Matt Slauson fined $10K for block on Brian Cushing

[Gumby]

Well they can't really be dirty if he wasn't breaking the rules...so you're being another homer/paranoid Pats fan. Plus you're talking absolute rubbish if you think there was anything in the slightest bit dirty on either the Gronk or Welker TACKLES. Neither were really what you call 'hits' so don't over dramatise it.

ok, not sure why the welker ACCIDENT is even in the discussion. pollard didnt touch him - just showed he was a douche by laughing at an injured opponent. The gronk tackle though is another story.... below.

If you wanna argue the hit on Brady was dirty I can kinda see the logic..but it wasn't against the rules at the time and he was only doing his job. If you wanna ***** about it and say there was intent there then fine...but you don't really know so it's a matter of opinion.

I wish you would stop promulgating this BS. The "BRADY RULE" as mediots decided to call it was NOTHING MORE than a POINT OF EMPHASIS to the CARSON PALMER RULE -

During the [2005-06] off-season, the league's Rules Committee modified the rule regarding low hits on quarterbacks. The new rule prohibited defenders from hitting a passer at or below the knee unless they are blocked into him. The so-called "Oelhoffen Rule" now requires that defenders take every opportunity to avoid hitting a quarterback at or below the knees when the quarterback is in a defenseless position looking to throw with both feet on the ground.

so Pollard clearly made an ILLEGAL HIT as well as DIRTY HIT on Brady.

But please, don't put the Welker/Gronk incidents in that same category.

So we dismissed the Welker bit earlier. The GRONK TACKLE, I agree shouldn't be in the same category. The Slauson hit is ILLEGAL AND DIRTY whereas the Gronk hit was DIRTY AND OUGHT TO BE ILLEGAL (IMO).

It was NOT CLEAN because he intentionally didn't just try to use leverage to tackle but deliberately pulled his own legs up to drop all his body weight on the weakest-most vulnerable point of the opposing player's body he could reach - that is, he dropped his 190lbs right onto Gronks ankle while it was planted and about to release from the ground.
He has done this on numerous guys - it is his own special technique. although others surely do it too; I never recall seeing a Patriot tackle a bigger guy like that (- or any other opposing team guys -since I dont watch many non-Pats games) so it isnt taught to our guys.

It is a tackle that has NOTHING TO DO WIHT LEVERAGE - it is all about stressing a guys joint to the point that he must trip or fall down and/or be injured. That is just flat out wrong. Again, it may be legal; but if a horsecollar is illegal - this should be too.

Also, it would help if you actually read everything i've said in this thread. I acknowledged Slauson's hit was dirty...I just said the intent to injure wasn't there. You don't have to set out to deliberately injure someone for it o be classified as a dirty play.

Said this in another thread: To judge intent the judge needs to see demonstrated premeditation, hear an admittal, or be able to read minds. Absent that, you can INFER an intent from a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR (a la Pollard]; but you CANNOT EXCLUDE intent unless you are a MIND READER.
You sir, are not - So please do not go making some absolute statement that 'THE INTENT WAS NOT THERE'. without that evidence either way it is just conjecture and opinion. You dont see it - I DO!!! and Patsy sees it as well, (despite silly inclusion of welker in the discussion).

 

[Joker]

I HAD to like the preceding post...anybody who can use "promulgate" coherently in a message posted on a sports forum deserves all the likes that are allowed.

 

[UK_Pat37]

Said this in another thread: To judge intent the judge needs to see demonstrated premeditation, hear an admittal, or be able to read minds. Absent that, you can INFER an intent from a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR (a la Pollard]; but you CANNOT EXCLUDE intent unless you are a MIND READER. ).

But you can sate intent without bing a mind reader

You can't exclude intent because you aren't a mind reader, but you can 'infer' on a specific play all the same...

I disagree on the Gronk play but of course that's just a matter of opinion.

 

[UK_Pat37]

this is so ridiculous it almost describes total lunacy...OK, whatever John...your idiotic undercover Rat troll impersonation of an English fan is getting old...and the attempt to trip that Miami receiver in play by your practice squad wasn't an attempt to injure either...Rex just teaches that way...trip the guy in play....throw your body at the back of a player's knee...hey...definitely NOT intentional...you just teach it that way...to be dirty...scummy..like a toe saucker....log off and try another handle...

I think you're losing our mind.......

As I say to any one who wants to make any allegation about me, I'd happily give you my address and telephone number so you can say I to my face...or are you just a keyboard warrior who throws profound accusations about?

Who said he didn't intentionally dive low, or that the play wasn't dirty? I didn't. I just don't think you do it thinking, 'I want to end this guys season/career'. But, of course, you're a mind reader and vey knowledgable of what he was thinking....you're 100% correct just for the sake of this debate

 

[Kontradiction]

Sorry but at that game speed you don't even have time to process the thought. You aren't taught to stand around, you're taught to o after the nearest guy you can. He happened to do it in a way which was dirty and sadly the result was a season ending injury. It happens...it's part of the sport.

Blocking below the knees is legal from the front, just not behind...it's not done just solely to injure as you will know if you played TE. Cutting people's legs from under them is a commonly taught technique if you're undersized or having trouble with your man...it's even part of the play calling system by design.

He just made an error...a costly one.

You're just assuming and, given you have no real reason to think he wanted to injure him as you don't know him and can't find a premeditated reason, I don't think ou can judge an intent to injure.

As I said, and you should know this as I do through playing experience, you don't have time to process that thought...you just play and as an offensive lineman, he's taught to get downfield and hit the first man he can get his hands on.

He just did it n the wrong way.

If this was a Pats player getting fined...and maybe even suspends as people have suggested...the turnaround in opinion would be laughable.

I'm not trying to state this in a personal way, nor do I mean any offense when I say this. But when I read this post, I have to think that you've never played football before. The game speed excuse makes zero sense. Slauson had plenty of ways that he could have delivered the hit to the upper body. He wasn't forced for the lower body and was locked on to Cushing for some time before the hit. Unforced, he went for the side of the knee in a diving fashion. That tells me that there was intent there. Obvious intent. Similar to when Wilfork hit Losman in 2007.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Well they can't really be dirty if he wasn't breaking the rules...so you're being another homer/paranoid Pats fan. Plus you're talking absolute rubbish if you think there was anything in the slightest bit dirty on either the Gronk or Welker TACKLES. Neither were really what you call 'hits' so don't over dramatise it.

If you wanna argue the hit on Brady was dirty I can kinda see the logic..but it wasn't against the rules at the time and he was only doing his job. If you wanna ***** about it and say there was intent there then fine...but you don't really know so it's a matter of opinion.

But please, don't put the Welker/Gronk incidents in that same category.

Also, it would help if you actually read everything i've said in this thread. I acknowledged Slauson's hit was dirty...I just said the intent to injure wasn't there. You don't have to set out to deliberately injure someone for it o be classified as a dirty play.

Geez who pissed in your crumpets. I'm just saying I have a higher threshold for calling something a dirty hit compared to most. It seems a majority of people around here think Pollard's hits were dirty, I don't. But if you ask me about the hit on Cushing, I say it was dirty. That doesn't make me a homer or paranoid

 

[BTTA]

I don't know, but suspect that the fine amount is fixed by a legal document somewhere. I don't understand how any player can be fined for something that is deemed to be a legal hit, however.

My preference would be that any illegal hit that results in an injury have a penalty that puts the perpetrator on the sidelines for as long as the injured player is, and without pay (although the cap hit would continue). If the player is out for life, then so are you. That would clean up the game quickly, and remove the players that make an NFL living by playing on the edge.