James Harrison blasts commisioner, team mates, and pretty much everybody else.

[Observer]

Are you honestly saying that a defender should not be able to tackle someone he cant see him?
How was that a poor hit? It caused a fumble. Every tackle isnt one on one in the open field when you can wrap up and form tackle.
It sounds like you want him to tackle with his arms?
Tackles don't happen in slow motion. You cannot plan what part of your body contacts which part of his body. You are trying to get a hit on the guy the best you can.

Never said that a defender should not be able to tackle someone who can't see him. By all means he should, but it should be his responsibility to do it properly. The key is what constitutes a tackle and that is entirely determined by the rules of the game. I am not a rules expert and I don't know all the nuances but I am pretty certain that flagrant helmet to helmet hits are considered dangerous and not in the spirit of fair play.

If the definition of tackling is to run around willy-nilly at full speed and collide in whatever way it happens then sure, Harrison is not culpable; in fact it would be impossible to determine for sure if anybody truly were. The key is, as you said, "trying to get a hit on the guy the best you can"; I would just add a clause to that- "within the rules of the game" which should be implicit in "best you can". Illegal hits would fall in the can't category. It should be entirely the defenders responsibility to get himself into proper position to make a legit tackle and execute it right. If it were just simply about stopping the other guy then why are things like tripping, blocking below the waist, etc. illegal?

 

[Ring 6]

Never said that a defender should not be able to tackle someone who can't see him.

Yes you specifically singled out not being able to come from behind (which he didnt by the way) and hit someone who cant see you.

By all means he should, but it should be his responsibility to do it properly. The key is what constitutes a tackle and that is entirely determined by the rules of the game. I am not a rules expert and I don't know all the nuances but I am pretty certain that flagrant helmet to helmet hits are considered dangerous and not in the spirit of fair play.

This wasn't close to FLAGARANT helmet to helmet contact. This was a guy coming in to make a tackle who happened to contact the ballcarriers helmet with his own.

If the definition of tackling is to run around willy-nilly at full speed and collide in whatever way it happens then sure,

Well lets just exaggerate this into something it isn't and pretend to be having a real discussion.
Did you watch the tape. Harrison did EXACTLY what he is supposed to do, converging on the ball carrier and coming in with his pads. The fact that both the runner and he were lunging causing helmet to helmet contact doesnt come close to what you describe.

Harrison is not culpable; in fact it would be impossible to determine for sure if anybody truly were. The key is, as you said, "trying to get a hit on the guy the best you can"; I would just add a clause to that- "within the rules of the game" which should be implicit in "best you can".

What do you want him to do, ask permission?

Illegal hits would fall in the can't category.

You can't stop mid hit.

It should be entirely the defenders responsibility to get himself into proper position to make a legit tackle and execute it right.

If that is your assessment of that play, you simply could never have played football.
Explain to me what you would have wanted Harrison to do.

If it were just simply about stopping the other guy then why are things like tripping, blocking below the waist, etc. illegal?

That is a ridiculous comment.
Watch the play before you write back please.

 

[Joker]

Pat Fischer could never play in Goodell's JFL today...

 

[DaBruinz]

Cribbs was fighting for more yards

So, now you change your story. I have news for you. Just because Cribbs was "fighting for more yards" doesn't give Harrison the right to head-hunt and hit Cribbs with an illegal helmet-to-helmet hit.

Now it is disingenuous of me to disagree with your opinion?

No, it's disingenuous of you to claim that Harrison didn't INTENTIONALLY hit Cribbs with a helmet to helmet blow.

You have clearly never played football if you expect players to stop and make decisions about whether to hit a ballcarrier because as he is going down you may hit his head. Defenders aren't studying film in slow motion on the field. They are trying to stop the other team from gaining another inch.

There was a full second between when Cribbs went forward to when Harrison PUT HIS HELMET DOWN and LED WITH IT to hit Cribbs IN THE SIDE OF THE HEAD. This idea that it was in less than half a second is absolute BS on your part. As I said, and you completely ignore because you can't admit that it was a dirty shot is that Harrison could have, VERY EASILY just wrapped UP. He chose NOT to and led with his helmet into Cribbs helmet. That is clear as day.

 

[DaBruinz]

Your Clifton article specifically says the league ruled the hit legal.

While the league "ruled" that the hit was legal, clearly the owners felt differently since they unanimously passed a rule stating that those hits would be illegal from that following season onward. Something you clearly ignore..

Clifton himself says 'its football'.
The article perfectly describes Sapp doing exactly what he is supposed to after an Int, finding someone to block.

Sorry, but hitting a guy BLINDSIDE with the intent to INJURE is not what coaches teach. And if they do, they deserve to be removed from their duties.

The Bucs won the SB that year and one of the main reasons was Gruden challenging them to not only turn the ball over but to score on defense.
Sapp did his job, Clifton was running down the field not paying attention.
But here's a question. If the block was unnecessary why was Clifton running after the interceptor?

First, you can hardly call what Clifton was doing as "running." Second, Clifton was 20 yards behind the play and wasn't going to affect it in any way, shape or form, so he was slowing down. And Clifton was slowing down because he knew he was out of the play and wasn't going to be catching the 200 lb Kelly..

It is disgusting of you to sit there and defend Warren Sapp when even he doesn't defend the play anymore.

BTW, if the hit was "so clean" as you put it, why is it that on the "Ask Warren Anything" segment of Inside the NFL on Showtime, when Warren was asked "How can you sleep at night after such a cowardly hit", Sapp was taken aback? And, instead of answering, tried to defend his actions by talking about how Packers DT Charles Martin body-slammed Jim McMahon to the turf and that it ended McMahon's career..

 

[DaBruinz]

Are you honestly saying that a defender should not be able to tackle someone he cant see him?
How was that a poor hit? It caused a fumble. Every tackle isnt one on one in the open field when you can wrap up and form tackle.
It sounds like you want him to tackle with his arms?
Tackles don't happen in slow motion. You cannot plan what part of your body contacts which part of his body. You are trying to get a hit on the guy the best you can.

Over-exaggeration and purposely taking things out of context are the surest proof that you know you are wrong. Not to mention that your phrasing is horrible.

People are saying that TACKLING Cribbs would have been fine. But Harrison did not attempt to tackle Cribbs. Tackling someone requires that you use your arms to wrap the player up. At no point in time, during that play, did Harrison make ANY attempt to bring his arms up to wrap them around Cribbs.

Here is a site that talks about proper tackling technique.

Tackling

Hopefully by reading that, it will clear up some misconceptions you seem to have.

OH..BTW, your claim that you can't PLAN what part of your body contacts the player you are trying to tackle is false.

 

[DaBruinz]

This wasn't close to FLAGARANT helmet to helmet contact. This was a guy coming in to make a tackle who happened to contact the ballcarriers helmet with his own.

Well lets just exaggerate this into something it isn't and pretend to be having a real discussion.
Did you watch the tape. Harrison did EXACTLY what he is supposed to do, converging on the ball carrier and coming in with his pads. The fact that both the runner and he were lunging causing helmet to helmet contact doesnt come close to what you describe.

If that is your assessment of that play, you simply could never have played football.
Explain to me what you would have wanted Harrison to do.

Andy - How you can sit there and claim that Harrison's hit on Cribbs isn't flagrant is incomprehensible.

Harrison did everything kids are taught not to do. Kids are taught to aim for the thighs. Harrison is clearly a foot or more higher than that.

Kids are taught to wrap up on the play. Harrison's arms never moved in any way to make an attempt at wrapping up..

Harrison led with his Helmet, not his shoulder. That is plain as day as he lowers his helmet. I've watched Bruschi make that exact same play by lowering his shoulder and wrapping up. Not by leading with his head.

Cribbs was already leaning forward when Harrison's helmet hit the side of Cribbs helmet. That illegal hit is what caused the fumble. Not any contact that Harrison made with the ball.

Now, you can sit there and stomp your feet and act like a 2 year old and claim otherwise all day long, but that hit was illegal. Period. End of story. And it's not just MY opinion. It's the opinion of numerous players and coaches at all levels of the game.

 

[supafly]

Considering that the 5 man panel (including appeals, which was exhausted) that hands out fines, and reviews plays gave this hit from Harrison the biggest single fine in the entire season, it certainly appears that someone thought it was a dirty hit.

As long as they make consistent calls on the matter, I don't see how it isn't fair. The thought of making the game safer moving forward does not bother me at all, and makes a lot of sense.

 

[Frick]

Just curious what the response would be if Goodell were black and Harrison were white? I,myself do not like Goodell at all,imho he is a yes man for the owners the Jets,Giants and Steelers in that order.Imho if Woody Johnson was unable to supply his doctor with a stool sample,they could just scrape Goodell"s nose.

A super bowl in N.Y.,the Rooney"s with gambling interests but players get suspended for the same thing.

As far as spygate goes,do you think it would of been brought out without Woody"s permission? A woody fine,a johnson okay put them together it"s like a two headed snake.

Because of the rape,murder and enslavement of black Christian Sudanese Reverend Jackson and Minister Farakhan will be holding a million man mumble in Antartica in the near future. First topic NO WHITES,NO FOUL!

 

[BradyFTW!]

Just curious what the response would be if Goodell were black and Harrison were white? I,myself do not like Goodell at all,imho he is a yes man for the owners the Jets,Giants and Steelers in that order.Imho if Woody Johnson was unable to supply his doctor with a stool sample,they could just scrape Goodell"s nose.

A super bowl in N.Y.,the Rooney"s with gambling interests but players get suspended for the same thing.

As far as spygate goes,do you think it would of been brought out without Woody"s permission? A woody fine,a johnson okay put them together it"s like a two headed snake.

Because of the rape,murder and enslavement of black Christian Sudanese Reverend Jackson and Minister Farakhan will be holding a million man mumble in Antartica in the near future. First topic NO WHITES,NO FOUL!

... what? Either you're insane, you're on a lot of drugs, or that post was brilliant. Can't decide which.

 

[Joker]

the brilliance is tying Jetdell to the Rats and the Giants with the ultimate objective, a Super Bowl between the two as soon as possible...I've been saying this Omissioner is an OUTRIGHT organized criminal for years now and a cat's paw for billionaire NY business interest since he was greased in as Omissioner

 

[supafly]

Just curious what the response would be if Goodell were black and Harrison were white? I,myself do not like Goodell at all,imho he is a yes man for the owners the Jets,Giants and Steelers in that order.Imho if Woody Johnson was unable to supply his doctor with a stool sample,they could just scrape Goodell"s nose.

A super bowl in N.Y.,the Rooney"s with gambling interests but players get suspended for the same thing.

As far as spygate goes,do you think it would of been brought out without Woody"s permission? A woody fine,a johnson okay put them together it"s like a two headed snake.

Because of the rape,murder and enslavement of black Christian Sudanese Reverend Jackson and Minister Farakhan will be holding a million man mumble in Antartica in the near future. First topic NO WHITES,NO FOUL!

If Goodell were black and Harrison white?

It'd be the same thing, Harrison crying that it was a race issue, just like he's doing right now.

FWIW--J.Harrison is looking like even more of an idiot by bringing up race, as 4 out of the 5 man panel (Goodell being the only one) are black, along with Harrison.

The 2 guys that refer it to Goodell in the first place are black, and the 2 guys after Goodell in the appeals process are black. Goodell is the guy in the 'middle' who is the only one that is white. For James Harrison to blame anything on the race card is simply ignorant at best, and shows what a total idiot he really is.

 

[Ring 6]

So, now you change your story. I have news for you. Just because Cribbs was "fighting for more yards" doesn't give Harrison the right to head-hunt and hit Cribbs with an illegal helmet-to-helmet hit.

I havent changed my story at all.
Answer the question I asked. What do you expect Harrison to do?

No, it's disingenuous of you to claim that Harrison didn't INTENTIONALLY hit Cribbs with a helmet to helmet blow.

Actually it is not, because I mean it wholeheartedly.
He was making a tackle. When you are making a tackle, especially in traffic whether your head or shoulder pads contact his head, pads, chest, or waist (especially when your head is at waist level) is not planned, plotted and thought out. You hit.
Hey, Harrison has shown himself to be a head hunter, but that is irrelevant to this play by itself.

There was a full second between when Cribbs went forward to when Harrison PUT HIS HELMET DOWN and LED WITH IT to hit Cribbs IN THE SIDE OF THE HEAD.

You are simply out of your mind. A full second? Want to rethink that?

This idea that it was in less than half a second is absolute BS on your part. As I said, and you completely ignore because you can't admit that it was a dirty shot is that Harrison could have,

Do you have any way of discussing ANYTHING without insulting the other person, implying they are making things up or purposely ignoring ot lying to win an argument?
Can you possibly ever accept that someone disagrees with you, has a different viewpoint, thinks you are wrong, or is saying what they truly believe?

I understand everything you are saying, and I disagree.
That does not mean you are lying, pretending to not see things, know you are wrong and just won't admit it or in some other way talking bs.

Your defensive posture and penchant to acts as if people are posting things they know are wrong just to screw with you, make it almost impossible to carry on a conversation with you.
I would ask that you change that or just don't reply to my posts.


[/quote[VERY EASILY just wrapped UP. He chose NOT to and led with his helmet into Cribbs helmet. That is clear as day.[/QUOTE]
How could he wrap up? There was nothing to wrap up. He could not reach to get his arms in to wrap up.
Are you really saying you think Harrison should have stayed on his feet taken 2-3 more steps and taken himself out of the play?

I know this may seem like a ballbusting question, and I don't mean it that way, in fact no offense intended at all, but have you ever played defensive football? You speak as if you have no idea what a LB is thinking when they pursue a ball carrier.

 

[Ring 6]

While the league "ruled" that the hit was legal, clearly the owners felt differently since they unanimously passed a rule stating that those hits would be illegal from that following season onward. Something you clearly ignore..

I'm not ignoring anything. The hit was legal, you said it was not.

Sorry, but hitting a guy BLINDSIDE with the intent to INJURE is not what coaches teach. And if they do, they deserve to be removed from their duties.

Coaches teach players to block if they can get their head in front, that is to not clip. Coaches do not teach players to make sure the guy is looking.
Where do you get that there was an intent to injure? Result does not equal intent.

First, you can hardly call what Clifton was doing as "running."

What would you call it then? He was pursuing the play.

Second, Clifton was 20 yards behind the play and wasn't going to affect it in any way, shape or form, so he was slowing down. And Clifton was slowing down because he knew he was out of the play and wasn't going to be catching the 200 lb Kelly..

Clifton was pursuing the play. Sapps job is to block. Sapp blocked the closest man.
What do you expect Sapp to do, give up?

It is disgusting of you to sit there and defend Warren Sapp when even he doesn't defend the play anymore.

It was a legal hit.

BTW, if the hit was "so clean"

I dont recall using those words.

as you put it, why is it that on the "Ask Warren Anything" segment of Inside the NFL on Showtime, when Warren was asked "How can you sleep at night after such a cowardly hit", Sapp was taken aback?

You wouldnt be taken aback by such a slimy comment?
Its football, it was a legal hit. Cowardly is a ridiculous comment. Clifton himself is less offended by this than you.

And, instead of answering, tried to defend his actions by talking about how Packers DT Charles Martin body-slammed Jim McMahon to the turf and that it ended McMahon's career..

Come on. Do you really expect the host of a show to defend himself against such a lame accusation.
Is that all you've got? Sorry, no sale.

 

[Ring 6]

Over-exaggeration and purposely taking things out of context are the surest proof that you know you are wrong.

Since I didnt do that, what is your point?

People are saying that TACKLING Cribbs would have been fine.

That person said that it was wrong to hit someone from behind.

But Harrison did not attempt to tackle Cribbs.

Of course he did, in fact, he succeeded.

Tackling someone requires that you use your arms to wrap the player up.

That is incorrect. A FORM tackle involves wrapping up. There was no chance Harrison could wrap up on that play. He needed to extend to make contact.

quote] At no point in time, during that play, did Harrison make ANY attempt to bring his arms up to wrap them around Cribbs. [/quote]
First he really couldn't. Second this isn't a debate about the quality of Harrisons technique. Many, many NFL players do not wrap up.

Here is a site that talks about proper tackling technique.

Tackling

Hopefully by reading that, it will clear up some misconceptions you seem to have.

OH..BTW, your claim that you can't PLAN what part of your body contacts the player you are trying to tackle is false.

You have now answered my other question, there is no way you have ever played football.
Apparently you aren't much at physics either as you seem to think that Harrison is capable of planning how Cribbs would react to the other player hitting him, whether or not he would break the tackle, which direction he would fall in, and could do that all in a split second, where silly me, after years of playing football just sits here thinking a LB sees a ball carrier and through traffic and knows he needs to get a hit on him.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy - How you can sit there and claim that Harrison's hit on Cribbs isn't flagrant is incomprehensible.

He was making a tackle and as a consequence there was helmet to helmet contact. There are a dozen hits like that every week in the NFL. Even if you call it intentional, where do you get FLAGRANT?

Harrison did everything kids are taught not to do. Kids are taught to aim for the thighs. Harrison is clearly a foot or more higher than that.

If Cribbs is upright, that is about where he would have hit him. The pad level Harrison had was the only one that would have allowed him to get to the point of contact. If his head were to the side (which is a factor of where Cribbs moves to after Harrison has commited to his approach) it would be a perfect tackle under the circumstances.

Kids are taught to wrap up on the play. Harrison's arms never moved in any way to make an attempt at wrapping up..

What does that have to do with anything?

Harrison led with his Helmet, not his shoulder.

Exactly how would he have his shoulder in front of his head? He has no way of knowing how Cribbs does or doesnt escape that tackle. He 'aims' and whether he hits with his shoulder, head, or misses depends on hpow Cribbs escapes the other tackler.
This is really foolish.

That is plain as day as he lowers his helmet.

No, he lowers his ENTIRE BODY as he lunges to make the tackle.

I've watched Bruschi make that exact same play by lowering his shoulder and wrapping up. Not by leading with his head.

And Bruschi has made hits like this one too, many of them. You are tackling a moving target.

Cribbs was already leaning forward when Harrison's helmet hit the side of Cribbs helmet. That illegal hit is what caused the fumble. Not any contact that Harrison made with the ball.

Where is Harrison supposed to put his head? It is at the front of his body. Once he commits there is nowhere else for it to go. If Cribbs stayed upright, Harrisons shoulder contacts Cribbs hips, then he wraps up.

Now, you can sit there and stomp your feet and act like a 2 year old and claim otherwise all day long,

Would you please indicate what I did that would suggest I am behaving like that? I am stating my opinion, and restating it as you respond.

but that hit was illegal. Period. End of story. And it's not just MY opinion. It's the opinion of numerous players and coaches at all levels of the game.

Sorry, you don't get to say other people agree with you because you want to think they do.
The league called it illegal, and I disagree.
Feel free to disagree with me, but please drop the abraisive "anyone who disagrees with you is lying or pretending because everyone knows you are right but they are just trying to beat you in an argument, the whole world except me is dishonest" because it makes you someone I have no interest in having a discussion with.
You can very easily make your side of the argument without attacking my honesty, integrity or intelligence.