Another HUGE ref blunder: punter suffers broken jaw, may have broken neck

[Patsfanin Philly]

You misinterpreted my post out of context: I was responding specifically to Andy, who asked how could the hit be high of he lowered his head. I told him it is possible to lower your head and still hit high, because players lower their head to lead with the crown on high hits all the time (which is illegal). It is neither justified nor is it legal, which is the point I was trying to make. The way I worded it probably seemed misleading taken on its own.

My apologies, my point was to be directed to Andy, not you and from the tone of the quote, I didn't notice it was yours, not his.....
I was trying to pick one of his quotes to respond to and grabbed yours at random ( by mistake)

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Not sure where you are coming from here.
I only mentioned intent in response to someone else bringing it up.

I don't 'want' anything 'to be true'.
To me it is perfectly clear that the player was trying to throw a block with his shoulder.
You seem to think his goal was to come in just high enough the the top of his helmet hit the jaw, in order to injure a punter, rather than throw a block.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and there is certainly no reason to get angry about it.
I have never said anywhere in this thread that anyone is crazy, has an agenda, or even is wrong, I have simply discussed my opinion of what I see.
Some people appear threatened that there is an opinion that a player was injured and it was not intentional.
If you see something different than I do, I'm not sure I understand why you have to keep repeating yourself or why it is so important that you want me to see what you think you do.
Bizarre thread to say the least.

Sorry if my post came across as angry. It's quite the opposite, I'm amused by your posts in this thread. They make me think of this for some reason:

 

[Kontradiction]

Sorry if my post came across as angry. It's quite the opposite, I'm amused by your posts in this thread. They make me think of this for some reason:

Mr. Reynolds, I see that you're still... just... awful.

 

[groganbootleg]

Of course you ignored 'could' and you added by the back of his head hitting the ground. So yes, some of the words you said are what I said but not all and certainly your version and mine are not close to the same.

This is absurd. Are you trying to claim that he didn't land on the back of his head? Aside from the video which clearly shows him falling directly backwards and hitting the back of his head on the ground you want to now state that he somehow spun through the air and landed squarely on his jaw? Or are you going to be intentionally vague and say "I didn't say that." while you are clearly implying it? Please tell us exactly how someone gets a broken jaw by hitting the back of his head on the ground? pretty please.

 

[Ring 6]

This is absurd. Are you trying to claim that he didn't land on the back of his head? Aside from the video which clearly shows him falling directly backwards and hitting the back of his head on the ground you want to now state that he somehow spun through the air and landed squarely on his jaw? Or are you going to be intentionally vague and say "I didn't say that." while you are clearly implying it? Please tell us exactly how someone gets a broken jaw by hitting the back of his head on the ground? pretty please.

Why should I bother responding when you misquote everything I say?

 

[Ring 6]

You misinterpreted my post out of context: I was responding specifically to Andy, who asked how could the hit be high of he lowered his head.

Thats not what I said.
I said how can the fact that he lowered his head be proof that he intended to head hunt, which was the comment mine was responding to.

 

[Ring 6]

Seems like the head of NFL refereeing ( not that he knows anything about it) might disagree with you. From PFT and Florio,as well as ESPN (link below)

>>>>
Mike Florio explained earlier on Tuesday that Steelers linebacker Terence Garvin should have been penalized for the helmet-to-helmet block that ended Bengals punter Kevin Huber’s season even though Huber was trying to make a tackle on the play.
Now NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino has confirmed it. During an appearance on NFL Network on Tuesday, Blandino said that Huber was considered a defenseless player on the play under the league’s rules and that the NFL wants to “flag hits like that” with 15-yard personal fouls.
“Huber, he’s a punter. And the key is he’s defenseless throughout the down,” Blandino said. “So even though he’s pursing the play, he still gets defenseless-player protection. You can’t hit him in the head or neck, and you can’t use the crown or forehead parts of the helmet to the body.”<<<<


http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10155375/dean-blandino-head-nfl-officials-says-hit-kevin-huber-was-illegal

Ultimately this is the real problem.
If you are going to call the punter defenseless then the punter should not be allowed to attempt to make a tackle.

 

[groganbootleg]

Why should I bother responding when you misquote everything I say?

The jaw could have been broken when he hit the ground. I don't know for sure that the force of the hit could not have cause it either even if it was direct.
I'm not a doctor. I'm just commenting on what I see. Last I checked its not a crime to have an opinion even if the majority doesnt agree.

This is the line I quoted directly from your post. I get it, you're stubborn and have trouble admitting that you are completely wrong here. Its ok, we all get it now. But do not claim I misquoted you when I copied it directly from your post. You don't want to respond because your position is absurd. Again, please tell us how he broke his jaw if the player did not hit him directly in the jaw with his helmet (which I know you can't do because thats really the only way it could happen).

 

[Ring 6]

This is the line I quoted directly from your post. I get it, you're stubborn and have trouble admitting that you are completely wrong here. Its ok, we all get it now. But do not claim I misquoted you when I copied it directly from your post. You don't want to respond because your position is absurd. Again, please tell us how he broke his jaw if the player did not hit him directly in the jaw with his helmet (which I know you can't do because thats really the only way it could happen).

and I also stated that the clip did not show the back of his head hitting the ground, and he appeared to be falling toward the side as well, but you have consistently said that I said he broke his jaw by the back of his head hitting the ground.
You are the one who will not admit you have twisted my words.

 

[Kontradiction]

This is the line I quoted directly from your post. I get it, you're stubborn and have trouble admitting that you are completely wrong here. Its ok, we all get it now. But do not claim I misquoted you when I copied it directly from your post. You don't want to respond because your position is absurd. Again, please tell us how he broke his jaw if the player did not hit him directly in the jaw with his helmet (which I know you can't do because thats really the only way it could happen).

To be honest, I thought that he originally could have broken it with the helmet going to the side as his head hit the ground (however physically difficult that would be), but once I saw the GIF I knew that wasn't the case...

The punter's head snaps to the side when the Steelers player's helmet hits his neck/chin area, then returns straight as he's going backwards. If his head was continunously going to the side as he was going down in a backwards motion, slamming the side of his jaw/head off the ground with his back hitting the ground at the same time, you would have a guy that's wheelchair bound for the rest of his life. Since he's not wheelchair bound, it's safe to assume that the back of the head hit the turf. Again, much like with a shoulder pad to the chest, it's physically impossible to break your jaw from the back of your head hitting the turf. The only plausible explanation, therefore, is that the helmet makes contact with the punter's jaw, which causes the break. When you couple that with the still shots as well as the videos and GIF's, you would have what a court of law would deem as a "slam dunk case".

 

[chasa]

league said it was illegal, case closed, put this thread out of its misery.

 

[groganbootleg]

and I also stated that the clip did not show the back of his head hitting the ground, and he appeared to be falling toward the side as well, but you have consistently said that I said he broke his jaw by the back of his head hitting the ground.
You are the one who will not admit you have twisted my words.

head falling straight back, not going to the side.......

wide video which shows the exact same thing

I didn't say that you said that. You claimed it COULD have happened when he hit the ground and I was trying to get you to understand that someone who hit the BACK of their head hit the ground could not possibly break their jaw. So now that you see that he hit the back of his head on the ground can you finally admit that it wasn't the cause of his broken jaw?

I think the head of officiating is also on my side here as well.

The NFL's VP of officiating Dean Blandino said last night that the hit by Steelers LB Terence Garvin on Bengals punter Kevin Huber should have been a penalty.

"Huber, he's a punter. And the key is he's defenseless throughout the down. So even though he's pursuing the play, he still gets defenseless-player protection. You can't hit him in the head or neck, and you can't use the crown or forehead parts of the helmet to the body."

 

[PATSNUTme]

It should have been called a penalty because to the nature of the hit, punter or no punter, that is the new NFL rules.

But give me a break, NFL. If a punter has already kicked, and now is going down to make a tackle, he should be treated like every other player. If the NFL thinks a punter is "defenseless at all times" then they should have him run off the field after he kicks. Maybe they should require he screams on his way off the field.

I mean, he could break a nail, or something like that.

What a stupid rule. After this season they should get a rules committee together, made up of old time HOF defensive players and OL players and change some of these girlymen rules back to what they were.

 

[Kontradiction]

Albert Breer ✔ @AlbertBreer
As my pal @artrellhawkins said, Steelers LB Terence Garvin has been fined $25,000 for his hit on Bengals P Kevin Huber.

LOL.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

It should have been called a penalty because to the nature of the hit, punter or no punter, that is the new NFL rules.

But give me a break, NFL. If a punter has already kicked, and now is going down to make a tackle, he should be treated like every other player. If the NFL thinks a punter is "defenseless at all times" then they should have him run off the field after he kicks. Maybe they should require he screams on his way off the field.

I mean, he could break a nail, or something like that.

What a stupid rule. After this season they should get a rules committee together, made up of old time HOF defensive players and OL players and change some of these girlymen rules back to what they were.

It'd be nice if the NFL could come up with a set of sensible rules to protect its players that are enforced for all players, under all situations, anywhere on the field rather than coming up with these special case rules.

 

[Sciz]

Albert Breer ✔ @AlbertBreer
As my pal @artrellhawkins said, Steelers LB Terence Garvin has been fined $25,000 for his hit on Bengals P Kevin Huber.

LOL.

Sounds about right. I know some people were expecting more based on the injuries that Huber suffered, but the NFL typically hasn't punished players based on the result of the illegal act. The $25,000 is pretty standard for unnecessary roughness.