The Logic behind Wilfork's fine: Are you kidding me?

[emoney_33]

It's posts like this that make me debate whether or not it is worth the time adding another yahoo to my ignore list (which only had 3 people there now) or if I should just wait a few days when the yahoo in question will inevitably dissapear.

This yahoo might be aqua4ever...

 

[lostjumper]

I just don't get this fine. So, they couldn't punish him for any hit, so they instead punish him for a pattern of agressive behaviour? First, how the F@#$ do you think players play defense is without agressive behaviour? Secondly, if I'm an opponent, I train a camera on wilfork every game and then send it into the league office, and then Wilfork will be fined for more "agressive behaviour."

 

[Leave No Doubt]

I just don't get this fine. So, they couldn't punish him for any hit, so they instead punish him for a pattern of agressive behaviour? First, how the F@#$ do you think players play defense is without agressive behaviour? Secondly, if I'm an opponent, I train a camera on wilfork every game and then send it into the league office, and then Wilfork will be fined for more "agressive behaviour."

Goodell practically insured that scenario Let's just hope BB and Co. know exactly where ALL those cameras are

 

[borg]

It seems that alot of you refuse to acknowledge that Vince WAS caught on tape poking his finger into the face of the Denver lineman. Justified, unjustified, who cares....he can't do it. He was punished last year for the same offense and now the Comish can make statements about serial behavior. Why....because he is a serial face poker. Get over it.

 

[Deus Irae]

It seems that alot of you refuse to acknowledge that Vince WAS caught on tape poking his finger into the face of the Denver lineman. Justified, unjustified, who cares....he can't do it. He was punished last year for the same offense and now the Comish can make statements about serial behavior. Why....because he is a serial face poker. Get over it.

The issue was a supposed elbow to Cutler, at least according the the NFL's in house reporter. While I'm sure a poke is a terrible thing, and something that's worth the death penalty, that was not reported as the justification.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

I just don't get this fine. So, they couldn't punish him for any hit, so they instead punish him for a pattern of agressive behaviour? First, how the F@#$ do you think players play defense is without agressive behaviour? Secondly, if I'm an opponent, I train a camera on wilfork every game and then send it into the league office, and then Wilfork will be fined for more "agressive behaviour."

i guess godell is also a part time psychiatrist.

 

[MassPats38]

i guess godell is also a part time psychiatrist.

You may appropriately insert the YouTube link to Vince Wilfork singing "I Feel Pretty" at this point in the discussion.

 

[spacecrime]

I just don't get this fine. So, they couldn't punish him for any hit, so they instead punish him for a pattern of agressive behaviour? First, how the F@#$ do you think players play defense is without agressive behaviour?

.....

 

[Salva135]

From the NFL.com video, it looked like a hit that was unrelated to the play, which of course is fine-able. My one qualm with this fine is that is seems rather unprecedented, in that is isn't related to a specific play, but rather a "pattern" or tendency." This opens up the book to quite a bit of speculation and subjectivity regarding how players play their game, and really opens up a can of worms. If Wilfork has had such an egregious past of such hits, then fine him progressively on each specific one, and suspend him when they reach the point of being completely unacceptable behavior. At least then, there's a logical progression of punishment and its source is easily identifiable.

To me, this sounds like Goodell brought Wilfork into his office and said, "I really just don't approve of the way you're playing these days, but I can't find anything specific, so I'm just going to fine you on general bad behavior." That's absurd, and poor practice on the part of the Commish.

For the record, I've watched enough Wilfork to say that he definitely does this stuff, and the league should definitely slap his hand because of it... it's unacceptable. But I don't like the way the league is handling this, because of its further implications.

 

[Patslifer]

A pats player could cut another players leg off on the field, and half of you would try to defend that player.

Wilfork is an awsome player, and he is a nasty sob....He has a history of doing "shady" things on the field, and clearly his emotions get the best of him at times. Why must you all ignore this fact? The guy was fined because he has done some questionable things over the last few years on the field.

Get over it, and be fair. The NFL is not out to get us, please stop the madness....we our one of their largest cash cows, please wake up.

 

[MassPats38]

A pats player could cut another players leg off on the field, and half of you would try to defend that player.

Wilfork is an awsome player, and he is a nasty sob....He has a history of doing "shady" things on the field, and clearly his emotions get the best of him at times. Why must you all ignore this fact? The guy was fined because he has done some questionable things over the last few years on the field.

Get over it, and be fair. The NFL is not out to get us, please stop the madness....we our one of their largest cash cows, please wake up.

His "history" is last year (that would be 2007). If it is more than that, by all means give examples. Otherwise, try not to embellish and characterize him as generally angry unless you can cite some basis for your conclusion outside of the 3 incidents last year. He has started since 2004. I do not remember the Witten issue (a late hit), but the only egregious and stupid violation on his tab last year was Jacobs. Losman was arguable, and I join the camp that says it was not flagrant.

Most people are not claiming this outcome is an anti-Pats conspiracy. It more sounds like problems with imposing a fine based on "playing angry," not an illegal hit, in a sport based on violent collisions that would create a ridiculous precedent. If that is the case, what is next, a fine for harsh looks or words? How about fines for players not smiling for the camera?

The last suspension for violence I recall was Haynesworth, and he raked his cleats across a helpless opponent's head when pinned on the ground after losing a helmet. Romanowski pulled a teammate's helmet off and punched him in the eye, breaking multiple face bones around the eye socket and ending that player's career. Can you seriously look at these issues and place Wilfork on the extreme scale for which a suspension would be appropriately considered?

At the end of the day, I have no problem in the NFL doing some sort of intervention if it knows something about Wilfork that we do not. I would rather see him regarded as the good player he is, not a dirty player. The strange thing is, I do not recall players calling him out as dirty, and I would view them as the best judge of dirty play.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

He should be grateful he wasn't suspended. What's up with these players and maliciously trying to injure other players? I guess he has to fill in for Rodney while he's out.

Yo Aqua,

My man Ted Ginn finally had his breakout game Sunday. Good luck against the Donks. Sorry about Beck 'The Future'.

 

[theONLYJerseypatsfan]

Am I missing something or did a bronco try and level from behind whoever was standing next to Wilfork when Wilfork hit Cutler?

How is that not being brought up?!

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

A pats player could cut another players leg off on the field, and half of you would try to defend that player.

Wilfork is an awsome player, and he is a nasty sob....He has a history of doing "shady" things on the field, and clearly his emotions get the best of him at times. Why must you all ignore this fact? The guy was fined because he has done some questionable things over the last few years on the field.

Get over it, and be fair. The NFL is not out to get us, please stop the madness....we our one of their largest cash cows, please wake up.

I think this was asked in another thread, I don't recall if you answered it or not.

Patslifer, is there anything you like about the Patriots?

 

[Patslifer]

I think this was asked in another thread, I don't recall if you answered it or not.

Patslifer, is there anything you like about the Patriots?

Clearly you don't look at the other side of the coin. That night I posted several pro-pats threads + comments, and also challenged the op to look them up via the search feature.

You're making my point! You only see and hear what you want to hear.

 

[Patslifer]

His "history" is last year (that would be 2007). If it is more than that, by all means give examples. Otherwise, try not to embellish and characterize him as generally angry unless you can cite some basis for your conclusion outside of the 3 incidents last year. He has started since 2004. I do not remember the Witten issue (a late hit), but the only egregious and stupid violation on his tab last year was Jacobs. Losman was arguable, and I join the camp that says it was not flagrant.

Most people are not claiming this outcome is an anti-Pats conspiracy. It more sounds like problems with imposing a fine based on "playing angry," not an illegal hit, in a sport based on violent collisions that would create a ridiculous precedent. If that is the case, what is next, a fine for harsh looks or words? How about fines for players not smiling for the camera?

The last suspension for violence I recall was Haynesworth, and he raked his cleats across a helpless opponent's head when pinned on the ground after losing a helmet. Romanowski pulled a teammate's helmet off and punched him in the eye, breaking multiple face bones around the eye socket and ending that player's career. Can you seriously look at these issues and place Wilfork on the extreme scale for which a suspension would be appropriately considered?

At the end of the day, I have no problem in the NFL doing some sort of intervention if it knows something about Wilfork that we do not. I would rather see him regarded as the good player he is, not a dirty player. The strange thing is, I do not recall players calling him out as dirty, and I would view them as the best judge of dirty play.

Why would I try to argue with you? You are claiming none of Wilforks past issues are examples of the history I was refering to. You can't look a this from an unbiased perspective. Am I saying Wilfork is dirty, no. Am I saying Wilfork does some "shady" things at times, yes.

My op was dedicated to those who think the evil NFL is out to unfairly fine Wilfork. Where there is smoke there is fire.

 

[Clonamery]

Where there is smoke there is fire.

Using that profound logic, you won't argue when most think you are a troll or an asshat.

 

[MassPats38]

Why would I try to argue with you? You are claiming none of Wilforks past issues are examples of the history I was refering to. You can't look a this from an unbiased perspective. Am I saying Wilfork is dirty, no. Am I saying Wilfork does some "shady" things at times, yes.

My op was dedicated to those who think the evil NFL is out to unfairly fine Wilfork. Where there is smoke there is fire.

It must be a terrible burden for you to be the only poster capable of a neutral observation. Your conclusory "history" reference to which I took exception, supported apparently by 2007 infractions only from a 5-season career, is a gross hyperbole. I asked you for facts supporting history, and you provide none in response apparently conceding his history is 2007 and the basis for your conclusion. When you overstate facts to prove your argument, please do not call yourself unbiased. Advocates are by definition biased, so color yourself biased when you offer opinions and exaggerate evidence to support those opinions.

You also said Wilfork is angry. Based on what? Do you know him? Is this conclusion a product of your unbiased omniscience? If your "unbiased" opinion is that he absolutely deserved all three fines last year, super. Say so and move on. I will then accept that as your understanding that the NFL is beyond contestation in its rulings imposing penalties and fines and infallible in all respects because those rulings are decided by a jury of twelve. Wait one, that's a criminal trial and legal precedent. Who in fact decides NFL violations and how would he/they be infallible? Is there some rule a fan accept that ruling as a good call under the circumstances (and for the record my biased post conceded that the Jacobs incident was egregious and merited a fine, in the event you believe you do not exaggerate - that runs contrary to your "You are claiming none of Wilforks past issues are examples" statement as an FYI)? Wilfork has those violations from last season, but those violations do not merit the weight of criminal convictions if that is the basis for your determination that Wilfork merited this fine from documented "history".

The subject of this thread is that the penalty for "angry play" rather than illegal hits makes for poor precedent. My observation in response to your post is the posts do not reflect conspiracy theory, but a criticism of the precedent set by fining "angry play," not contact. Wilfork's past is relevant to that decision, thus my criticism of your summary of his history. And for the record, I never asked if you consider Wilfork's play "shady" or "dirty" (I have no clue what "shady" play would be characterized as - football is a game of contact, defined as illegal or legal/dirty or clean). That is an opinion, so feel free to enlighten the board with reference to actual facts arising in games why you perceive his play to be "shady" and why his "shady" play substantiates this most recent fine making it an appropriate action. That is consistent with the subject of the thread.

 

[Kontradiction]

In other news, my ignore list now has 8 names to it's credit. I'm debating about whether or not I want to add a 9th.

 

[JSn]

In other news, my ignore list now has 8 names to it's credit. I'm debating about whether or not I want to add a 9th.

I hope I've done more good than bad to merit avoiding ignore lists, and I can't bring myself to use my. The entertainment value of some these posts is IMMENSE.

And watching some of you guys lay the smackdown (like MassPats38) would lose it's awesomeness.

Plus, I think a couple of those guys have re-signed up.