patman12
2nd Team Getting Their First Start
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,976
- Reaction score
- 2,250
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.The media/fans demanded it, so the media/fans got it. That's the way the league works these days. Punishment is determined by the level of outrage.So, a $23,000 fine for a guy with no history? The way the NYFL goes, I guess he's lucky they didn't suspend him
So, a $23,000 fine for a guy with no history? The way the NYFL goes, I guess he's lucky they didn't suspend him
I looked through the rule book and couldn't find that "from the side or behind" wording. My best guess about this scenario is that "blindside" in the penalty name was meant to be interpreted as "from the side or behind," but Blandino and company are now choosing to ignore that word altogether and instead focus on the "toward his own end zone" aspect that is better defined in the rule book. As the rule has been described in the past, Amendola's hit was absolutely legal since Fleming wasn't defenseless because Amendola didn't approach from the side or behind. According to what I could actually find in the rule book, you only have to be willing to ignore a single word in the heading ("blindside") to rationalize the flag and the fine. I don't know how in depth then appeals process is for a fine like this, but I'd assume that wording will come into play, because it'a absurd for them to fine him for a blindside block that wasn't blindside.If someone can find a rule that says differently, I'd be interested. But my quick glance at the NFL rule book makes me think you're right.
Still a dangerous play, looked like he went right for the neck. Should try to hit lower next time. But by rule I don't think it's illegal.
You misunderstand what launching is.The thing that makes it deserving of a penalty is that he launches himself.
That being said, the old launching and spearing rules seem to be out the window these days as referees focus so intently on helmet-to-helmet hits and forget about the old rules against spearing and launching.
Here, Amendola leaves his feet.
What I mean about refs forgetting the old rules is that, after a receiver becomes a runner and is no longer defenseless, refs aren't calling hits that are spearing and launching anymore. Anything goes. Those penalties used to be called in the past.
Still a dangerous play, looked like he went right for the neck. Should try to hit lower next time. But by rule I don't think it's illegal.
Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the passer’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;
Article 7: Players in a Defenseless Posture. It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:
(1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass;
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
(3) A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped;
(4) A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air;
(5) A player on the ground;
(6) A kicker/punter during the kick or during the return (Also see Article 6(g) for additional restrictions against a kicker/punter);
(7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession (Also see Article 8(f) for additional restrictions against a quarterback after a change of possession);
(8) A player who receives a ―blindside block when the offensive blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side, and
(9) A player who is protected from an illegal crackback block (see Article 2);
(10) The offensive player who attempts a snap during a Field Goal attempt or a Try Kick.
Note 2: A player who initiates contact against a defenseless opponent is responsible for avoiding an illegal act. This includes illegal contact that may occur during the process of attempting to dislodge the ball from an opponent. A standard of strict liability applies for any contact against a defenseless opponent, even if the opponent is an airborne player who is returning to the ground or whose body position is otherwise in motion, and irrespective of any acts by the defenseless opponent, such as ducking his head or curling up his body in anticipation of contact.
I must have been looking at one of the old rule books, because I didn't see that wording. That "approaches the opponent from behind or from the side" part is definitely there. So what's the problem here? Amendola didn't do that. This whole thing doesn't make any sense.The question is was the guy in a defenseless posture? Rules on that:
No, they fine guys for hard hits that are on camera, and find a way to justify it.So are they are going to start fining guys that make ST blocks/hits because the guy they hit wasn't looking?
So are they are going to start fining guys that make ST blocks/hits because the guy they hit wasn't looking?
You misunderstand what launching is.
Thanks, didn't know the fine was that high for that penalty.That's the normal fine ($23,152) for that penalty.
Fitzgerald has the right to appeal the fine, and he probably should. Although there was contact to Burnett’s head, it didn’t look nearly as egregious as the illegal hit applied by Patriots receiver Danny Amendola, for which he also was fined $23,152.
If you think amendola launched you certainly do.No, I dont