Week 13 NFL Games

[Deus Irae]

He didn’t say it was an illegal hit. He said he shouldn’t have hit him so hard. Hard hits are not SUPPOSED TO be illegal or reason for suspension.
Tomlin is talking about the taunting.

You of all people can’t tell me because the bro did it that it’s rught.

He acknowledged that it was an illegal hit. Tomlin acknowledged that it was an illegal hit. You're just wrong on this, as their quotes demonstrate, and it's obvious. You're being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.

Also, the hit was illegal. They put the rule in specifically to make that sort of hit illegal. If you don't like the rule, argue that, and you'll find a fair number of people who agree with you, including myself, for the most part. But stop arguing that the application was wrong, because it wasn't.

 

[drewskie]

Punishing a player for that would be asinine and inexcusable.

They just did.

If that was Gronk instead of Burfict and instead of Smith Schuster it was a Bills player retaliating for this past Sunday you might be singing a different tune. The taunt just confirmed that Burfict was targeted with the intent to exact revenge for his past dealings such as injuring AB and knocking him out of their 2015 playoff game.

 

[juny]

I haven't seen the Iloka play, but Schuster didn't deserve a suspention for that hit.

Iloka was much worse IMO. it was a straight on helmet to helmet hit - Iloka launced himself helmet first into AB

 

[Ring 6]

He acknowledged that it was an illegal hit. Tomlin acknowledged that it was an illegal hit. You're just wrong on this, as their quotes demonstrate, and it's obvious. You're being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.

“I should have held back on the hit” is not acknowledging it was illegal
Tomlins comments focussed on standing over him and called THAT a teachable moment. He never came close to saying the hit was illegal.
Did you actually read what you linked? If so please point out which words you consider an admission the hit was illegal.

Also, the hit was illegal. They put the rule in specifically to make that sort of hit illegal.

They out in a rule making blind side hits illegal. This was not blindside even if the nfl used that excuse to implement the you hit him too hard penalty.

If you don't like the rule, argue that, and you'll find a fair number of people who agree with you, including myself, for the most part. But stop arguing that the application was wrong, because it wasn't.

The rule isn’t bad and the application was wrong. A lb hit in the chest and above by a player between him and the player with the ball is not defensekess. Blindside actually has a real meaning.

 

[drewskie]

“I should have held back on the hit” is not acknowledging it was illegal
Tomlins comments focussed on standing over him and called THAT a teachable moment. He never came close to saying the hit was illegal.
Did you actually read what you linked? If so please point out which words you consider an admission the hit was illegal.



They out in a rule making blind side hits illegal. This was not blindside even if the nfl used that excuse to implement the you hit him too hard penalty.




The rule isn’t bad and the application was wrong. A lb hit in the chest and above by a player between him and the player with the ball is not defensekess. Blindside actually has a real meaning.

You're reaching bud. The hit was the textbook definition of an illegal hit and he only confirmed everyones take that it was targeted at Burfict by taunting him. Juju then plays the innocent card after the game to try and get out of a suspension.

The league got it right with Juju and Iloka IMO.

 

[AtomicDawg]

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

Blindside actually has a real meaning.

Yeah. I cited the definition used by the NFL Rules in the other thread. You've ignored it and chosen to insist that your own definition is the only one that counts.

Ignoring that this case is simply the NFL enforcing its own rules exactly as they are written is what I think @Deus Irae means by "If you don't like the rule, argue that, and you'll find a fair number of people who agree with you, including myself, for the most part. But stop arguing that the application was wrong, because it wasn't."

 

[Mack Herron]

Sobering update on Shazier. Suggests spinal contusion rather than concussion.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Sobering update on Shazier. Suggests spinal contussion rather than concussion.

Just trying to get educated on the prognosis and read this testimonial from someone who experienced a spinal contusion.

This seems season and potentially career-ending.

On Tuesday, it was decided to take him down for an MRI. Here, they found a spinal cord contusion up around C3 and C4.

“Hearing it was a spinal cord contusion and that there was a very long road to recovery, it was positive news because I could put a title on it and knew there was light at the end of the tunnel. My recovery started then.”

Three weeks on, baby steps continue to be taken. The initial shock of temporarily losing total function from his neck down, he says, has only recently worn off.

Cian still doesn’t have full feeling, nor does he have full movement. He has limited mobility around his shoulders, while he continues to grapple with his hands for control.

‘I am playing with Lego at home to get dexterity back in my fingers’

 

[Deus Irae]

“I should have held back on the hit” is not acknowledging it was illegal
Tomlins comments focussed on standing over him and called THAT a teachable moment. He never came close to saying the hit was illegal.
Did you actually read what you linked? If so please point out which words you consider an admission the hit was illegal.



They out in a rule making blind side hits illegal. This was not blindside even if the nfl used that excuse to implement the you hit him too hard penalty.




The rule isn’t bad and the application was wrong. A lb hit in the chest and above by a player between him and the player with the ball is not defensekess. Blindside actually has a real meaning.

After I seen the replay I think I should’ve held back a little bit more from blocking him.

It's a literal admission, for crying out loud. It's not even arguable, yet you're trying to argue it.

 

[bormio]

Just trying to get educated on the prognosis and read this testimonial from someone who experienced a spinal contusion.

This seems season and potentially career-ending.




‘I am playing with Lego at home to get dexterity back in my fingers’

“Some movement” could be very limited. At the point, the doctors would be very pleased to have some versus none. Does not mean he is even raising his legs off the bed. This is very serious.

 

[RobertWeathers]

“Some movement” could be very limited. At the point, the doctors would be very pleased to have some versus none. Does not mean he is even raising his legs off the bed. This is very serious.

This is horrible news.

He has a long road ahead of him.

 

[Mack Herron]

 

[Wheelman]

Yup, he's the first person I've added to my ignore list in 2.5 years of being on here.

Who?

 

[Ring 6]

It's a literal admission, for crying out loud. It's not even arguable, yet you're trying to argue it.

Apparently you don’t understand the words literal and admission. A literal admission would be “my block was illegal”.
Note he doesn’t say he shouldn’t have made the block the way he did, but is saying he shouldn’t have hit him so hard which is another reason these suspensions are ridiculous.
Now players are going out there thinking I can’t deliver a hard hit or I get suspended.


Well at least you recognize you were wrong about tomlins comments

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah. I cited the definition used by the NFL Rules in the other thread. You've ignored it and chosen to insist that your own definition is the only one that counts.

I think this is where the confusion is. That isn’t a definition of a blindside hit it is the rule for when a blindside hit creates a defenseless player. In other words a blindside hit when not moving toward or lateral to your goal is not a case of a defenseless player. Obviously you can blindside someone moving away from your goal, so that can’t be the definition of blindside. Hopefully that clears it up.

Ignoring that this case is simply the NFL enforcing its own rules exactly as they are written is what I think @Deus Irae means by "If you don't like the rule, argue that, and you'll find a fair number of people who agree with you, including myself, for the most part. But stop arguing that the application was wrong, because it wasn't."

But the application was wrong. That is common for the nfl.
It was a vicious hit on national tv and there was an injury. He is suspended for hitting someone too hard and the league is hiding behind calling something that was head on a blindside hit.

 

[Ring 6]

You're reaching bud. The hit was the textbook definition of an illegal hit and he only confirmed everyones take that it was targeted at Burfict by taunting him. Juju then plays the innocent card after the game to try and get out of a suspension.

The league got it right with Juju and Iloka IMO.

How am I reaching when I say a guy who didnt admit the hit was illegal when he didn’t?

He legally pummeled and decleated burfict.
It wasn’t blindside, burfict saw him. Juju should be applauded for a great block.
Burfict needs to learn the head on a swivel concept that LBs get taught in pop warner.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Not much of an update on Shazier today. Hes still in Cinci I guess.

With that said I read this. Not looking good for his career

For an injury so serious, it’s also fairly common among football players. According to the Cleveland Clinic, seven out of every 10,000 football players will get a spinal contusion; for context, about 1.8 million people play football in the United States. Most recently in the NFL, in 2013, Dallas Cowboys linebacker DeVonte Holloman had one, as did the Green Bay Packers’ tight end Jermichael Finley; New York Giants linebacker Jameel McClain had one in 2012. All three of these players eventually regained motion but have since retired from football.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

They are likely giving him steroidal anti inflammatory drugs to relieve the pressure. They should see improvement soon but it takes awhile.

I have spinal stenosis and 3 years ago I suddenly blew out a disc which severely impinged my spine in exactly the same place, C3/C4. I had almost complete numbness but not paralysis from the neck down. They gave me steroidal anti inflammatory drugs and the feeling came back, thankfully, in about 24 hours. Then with the swelling gone I had a C3/C4 fusion surgery 2 or 3 days later.

My rupture wasn't caused by any violent injury, so I can image the swelling and impingement that he is experiencing is worse.

If there's no nerve damage and if he needs fusion surgery for stabilization, the recovery is several (6-9?) months and he MAY be cleared for athletic activity. In my case, with stenosis (narrow spine), if I had been an athlete I would have had to retire.

Here's hoping for good news, soon.

 

[RobertWeathers]

They are likely giving him steroidal anti inflammatory drugs to relieve the pressure. They should see improvement soon but it takes awhile.

I have spinal stenosis and 3 years ago I suddenly blew out a disc which severely impinged my spine in exactly the same place, C3/C4. I had almost complete numbness but not paralysis from the neck down. They gave me steroidal anti inflammatory drugs and the feeling came back, thankfully, in about 24 hours. Then with the swelling gone I had a C3/C4 fusion surgery 2 or 3 days later.

My rupture wasn't caused by any violent injury, so I can image the swelling and impingement that he is experiencing is worse.

If there's no nerve damage and if he needs fusion surgery for stabilization, the recovery is several (6-9?) months and he MAY be cleared for athletic activity. In my case, with stenosis (narrow spine), if I had been an athlete I would have had to retire.

Here's hoping for good news, soon.

Scary s**t, man.

So he may need fusion surgery even though its a "bruise"?