouldn't be tolerated.

But going shoulder-first into the helmet of a receiver who's lowered his head going over the middle? I'm sorry, but I just can't get on board with that. If that's worthy of a 3 game suspension now, then we might as well just start playing flag football. I don't love that any leading-with-the-shoulder hit can be a 15 yard penalty now, especially since the league only did that to appear tough on head trauma. But I can live with that rule. The 3 game suspension precedent, though, has officially made it impossible to defend receivers over the middle. It simply can't be done, if that's the precedent for a receiver lowering his helmet into your shoulder.

Click to expand...

I hear you. I'm generally sympathetic to defenders nowadays - even for players who try to play the game the right way, I'm sure it's nearly impossible on bang-bang plays to 'get it right'. Look at the Shawn Williams hit on Wheaton in the Bengals game -- he led with the shoulder, but was flagged anyway simply because it looked bad. And on your other point - I wholeheartedly agree that it's a whole 'nother level of dirty when stuff is taking place after the play, like in the Panthers' situation last year.

But the league obviously has no real guidelines in its reactive disciplinary 'policy'...it never has. (Unless you count holding your finger up to seeing which way public opinion/public outcry is blowing as a 'policy'.) Burfict arguably did more egregious stuff last week against Maxx Williams, and 5 weeks ago going at Ben's legs after the ball was out, than what he did Saturday....But Saturday's hit was there for the whole world to see.

I think Burfict ultimately got the reasonable 'cumulative' penalty for the totality of his past actions. Whether it's correct for this particular hit, I don't know...I'm just glad they're doing something substantive to combat this sort of play, because it's a consistent pattern with him.

Rob0729 said:

The protocol is that you have to be cleared to practice before you get cleared to play. Historically if you are not cleared to practice by midweek, you will not be cleared to play that weekend.

Click to expand...

Well, if this one guy from ESPN has a leg up on the rest of the reporters and gets one right, good for him.

In the meantime, I'm going to continue to believe everything else that I hear from the other 99 percent of the media which is stating that he should be fine. Honestly, I'm not sure that I care either way, because I think there are pluses and minuses to facing either team, should we get that far.

I'm sure we'll know much more in the next 48 hours, by Thursday evening or so.

lillloyd said:

A last note about Burfict - below is the uncut (chronologically, that is) sequence that led to the PacMan flag.


It's entirely possible that each individual on the Bengals that played a part did something that seemed (er, somewhat?!) "reasonable" to him in the moment. Gilberry knocks into Porter deliberately, because he sees him saying something to Burfict (not having seen what happened between Burfict and the trainer a couple of seconds earlier). PacMan, seeing Porter in the middle of a bunch of Bengals -- and not seeing that Gilberry was the one who knocked him there in the first place -- loses his mind and jumps from off-screen to take a shove/swing through a wall of refs. Which of course gets a flag every time.

Regardless of what you feel about Porter--or PacMan, or Gilberry for that matter--here, the bottom line is if Burfict doesn't do the weird thing with the trainer, Porter probably keeps walking (never turns to say something to Burfict), and the whole disastrous sequence of events for the Bengals--where another Bengal actually shoves Porter into the orbit of PacMan and his precarious mental state -- never happens.

Meaning that Pitt is probably lining up a 50-yarder rather than a 35-yarder...and we're probably talking about Cincy--not KC--playing at New England next weekend (!)

Click to expand...

I certainly get behind the idea of suspending Burfict for a game or two, with some heavy fines. As you said, he deserves it based on some of his past behavior.

Adam Jones, on the other hand, had a grand total of 2 unsportsmanlike conduct penalties in the past 6 years, so I think blaming everything on HC Marvin Lewis is ridiculous.

The bottom line is that some weird **** happened in a game where the 2 rivals had increased tension during each matchup this past season. Burfict wasn't able to manage his emotions properly, and both he and the team were punished. Seems pretty simple to me.

Draw Play Comic strikes again!



(If the image doesn't render inline, see: The Cincinnati Bungles - The Draw Play)

lillloyd said:

A last note about Burfict - below is the uncut (chronologically, that is) sequence that led to the PacMan flag.


It's entirely possible that each individual on the Bengals that played a part did something that seemed (er, somewhat?!) "reasonable" to him in the moment. Gilberry knocks into Porter deliberately, because he sees him saying something to Burfict (not having seen what happened between Burfict and the trainer a couple of seconds earlier). PacMan, seeing Porter in the middle of a bunch of Bengals -- and not seeing that Gilberry was the one who knocked him there in the first place -- loses his mind and jumps from off-screen to take a shove/swing through a wall of refs. Which of course gets a flag every time.

Regardless of what you feel about Porter--or PacMan, or Gilberry for that matter--here, the bottom line is if Burfict doesn't do the weird thing with the trainer, Porter probably keeps walking (never turns to say something to Burfict), and the whole disastrous sequence of events for the Bengals--where another Bengal actually shoves Porter into the orbit of PacMan and his precarious mental state -- never happens.

Meaning that Pitt is probably lining up a 50-yarder rather than a 35-yarder...and we're probably talking about Cincy--not KC--playing at New England next weekend (!)

Click to expand...

Porter is not allowed to be on the field. At best it is off-setting penalties, at worst its a penalty on Porter for instigating when he wasn't even supposed to be on the field.
In the end Jones was penalized for making contact with a coach who was illegally on the field.
A cheap way for Pittsburgh to advance.

AndyJohnson said:

Porter is not allowed to be on the field. At best it is off-setting penalties, at worst its a penalty on Porter for instigating when he wasn't even supposed to be on the field.
In the end Jones was penalized for making contact with a coach who was illegally on the field.
A cheap way for Pittsburgh to advance.

Click to expand...

Interesting perspective. I agree...to a point.

Porter should not be on the field and should be fined to keep this sort of thing from happening again. As a fan you would prefer that the second penalty were not applied and that you advanced--or didn't advance--based on a 50 yard field goal (or maybe Pitt gets a bit closer with a sideline throw), because as you say it feels cheap this way. Pitt was incredibly fortunate, to say the least, to advance.

I don't see a scenario where PacMan is NOT flagged however--he simply crossed a line you can't cross, and did one of the few on-field actions that will draw a flag EVERY time (swing + ref contact). Porter's presence doesn't give a free pass to Jones and the rest of the Bengals for what ensued.

PacMan BTW has 'seen red' on the field before this year--so just because he reacted like a maniac with a punch doesn't mean he was 'instigated', as he is arguably unhinged to begin with (Exhibit A: see the Amari Cooper exchange below). Certainly within the clip above, Porter never says anything to Jones and is even backing up when PacMan jumps on screen with the swing. The irony here is that Burfict (with the backswing and the subsequent grab/pull of Porter) and Gilberry (with the shove) literally place Porter directly in the crosshairs of the one Bengal who is most liable to completely lose his mind in the moment.

So I see the 'offsetting' flags for sure...but to argue that the Bengals should NOT have received the second flag is a stretch IMHO. Several Bengals played a legitimate part in this absurd sequence, and they helped dig their own grave on this one.

lillloyd said:

Interesting perspective. I agree...to a point.

Porter should not be on the field and should be fined to keep this sort of thing from happening again. As a fan you would prefer that the second penalty were not applied and that you advanced--or didn't advance--based on a 50 yard field goal (or maybe Pitt gets a bit closer with a sideline throw), because as you say it feels cheap this way. Pitt was incredibly fortunate, to say the least, to advance.

I don't see a scenario where PacMan is NOT flagged however--he simply crossed a line you can't cross, and did one of the few on-field actions that will draw a flag EVERY time (swing + ref contact). Porter's presence doesn't give a free pass to Jones and the rest of the Bengals for what ensued.

PacMan BTW has 'seen red' on the field before this year--so just because he reacted like a maniac with a punch doesn't mean he was 'instigated', as he is arguably unhinged to begin with (Exhibit A: see the Amari Cooper exchange below). Certainly within the clip above, Porter never says anything to Jones and is even backing up when PacMan jumps on screen with the swing. The irony here is that Burfict (with the backswing and the subsequent grab/pull of Porter) and Gilberry (with the shove) literally place Porter directly in the crosshairs of the one Bengal who is most liable to completely lose his mind in the moment.

So I see the 'offsetting' flags for sure...but to argue that the Bengals should NOT have received the second flag is a stretch IMHO. Several Bengals played a legitimate part in this absurd sequence, and they helped dig their own grave on this one.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how what a player did in a different game has to do with throwing a flag.

The NFL has stated that they are trying to flag the instigator instead of offsetting penalties.
Porter is by definition, the instigator because he is on the field and he is not allowed to be. Its as if he reached out from the sideline and tackled a guy running for a touchdown, and the guy responded by shoving him. By all fairness that should not be an offsetting penalty. The fact that Porter is where he is not allowed to go kind of eliminates the ability to call a penalty for what players who belong there do to him.

AndyJohnson said:

I'm not sure how what a player did in a different game has to do with throwing a flag.

The NFL has stated that they are trying to flag the instigator instead of offsetting penalties.
Porter is by definition, the instigator because he is on the field and he is not allowed to be. Its as if he reached out from the sideline and tackled a guy running for a touchdown, and the guy responded by shoving him. By all fairness that should not be an offsetting penalty. The fact that Porter is where he is not allowed to go kind of eliminates the ability to call a penalty for what players who belong there do to him.

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree I guess.

Good luck Saturday.

The league needs to get with the players and set standards where guys who are deliberately trying to, injure players go from 4 games 1st offense to 8 games 2nd offense and a season after that. The players have a real stake in protecting their own and the union needs to be as protective of the whole as they are their individual players.

lillloyd said:

Agree to disagree I guess.

Good luck Saturday.

Click to expand...

If Brown can't go against Denver I would be in favor of giving Burfictt 2 regular season games and his next playoff game off. Let the sanction for the crime. Burfict is a Scumbag

Ivan said:

The league needs to get with the players and set standards where guys who are deliberately trying to, injure players go from 4 games 1st offense to 8 games 2nd offense and a season after that. The players have a real stake in protecting their own and the union needs to be as protective of the whole as they are their individual players.

Click to expand...

So you're in favor of putting more power in the hands of Rog and Co?

Tunescribe said:

What the hell kind of a name is "Vontaze" anyway? It requires some kind of imagination (or inebriation) to look at a newborn little baby and declare, "I will name you Vontaze."

I decided to look it up and found this:

What Does The Name Vontaze Mean?

>> Out of 5,647,426 records in the U.S. Social Security Administration public data, the name "Vontaze" was not present. It is possible the name you are searching has less than five occurrences per year. You might want to use a short version of your first name or perhaps your nickname. On the other hand, you simply have a name that no one else in America is using. For 135 years only your parents have thought of using your name. Hoorah! You are a unique individual. <<

Having the last name "Burfict" is bad enough. Add them together, and you get this:

View attachment 11863

Click to expand...

what kind of name is transcribe or Julian or Derek or David or Anthony or Sebastian? Names are a thing that we have to differentiate us from other people but we insist on having similar ones so we have to have middle and last names too.

Brown has been officially ruled out. Still think he was faking it?

QuantumMechanic said:

Brown has been officially ruled out. Still think he was faking it?

Click to expand...

"Well, that's definitely the last time I take the word of a guy named 'Pacman' that's been arrested 8 times at face value. Fool me once..."

--every fan who bought the Pacman story