Welcome to PatsFans.com

Plaxico Burress' Blocks Were More Dangerous Than Wilfork's Pointing

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by maverick4, Dec 30, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    The announcers and media are overblowing Wilfork's point at Jacobs. There was no intent to injure, no actual poke, merely a vigorous point at Jacobs as if he was saying to Jacobs at the time, 'you're going down'.

    For those of you wondering why Rodney was so hot-headed last night, after the game he talked about how Plaxico and other receivers were repeatedly going after his knees on cheapshot blocks.

    Which action is more dangerous, more classless, and has a greater intent to injure? Also, keep in mind Plaxico and crew did this all game, compared to Wilfork's one pointing incident.
  2. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Cut blocks are dangerous but they're allowed. What Wilfork did was clearly out of line, and let's stop calling it "pointing". You think if someone did that to Tom Brady we'd be using that term? It was poking. I don't think what Wilfork did was any kind of mortal sin, worse things happen, but he deserves his fine... nothing more, nothing less.
  3. Dr Pain

    Dr Pain Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I wish we saw the entire fight. The Vince part of it was after the fight and we never saw what happened that may have provoked it.
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I'm guessing at the very least something very innapropriate was said to Wilfork. It doesn't excuse what he did, but I sincerily doubt he would have done it if he wasn't provoked. It's one of those do-it-now-and-think-about-it-later actions.
  5. Remix 6

    Remix 6 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    randy moss was cut blocking as well...
  6. DW Toys

    DW Toys Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -2

    Notice that BB did not pull VW. He did yank Harrison with a dumb PF. Although there was no penalty, I did not see anyone go to speak to VW.
    He missed his eye "gouge". Goodell has to prove intent to injure. This is all garbage, please. Let's dump this thread. If Goodell has to fine everyone in the NFL for intent to injure, we could pay the countrys' deficit.
    DW Toys
  7. Touchback Jack

    Touchback Jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    he was adjusting his contact lens!
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Because it didn't draw a penalty. I'm sure BB could care less as long as it doesn't hurt the team.

    So if VW pulled out a gun, squeezed off a shot, and missed, that'd be ok? As long as he missed?

    Where did you pull that out from? How do you know that the standard is "intent to injure"? Maybe putting your fingers inside a players facemask constitutes prima facie evidence? Wilfork WILL be fined for what he did, as he should be (and no, he shouldn't be suspended). Imagine how you'd feel if someone did that to Brady.
  9. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    But Wilfork wasn't 'shooting'. He didn't try to poke the guy's eye. He was pointing at him. It's not like Vince tried to 'shoot' and then missed. Bad example.

    If you look at the clip, Jacobs wasn't afraid either, he never blinked or looked away even though Vince's
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    There is something called "strict liability" when you're doing high-risk things (in common law, I don't know about the CBA). If you're jabbing your finger and it makes contact with someone's face, your intent is irrelevant, you should have just known better. Vince should have known better. Again, if you can tell me with a straight face that you'd feel the same way if it was someone doing that to Brady...
  11. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    With a straight face, I would say that if the same thing happened to Brady or any other Pat, I would say the opposing player WOULD NOT get suspended. And I would also bet that the announcers and media would hardly even make it a big deal, probably just ignore it.
  12. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I didn't ask whether you thought he'd be suspended. I don't think Wilfork will be (nor does he deserve to be). I'm just asking whether you'd think it was no big deal if someone did that to Brady? Would they deserve a fine?
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2007
  13. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    pujo, I definitely Wilfork should and will be fined.

    But all the media talk about possible suspension and on this board, even from Pats posters like mgteich who thinks Wilfork should definitely be suspended, are over the top in my opinion.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>