Pryor fined 7500 for hit on Favre...

[DaBruinz]

Not true. Some are claiming his head did not hit Favre's head.



Wow that's a stretch. And if BB was to teach proper coverages to our secondary the other team would never get a completed pass too.



Quite the opposite. If the rule was if the player intentional hit the other player in the head foul but does it by accident then it is not would be where you would have much greater unfairness, b/c then someone else needs to figure out what is going thru the defenders head. That rule would be very unfair and afterwards fans would be always claiming the other guy did it on purpose but their player did it by accident. This rule is extremely fair as it is quite simple. Did the defender hit the players head? Yes or no! End of analysis.

The issue here is that they are fining Pryor based on what happened after the initial contact. Pryor's hit on Favre was textbook and 100% legal. In fact, no one has been able to show, definitively, when Favre's head actually hit Pryor's helmet. The one thing that IS clear is that it didn't happen on initial contact. And that is what matters.

Sorry, but you making excuses for the league doesn't do anything for you.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

It should be clear to anyone that can read and comprehend that Pryor should be fined according to rules


Defenseless players (a term that includes a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass) may not be struck anywhere with the "hairline" or forehead part of the helmet. Also, the rules prohibit the defender from "striking [the defenseless player] in a way that causes the defensive player's helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player's head, neck, or face -- even if the initial contact of the defender's helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player's neck."

That's not what the rule says. Where are you getting that? Rule 12, Section 2 clearly states intent and is not worded like you quoted.

 

[spacecrime]

The rule is pretty clear.

It is. THe NFL gave specific how-to's a couple weeks ago. And Pryor did what they said to do. Yes, his helmet rode up, and yes, Favre's head snapped down, but Pryor is fined for what he did, and that was to follow the rules.

If Brady had been on the receiving end the board would be going crazy for the lack of a suspension.

Some would, I suppose, and we could talk forever about how fans of a team are biased in favor of that team (imagine that!), but what Pats fans or Colts fans think is unrelated to whether the hit was according to the rules specified the NFL or not.

The worst thing about this is it proves Shlereth right. He said players would be fined for legal hits where the QB/WR ducks his head, and I scoffed, saying the NFL said they would fine for head-hunting, launching, and leading with the crown of the helmet. I was wrong and Shlereth was right.

Ugh.

 

[OldNEPatsFan]

That's not what the rule says. Where are you getting that? Rule 12, Section 2 clearly states intent and is not worded like you quoted.

This is part of the new rules that were sent to every club along with the video on proper tackling. Why do you think Bill is not complaining about the fines, because he isn't a MORON like most of the people on this board and knows to how to read and comprehend.

 

[upstater1]

I think the OLineman riding up Pryor's back should be fined too. He contributed to Favre's booboo.

 

[DaBruinz]

Was the hit a textbook hit? No. If so it wouldn't have ended up at the head.

Not True. There this thing called physics. You might have heard of it. And Pryor didn't end up at the head. The head ended up hitting Pryor's helmet. If you can't understand the difference then there is no help for you.

If the hit was lower to begin with or wasn't angling upwards at all, no problem. But the hit did end up hitting the head. And that was under Pryor's control. If the player getting hit appears injured that obviously makes them look closely, so a fine was inevitable on this one.

Wrong. The hit wasn't angled upwards. The hit was angled forward and down to the right thanks to the O-lineman blocking Pryor. If Pryor's hit had been angling upwards, Favre would have ended up in the air and flying backwards. Again, because of that thing called physics..

Favre's head hit Pryor's helmet due to the whiplash effect of the hit. How can you claim that is under Pryor's control? Pryor didn't grab Favre's head and slam it into the top of his helmet in some wierd WWE move.

Since when did everyone here become Ray Lewis? I would rather have Favre (and by extension Brady) protected.

WOW. What a friggin stretch.. So, what is it? LSD? PCP? H? It has to be something for you to think that people defending a legal hit are somehow not advocating protecting the QB.

 

[DaBruinz]

Deus is sperging again, folks.

Deus is actually talking sense. Unlike someone who keeps blathering on about Congress and Concussions..

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Some would, I suppose, and we could talk forever about how fans of a team are biased in favor of that team (imagine that!), but what Pats fans or Colts fans think is unrelated to whether the hit was according to the rules specified the NFL or not.

And that has a ton to do with why I find these complaints completely hollow.

If a Viking fan was to gripe about this particular fine, I would believe the individual was genuine in having a problem with the application of the rule and not just being a sore sport.

But I have yet to see this board post such venom toward Rodger Godell for fining a player that injured a Patriots player. If that ever occurs (and I doubt it ever will) then I will believe that it is a real complaint with the way the rules have changed and not just poor sports whining.

I like the new emphasis on the rules. Cause I would like Tom Brady and other players to have the opportunity to play for a long time.

 

[DaBruinz]

I think that's an irrational conclusion not supported by facts. Fines do have some effect on making defensive players think twice and alter the way they hit. Not complete, as Rodney said, but especially with the current spotlight it has an effect.

No.. Your comments were the irrational ones that aren't supported by facts.

Fines on players making legal hits don't do anything but make players angry. And when that happens, they make mistakes and people do get hurt. The players say to themselves, " If I am going to get fined for making a proper tackle, why bother going to the trouble."

Rodney commented on the hits to defenseless players. Not on QBs who get hit and the whiplash of their head causes it to hit the defensive player's helmet.

 

[DaBruinz]

It should be clear to anyone that can read and comprehend that Pryor should be fined according to rules


Defenseless players (a term that includes a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass) may not be struck anywhere with the "hairline" or forehead part of the helmet. Also, the rules prohibit the defender from "striking [the defenseless player] in a way that causes the defensive player's helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player's head, neck, or face -- even if the initial contact of the defender's helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player's neck."

The only problem is that Favre couldn't have been considered a "defenseless player" as Pryor started his tackle while Favre still had the ball. So, it's clear to anyone who can comprehend what is read that it was a LEGAL HIT and he shouldn't have been fined since Favre wasn't defenseless. The rule you quoted applies to defensive players hitting receivers. NOT QBs.

 

[DaBruinz]

This is part of the new rules that were sent to every club along with the video on proper tackling. Why do you think Bill is not complaining about the fines, because he isn't a MORON like most of the people on this board and knows to how to read and comprehend.

BBs not complaining about the fines because BB doesn't comment on the league like that. He never has.

You really shouldn't say people on this board can't read and comprehend when you are the one who doesn't understand that a QB with the ball is not considered a "defenseless" player.

 

[Steve102]

Pryor's hit on Favre was textbook and 100% legal. In fact, no one has been able to show, definitively, when Favre's head actually hit Pryor's helmet. The one thing that IS clear is that it didn't happen on initial contact. And that is what matters.

Pereira stated in his column it was clean. It was such a non issue for him he only gave it one sentence. I think there's a larger issue behind this; labor. I think this is a BS attempt by the league to protect players, to have a chip in the forthcoming labor talks.

 

[jmt57]

On a related note ...

Agent: "No Question" Patriots DL Myron Pryor will appeal fine for Favre hit

“There is no question that we will be appealing this fine,” wrote agent Brian Levy of Goal Line Management. “We are hopeful that the process will work as it should and Myron will have this fine rescinded.”

 

[DaBruinz]

And that has a ton to do with why I find these complaints completely hollow.

If a Viking fan was to gripe about this particular fine, I would believe the individual was genuine in having a problem with the application of the rule and not just being a sore sport.

But I have yet to see this board post such venom toward Rodger Godell for fining a player that injured a Patriots player. If that ever occurs (and I doubt it ever will) then I will believe that it is a real complaint with the way the rules have changed and not just poor sports whining.

I like the new emphasis on the rules. Cause I would like Tom Brady and other players to have the opportunity to play for a long time.

Can you please give an incident where an opposing player was fined for making a legal hit on a Patriot player?

Otherwise, you're whole schtick about a "real complaint" is nothing but BS and amounts to you just putting your fingers in your ears and acting as if the problem isn't there.

 

[Deus Irae]

And that has a ton to do with why I find these complaints completely hollow.

If a Viking fan was to gripe about this particular fine, I would believe the individual was genuine in having a problem with the application of the rule and not just being a sore sport.

But I have yet to see this board post such venom toward Rodger Godell for fining a player that injured a Patriots player. If that ever occurs (and I doubt it ever will) then I will believe that it is a real complaint with the way the rules have changed and not just poor sports whining.

I like the new emphasis on the rules. Cause I would like Tom Brady and other players to have the opportunity to play for a long time.

Stop digging. People here were bashing Meriweather for his hit, after all.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Can you please give an incident where an opposing player was fined for making a legal hit on a Patriot player?

Otherwise, you're whole schtick about a "real complaint" is nothing but BS and amounts to you just putting your fingers in your ears and acting as if the problem isn't there.

This year...I can't think of any. Last year there were fines which resulted in the the fans from 31 teams claiming Brady wears a skirt. And this board claiming the fines were justified or didn't go far enough. I am not going to go digging for specific names.

 

[zipster9]

Pereira stated in his column it was clean. It was such a non issue for him he only gave it one sentence. I think there's a larger issue behind this; labor. I think this is a BS attempt by the league to protect players, to have a chip in the forthcoming labor talks.

As everyone stated, it's Brett Farve. If it was a ColtMcCoy, no fine would be issued to Pryor. If it was PeytonM, there would be a fine...

I think the NFL is going to sissy-pants...

 

[emoney_33]

That is the entire point. Here is the letter from Goodell that went with the video (emphasis mine):



Would anybody consider the technique used by Pryor to be "dangerous"? I challenge anyone to find a difference between Pryor's technique and what Alford did to Brady in the Super Bowl. Identical except for the difference in how Brady and Favre absorbed the impact. How is THAT within Pryor's control?

Points #1 and #2 in the letter implicitly suggest that if you teach the proper technique and players use that technique, you shouldn't have a problem with the league. It would be explicit except it describes the negative, leaving the positive open to interpretation ("if you do teach the proper technique and players use that technique, you may still get disciplined").

The league is literally saying that 2 players can do the exact same thing...with one being lauded by the league for tough, physical play and the other being fined for "breaking the rules". Take the Ray Lewis hit on Keller in the league video. Lewis lined up his target area early, leaving Keller plenty of time to duck his head. If Keller did that, Lewis' hit goes from a league example on how to play the game to a violation that draws a fine and possible suspension.

That means that a player can't possibly control whether or not they are playing within the rules. They can do everything right (which Pryor did), but they don't control how the target moves just before and even AFTER they make contact. Fine and suspend players when they did have complete control over the situation (like Meriweather) and the result is negligent or malicious play. If you are just going to punish undesirable outcomes, stop the pretense that there is a correct way to play/coach that avoids penalties. All you are doing is trying to minimize the hit to your bank account and pray that you avoid suspension.

This is EXACTLY what I and others complained about when they announced the rule "emphasis" 2 weeks ago. In the video sent out by the NFL they explicitly said it does not matter where you aim, only the end result matters. I said it 2 weeks ago and I'll say it again, my worry is that this has very LITTLE to do with actually protecting players. It is not unreasonable to believe that the NFL desires the snowball effect of altered defensive play that increases offensive output and thus generates more $$.

If, as is feared, the NFL continues with the strict end-result policy, ESPECIALLY after the 1st fringe-play suspension, then defensive players will have no choice but to alter their games.

 

[Wheelssps]

This is EXACTLY what I and others complained about when they announced the rule "emphasis" 2 weeks ago. In the video sent out by the NFL they explicitly said it does not matter where you aim, only the end result matters. I said it 2 weeks ago and I'll say it again, my worry is that this has very LITTLE to do with actually protecting players. It is not unreasonable to believe that the NFL desires the snowball effect of altered defensive play that increases offensive output and thus generates more $$.

If, as is feared, the NFL continues with the strict end-result policy, ESPECIALLY after the 1st fringe-play suspension, then defensive players will have no choice but to alter their games.

Right, I think that the NFL is trying to get the game softened up with less hitting (especially of skill position players and QB's) to lower the number of injuries. The reason: the 18 game season.

Right now one of the strongest agruments about the 18 game season is that it will water down the quality of play as more players will get injured and thus there will be more backups playing meaningful roles by the end of the season than right now. The switch from a 16 game to an 18 game season represents a 12.5% increase in regular season game time. (I'm ignoring removing pre-season games as they're less about starters playing full games then anyway, and thus less injuries in general to starters)

If the NFL can soften the game and lower injuries by at least 12.5% from current levels, they will have addressed their critics number one point against the 18 game season before labor negotiations really even get underway about it.

Smart from the NFL's point of view, but it does mean that a handful of people are altering the game before collective talks and are certainly preparing the game for an 18 game season already by trying to lessen the number of injuries in the game. I think that this is the critical reason why teh memo cites the end result of a play rather than the actions: the NFL really only cares about the result of lowering injuries, and they're caring less and less about whether injuries come from illegal or legal hits.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

This is part of the new rules that were sent to every club along with the video on proper tackling. Why do you think Bill is not complaining about the fines, because he isn't a MORON like most of the people on this board and knows to how to read and comprehend.

So you're making it up then and calling people morons and attacking them because you're being called on it. This is the memo so where did that quote come from? I'm asking again without implying anything about your reading comprehension or intelligence. Maybe you can reciprocate and point me to the link. Fair enough? If you want to call names, at least back it up with something official since I've presented both the memo and the section in the rule book with my quote. You've presented a quote that isn't from the memo, claimed it's from the memo, and insulted people for questioning you.

TO NFL PLAYERS AND COACHES:
One of our highest priorities is player safety. We all know that football is a tough game that includes hard contact. But that carries with it an obligation to do all that we can to protect all players from unnecessary injury caused by dangerous techniques from those who play outside the rules.
The video shown today shows what kind of hits are against the rules, but also makes clear that you can play a hard, physical game within the rules.
Violations of the playing rules that unreasonably put the safety of another player in jeopardy have no place in the game, and that is especially true in the case of hits to the head and neck. Accordingly, from this point forward, you should be clear on the following points:
1. Players are expected to play within the rules. Those who do not will face increased discipline, including suspensions, starting with the first offense.
2. Coaches are expected to teach playing within the rules. Failure to do so will subject both the coach and the employing club to discipline.
3. Game officials have been directed to emphasize protecting players from illegal and dangerous hits, and particularly from hits to the head and neck. In appropriate cases, they have the authority to eject players from a game.