Vince Wilfork on the Pollard hit

[emoney_33]

And regardless of my points, as BB said it is the PLAYER's responsibility to hit above the knee. Both Wilfork and Pollard failed their responsibilities. Pollard's play IMO was more reckless/dangerous than Wilfork's, but regardless they both failed.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

And regardless of my points, as BB said it is the PLAYER's responsibility to hit above the knee. Both Wilfork and Pollard failed their responsibilities. Pollard's play IMO was more reckless/dangerous than Wilfork's, but regardless they both failed.

They both deserve equal punishment, but one player got flagged and one didn't Was the play even reviewed or rather, did the Pats ask for a review? I don't remember at all. Things just seemed to move from Brady right to Cassel.

 

[PatsFan24]

i hate every team in the nfl and their fans more now that brady is hurt. i think i hate them even more than i did last year

 

[PatsFanSince74]

IMO, this is the bottom line on the subject: if the NFL admits that its best player, it's biggest draw, the best QB of his generation and one of the best QB's in NFL history, if it admits that THAT player suffered a season- or (God Forbid!) a career-ending injury because of a dirty hit, then the League would have a massive PR problem for more reasons than I can enumerate here.

Even if Pollard had pulled a gun out of his jersey and shot Tommy in the knee, the League would have had to say it was a clean hit. End of story.

 

[maverick4]

MAJOR double standard here.

Roger Goodell is the most biased, in over his head commish in the pst 30 years.

 

[upstater1]

i understand their frustration but right now its time to move on. its done . what the heck can a penalty and a fine do ?more they linger on what it coudlve been more they stay in the present. just forget it . no point calling it dirty and prolonging the story in the media. next he will be asked about this every interview and the story prolongs. thats why i like BB's theory. Dont say anything and let the story die down.

Because the unfair treatment has been happening repeatedly. It wasn't a one-shot in other words.

If Tagliabue were still commish, Kevin Faulk would have been in there blocking for Brady. Would it have made a difference? I don't know.

But the fact is, Goodell is an AcornHOLE!

 

[upstater1]

If Pollard got flagged he would have been fined. Because he did not get flagged the NFL did not want to make the officials look like idiots and go off telling them they did their job wrong in public.

Ever see the NFLN show when Mike Pereira to talk about penalties? He never says the wrong call was made when some of them are pretty ridiculous.

Wilfork wasn't flagged for that hit.

 

[pao]

He could have been bracing for the fall and last second decided to try to nudge Losman (above the waist). He started high and was falling, a lot easier to attempt high and accidently hit low while falling.

If you believe that Wilfolk didn't intentionally hit Lossman then you probably believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and honest politicians.

Nope, no case can be made for that all. No way in hell.

Obviously you are wrong as the NFL believed his case. As well, many NFL fans and players (including the recently departed John Lynch), believed he had a case, and in fact, said it wasn't a dirty hit.

He turned himself into a missile and lunged at Brady's knee, end of story.

I believe it was a dirty play, I just said he could make a case that it wasn't and it would be plausible.

 

[BradyIsaYankeeFan]

MAJOR double standard here.
Roger Goodell is the most biased, in over his head commish in the pst 30 years.

If another coach were caught filming the other teams' play calling despite the warning to all coaches in the preseason, would that coach be suspended by Goodell? Would every ESPN analyst be downplaying the significance of recording another team's play calling even though the NFL Commissioner made it a point to NFL coaches that it was illegal?

 

[Mr.Muhozi]

can you imagine the outburst the media and other football fans would have if this happened to one of the mannings?

i think since this happened to tom and the pats it won't be a "big" thing, anyone else, then it would,

 

[neuronet]

i understand their frustration but right now its time to move on. its done . what the heck can a penalty and a fine do ?more they linger on what it coudlve been more they stay in the present. just forget it . no point calling it dirty and prolonging the story in the media. next he will be asked about this every interview and the story prolongs. thats why i like BB's theory. Dont say anything and let the story die down.

It's a deterrent. We don't want 'em getting reckless. Yes, it's a tough contact sport, but rules is rules.

 

[willdeespats]

I have to go with Vince on this one. As far as the hit, it didn't seem like anything too malicious, but Big Vince is 100% correct on this one. Be consistent with everyone, so the message is sent and players are more conscious of it. Apparently, there are two sets of rules that apply here and the NFL is making that abundantly clear.

Goodell is hell bent for having a 'level playing field'. That bias permits him to interpret rules and pass judgement totally as he desires. Finding fault with the Chiefs which took out one of the top players in the league would not be consistent with that bias. Since he is only accountable to the owners, I have to assume this is the way the owners(including Mr. Kraft) want it. Unfortunately (for us), that's the way it is and we'll just have to live with it.

 

[TrueBeliever]

Pollard better hope he never has to face the Patriots again in his career.

As long as he stays in KC, he sure won't have to worry about facing us in the playoffs.

 

[Pats726]

Goodell is hell bent for having a 'level playing field'. That bias permits him to interpret rules and pass judgement totally as he desires. Finding fault with the Chiefs which took out one of the top players in the league would not be consistent with that bias. Since he is only accountable to the owners, I have to assume this is the way the owners(including Mr. Kraft) want it. Unfortunately (for us), that's the way it is and we'll just have to live with it.

The problem is he talks about a level playing field and then shifts it many ways to make it uneven with what he wishes..the rules ARE NOT the rules..in time his phoniness will be uncovered for all to see....

 

[Fishooked]

Wilfork is out of his mind

He clearly raises his elbow and aims for his knee

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Wilfork is out of his mind

He clearly raises his elbow and aims for his knee

I don't see alot of difference between the two hits. Yes, I think Wilfork raised his elbow to try to make contact and knock Losman down, but Pollard just as clearly lunged forward and threw his arms out, trying to make contact and knock Brady down. In both cases, the tackler was already so low to the ground that he knew or shold have known any contact was going to be at the knee or below. I dont' see how you fine one and not the other.

 

[CTPatsFan]

Both hits were legit. It's tackle football. Wilfy shouldn't have been fined.

I tend to agree with Mr. Pissah.

 

[nflintegrity]

No, they just decided that because it was done TO a Patriot rather than BY a Patriot, it was "clean."

EXACTLY.

Everyone is out to get us!!!!

I think Elvis is responsible for Brady getting hurt. He escaped the stadium in a flying saucer too.

You can see it on replay. Belichick has the video.

 

[Funktopus]

I pulled this off the NFL website. http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/protectionofpasser

see the second to last paragraph. "No defensive player who has an unrestricted path to the quarterback may hit him flagrantly in the area of the knee(s) or below when approaching in any direction. " Whoever it is assessing penalties has thier work cut out for them.

They'd have to make a distinction between
- flagrant vs. not flagrant
- restricted vs. unrestricted

To be able to say something is flagrant you need to be able to say the player knowingly and intentionaly went for the QB's legs. In my opinion, this isn't there for the Wilfork violation. The swung out elbow doesn't justify flagrant to me. You don't know if it was to hit loseman's knee, to break his fall or just him being off balance from being dragged down from behind.

"Unrestricted" is difficult to assess too because pre-snap everybody's path to the QB is restricted. In Pollard's case his path to the QB is restricted leaving his best option to lunge at Brady's legs.

Glad it's not my job to make the distinction.

-F

 

[emoney_33]

I pulled this off the NFL website. http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/protectionofpasser

see the second to last paragraph. "No defensive player who has an unrestricted path to the quarterback may hit him flagrantly in the area of the knee(s) or below when approaching in any direction. " Whoever it is assessing penalties has thier work cut out for them.

They'd have to make a distinction between
- flagrant vs. not flagrant
- restricted vs. unrestricted

To be able to say something is flagrant you need to be able to say the player knowingly and intentionaly went for the QB's legs. In my opinion, this isn't there for the Wilfork violation. The swung out elbow doesn't justify flagrant to me. You don't know if it was to hit loseman's knee, to break his fall or just him being off balance from being dragged down from behind.

"Unrestricted" is difficult to assess too because pre-snap everybody's path to the QB is restricted. In Pollard's case his path to the QB is restricted leaving his best option to lunge at Brady's legs.

Glad it's not my job to make the distinction.

-F

Don't forget it was Pollard who put himself in that position himself. Morris didn't tackle him, Pollard dove on the floor himself to take out Morris and THEN lunged at Brady's knees.