Bengals' Vontaze Burfict facing 5-game suspension

[jah]

The punishment for substance abuse is collectively bargained.
The definitions and punishments for "illegal" hits as the NFL applies it is insane.

The standard has become if you hit someone hard and/or they get injured it's illegal.
The job of a defender is to hit people hard, and getting hit hard results in injuries
I'm not defending burfict because he has made some unnecessary hits but the one we are talking about here was fine. He was doing his job. He chose to do it physically within the rules in a physical game.
If that FB were leading a sweep and the runner cut back inside but he still decleated burfict is that illegal?

I haven't seen the hit in question nor have I made any real effort to look into it. I admit my post was pretty much predicated on the hit actually being illegal, but my main/only point was the inconsistency in the way the league handles substance offenses vs. illegal hits.

I think you're right in that it pretty much just comes down to the fact that substance abuse offenses have strictly defined protocol, but the NFL just makes this **** up as they go (like with domestic abuse and ball air pressure). I'm still confused about why they seem to care more about keeping Josh Gordon out of the league than guys like Burfict.

 

[Ring 6]

I haven't seen the hit in question nor have I made any real effort to look into it. I admit my post was pretty much predicated on the hit actually being illegal, but my main/only point was the inconsistency in the way the league handles substance offenses vs. illegal hits.

I think you're right in that it pretty much just comes down to the fact that substance abuse offenses have strictly defined protocol, but the NFL just makes this **** up as they go (like with domestic abuse and ball air pressure). I'm still confused about why they seem to care more about keeping Josh Gordon out of the league than guys like Burfict.

Because the illegal drug and Ped policies are the same.
Ask yourself this if all of Gordon's suspensions were for PEDS would you see this differently?

If you want to ban football players for playing aggressively and hitting people we might as well change it to flag football.

 

[jah]

Because the illegal drug and Ped policies are the same.
Ask yourself this if all of Gordon's suspensions were for PEDS would you see this differently?

If you want to ban football players for playing aggressively and hitting people we might as well change it to flag football.

Not sure what you think I'm saying. I don't want Burfict banned for life, and I don't necessarily think Gordon deserves another chance. I'm just pointing out what the league does and doesn't consider a serious offense, measured by suspension length.

 

[The Gr8est]

He's easily one guy whose knee I wouldn't mind seeing getting bent in the wrong direction.

Burflict is exactly the kind of player article 46 was made to deal with.

 

[Ring 6]

Not sure what you think I'm saying. I don't want Burfict banned for life, and I don't necessarily think Gordon deserves another chance. I'm just pointing out what the league does and doesn't consider a serious offense, measured by suspension length.

but the league can't "consider" PED/drug test failures anything other than what is collectively bargained.

I get that they are incompetent buffoons with the DV policy and execution and railroaded Brady in large part to distract from that, but the right direction they need to go in suspensions and fines for hits is LESS punishment not more.
Saying that it's other screwed up off the field punishement policies should make them increase this type will ruin the game.

 

[Ring 6]

Burflict is exactly the kind of player article 46 was made to deal with.

Did you see the hit? What do you think is wrong with it?

 

[The Gr8est]

Did you see the hit? What do you think is wrong with it?

Not talking about this specific play, but his dirty play in general. Suh is another one.

 

[Ring 6]

Not talking about this specific play, but his dirty play in general. Suh is another one.

So what is your argument/point/want?

 

[The Gr8est]

So what is your argument/point/want?

Being able to suspend guys like Burflict or Suh for dirty/dangerous play, is what article 46 should cover.

Like a SC justice once commented about obsenity paraphrasing "I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it."

 

[Wheelman]

Not talking about this specific play, but his dirty play in general. Suh is another one.

I still remember when the NYJFL* reinstated Suh for the playoff game because of ratings if Suh wasn't in the game.

Apparently Falcons fans were a little miffed about something Suh did to Schaub in the 1st pre season game. Unfortunately the dolphins home broadcast didn't show it. I'm assuming the Falcons broadcast did show it. But they pulled Schaub out right after the incident apparently.

 

[Ring 6]

Being able to suspend guys like Burflict or Suh for dirty/dangerous play, is what article 46 should cover.

Like a SC justice once commented about obsenity paraphrasing "I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it."

They are already doing that, far more than they should.

 

[Ring 6]

Being able to suspend guys like Burflict or Suh for dirty/dangerous play, is what article 46 should cover.

Like a SC justice once commented about obsenity paraphrasing "I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it."

But you said you haven't looked at the play and don't care to so you aren't even trying to see if you see it.

 

[The Gr8est]

But you said you haven't looked at the play and don't care to so you aren't even trying to see if you see it.

I told you comment was about his play in general and not that specific play.

Not going to argue with you.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The ball was released. The receiver was within 5 yds of the LoS. Its clear he meant to flatten him or perhaps injure.

I don't see a penalty per-se. Maybe UR I guess.

He has a history which clearly factored into this.

 

[Ring 6]

I told you comment was about his play in general and not that specific play.

Not going to argue with you.

I'm not arguing. I'm just trying to understand your point. Burfict has been suspended numerous times. Players are fined often for hits that should be part of the game.

You seem to be saying you wish players could get disciplined for in field actions but don't seem to realize it already happens and happens more than it should.

 

[Ring 6]

The ball was released. The receiver was within 5 yds of the LoS. Its clear he meant to flatten him or perhaps injure.

I don't see a penalty per-se. Maybe UR I guess.

He has a history which clearly factored into this.

The hit is legal.
You cannot hold a LB heading cover a back out of the backfield to the standard of waiting to if the ball is released before doing his job.

And yes his job in that play IS to flatten the RB.

 

[archstanton543]

Well....nobody's Burfect.

 

[rochrist]

After watching the video. Looks like a legal hit to me. Pats linebackers do this all time against crossing routes. I think it's within 5 yards from the line of scrimmage.

NYJFL* keep screwing up ****. They're wrong to suspend him for 5 games. They should have done it long time ago for other dirty offenses. Just makes the NYJFL* look even more incompetent.

They're hitting him with a new rule on defenseless receivers. He claims the hit was from the front which would be ok. They claim side or back which isn't.

 

[Ring 6]

They're hitting him with a new rule on defenseless receivers. He claims the hit was from the front which would be ok. They claim side or back which isn't.

It also needs to be to the head/neck which I don't think it is.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The hit is legal.
You cannot hold a LB heading cover a back out of the backfield to the standard of waiting to if the ball is released before doing his job.

And yes his job in that play IS to flatten the RB.

I agree. It was mean and nasty, but legal. He hit him in the body with his shoulder as receiver was turning up field.

Even the rulebook says it was legal and this is the revised "Defenseless Posture" rule.

Article 9 It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture. (a) Players in a defenseless posture are: OFFICIAL NFL PLAYING RULES 73 (1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player; (3) A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (4) A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; (5) A player on the ground at the end of a play; (6) A kicker/punter during the kick or during the return; (7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession, and (8) A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward his own endline and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side. (b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is: (1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and (2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.