The more you think about it and see photos, it was a dirty hit..

Doggin94it said:

The rule was posted. It's illegal to flagrantly aim at a QB's legs when a rusher is unimpeded. When a rusher is impeded, they can aim wherever they want (except helmet to helmet, or spearing, etc.)

Click to expand...

Olhuffen or whoever it was that injured Palmer was NOT unimpeded, and that sparked the rule right?

So anytime you don't have a 100% clear path to the QB you can hit his knees, ok nice rule


Wilfork was IMPEDED, actually pushed.

pheenix11 said:

How the hell was Wilfork's path to the QB last year any less "restricted" than Pollard's? Wilfork was pushed into Losman, Pollard had Morris on his back.

Wilfork hit Losman while falling down and trying to break his fall.

Pollard lunged from the ground helmet first into Brady's knee.

If what Wilkford did was against the rules, and apparently it was because he was fined, then what Pollard did is against the rules as well. Wilfork was restricted by a lineman pushing him, Pollard was restricted by Morris. What is the difference?

Click to expand...

If I - or, apparently, the NFL - believed that, I wouldn't be calling Wilfork's hit on Losman dirty. Wilfork did not look like he was trying to break his fall (you don't shoot your elbow out and down to do that). He looked like he was aiming to elbow Losman in the leg. Was that his actual intent? Can't say for certain, since I'm not in his head, but that's the most reasonable inference to draw from the evidence

What does this rule only cover completely unblocked blitzers? Thats not how they enforced it against Wilfork.

Click to expand...

Because it's drafted as "unimpeded" and is meant to prevent unnecessary hits on a QBs legs where a defender has another equally good option for tackling the QB. It's not a rule meant to prevent a QB from being sacked if the only target for the defender is his legs, thanks to the blocking. BTW, I doubt Wilfork was fined under that rule - he was more likely fined for unnecessary roughness

Unwritten rule in the NFL brotherhood.......

"DO NOT LUNGE AT A FULLY EXPOSED FRANCHISE NFL STAR QB WITH HIS KNEES FULLY EXPOSED AND DEFENSELESS'

That stiff, JAG safety has caused more damage to this league than he could ever imagine. It's horrible for the NFL period to not have it's best player. It hurts revenues, television ratings........everything NFL it hurts.

It was bush-league and bogus, the guy knew what he was doing.....

The hit on Brady wasn't dirty...period. Let's not be whiney Homers, his loss is huge but let's keep some perspective.

Brick said:

The hit on Brady wasn't dirty...period. Let's not be whiney Homers, his loss is huge but let's keep some perspective.

Click to expand...

Hey, PR, nice to see you're one of the sane ones

emoney_33 said:

Uhh you do know that it was NOT an uninterrupted path that resulted in Palmer's injury right so you are way off on your comment here. Again you are just forcing it.

Click to expand...

Really?

The NFL won't fine Steelers defensive end Kimo von Oelhoffen for his hit on Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer in Sunday's AFC Wild Card Game. Steve Alic of the league office said Monday night that the ruling is von Oelhoffen didn't have an unrestricted path to the quarterback.
Working off a block of left guard Eric Steinbach on the Bengals' second snap of the game, von Oelhoffen stumbled and then crashed into Palmer's left knee, knocking him out of the game with a torn anterior cruciate ligament.

"It was reviewed and it was ruled he did not have an unrestricted path," Alic said. "He was coming off a block. He was thrown off the block. The path wasn't clear."

Click to expand...

http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=5007

I don't care what caused the writing of the rule. The only thing that we can assume with a long-standing (several years) rule is that it is written as it is intended to rule. As it is currently written, the rule is to prevent unimpeded blows to a quarterback's legs.

Read the friggin' rule.

BradyToMoss said:

Unwritten rule in the NFL brotherhood.......

"DO NOT LUNGE AT A FULLY EXPOSED FRANCHISE NFL STAR QB WITH HIS KNEES FULLY EXPOSED AND DEFENSELESS'

That stiff, JAG safety has caused more damage to this league than he could ever imagine. It's horrible for the NFL period to not have it's best player. It hurts revenues, television ratings........everything NFL it hurts.

It was bush-league and bogus, the guy knew what he was doing.....

Click to expand...

Unwritten rule in the NFL brotherhood:

Play to the whistle on every play.

checkedout said:

Dirty. Sammy isn't on him yet but his helmet is on Toms knee:

Click to expand...

We all know that the rest of the NFL wants us to go away. I have no doubt in my mind that if this injury happened to Peyton Manning, Bill Polian would tear Roger Goodells door off its hinges and demand something be done...And something would be done....Pollard would be made into the most hated man in the NFL for taking out Manning. And for us, it would suck having to play the Colts without Manning....

But we are dealing with a different set of circumstances here. We are not the Colts and thus, nothing will be done to deter this kind of play against the Patriots.

bradmahn said:

Really?



http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=5007

I don't care what caused the writing of the rule. The only thing that we can assume with a long-standing (several years) rule is that it is written as it is intended to rule. As it is currently written, the rule is to prevent unimpeded blows to a quarterback's legs.

Read the friggin' rule.

Click to expand...

This debate/topic has been so far away from the stupid "letter of the law" spin you try to put on it. Still going far over your head.

Just like the horse collar tackle, didn't matter when it was LEGAL, it was still f'ing dirty. DIRTY IS DIRTY, BAD DECISIONS ARE BAD DECISIONS. I don't care how legal it is.

Bill Belichick was asked his thoughts on the hit by Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard that injured the left knee of quarterback Tom Brady. Did he think it was a dirty hit?

“Well, it doesn’t really matter what I think,” Belichick responded. “The officials officiate the game. I’m sure they’ll handle it. We always taught our players that it’s their responsibility to hit the quarterback above the knees and below the shoulders.

“You look at the Vince Wilfork play last year against Buffalo [in Week 3]. It’s not the same, but there are some similarities.”

Click to expand...

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/09/bill_belichick_8.html

The part in bold says it all. I'm sure the league would agree with that statement. So in saying the hit was legal (and nothing else about it that I could find), the league is saying that Pollard acted responsibly and only through Morris' actions was he directed into Brady's knee. This only makes sense in 2 cases:

1) Morris blocked Pollard in the direction of Brady (didn't happen)
2) Pollard was aiming to hit Brady above the knee but Morris caused him to hit lower (didn't happen)

If the league doesn't agree with Belichick's statement in bold, under what conditions is a player not responsible for slamming into a QB's knee (besides the 2 I listed above)? Getting knocked to the ground near a QB? Having a blocker near you while you are attacking the QB? Both of these situations happen all the time and I don't recall players using the opportunity to cripple an opposing QB.

BTW, I wouldn't have had an issue with Pollard reaching over and grabbing Brady's leg...even if that resulted in the same exact injury. Turning your helmet into a missile and launching yourself into Brady's knee? Not so much.

FloridaPatsFan said:

We all know that the rest of the NFL wants us to go away. I have no doubt in my mind that if this injury happened to Peyton Manning, Bill Polian would tear Roger Goodells door off its hinges and demand something be done...And something would be done....Pollard would be made into the most hated man in the NFL for taking out Manning. And for us, it would suck having to play the Colts without Manning....

But we are dealing with a different set of circumstances here. We are not the Colts and thus, nothing will be done to deter this kind of play against the Patriots.

Click to expand...

So because the Colts would handle this matter like a bunch of little brats that gives Patriots fans and the organization the right to do just that, even though acting like a brat is an agreed upon ****ty thing to do?

Handle your own **** the way it is supposed to be handled and don't worry about what would happen had this happened to Satan Manning. It's irrelevant to the New England Patriots.

bradmahn said:

So because the Colts would handle this matter like a bunch of little brats that gives Patriots fans and the organization the right to do just that, even though acting like a brat is an agreed upon ****ty thing to do?

Handle your own **** the way it is supposed to be handled and don't worry about what would happen had this happened to Satan Manning. It's irrelevant to the New England Patriots.

Click to expand...

Stop arguing that it is OK to turn yourself into a launching missle at a QB's legs just because you find yourself on the ground... SERIOUSLY. It's not OK, and it doesn't matter if it is legal today. IT IS NOT OK. You sound foolish.

If anything it was a stupid play by Pollard.
What did he think the possible outcome was going to be from the position he was in?

Metaphors said:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/09/bill_belichick_8.html

The part in bold says it all. I'm sure the league would agree with that statement. So in saying the hit was legal (and nothing else about it that I could find), the league is saying that Pollard acted responsibly and only through Morris' actions was he directed into Brady's knee. This only makes sense in 2 cases:

1) Morris blocked Pollard in the direction of Brady (didn't happen)
2) Pollard was aiming to hit Brady above the knee but Morris caused him to hit lower (didn't happen)

If the league doesn't agree with Belichick's statement in bold, under what conditions is a player not responsible for slamming into a QB's knee (besides the 2 I listed above)? Getting knocked to the ground near a QB? Having a blocker near you while you are attacking the QB? Both of these situations happen all the time and I don't recall players using the opportunity to cripple an opposing QB.

BTW, I wouldn't have had an issue with Pollard reaching over and grabbing Brady's leg...even if that resulted in the same exact injury. Turning your helmet into a missile and launching yourself into Brady's knee? Not so much.

Click to expand...

Met, it's pretty difficult to launch one's helmet horizontally when one is already on the ground, especially in such a way that would make it egregious to the rules as they are written. He was continuing the play and doing what he could to make the play. He extended his arms and they actually came into contact with Brady before his helmet did. Contact with a helmet is absolutely fine in the NFL and happens all the time simply because it is a physical game and it is impossible to completely guard against just such hits. It's when those hits are intentional that they are illegal. It's hard to argue Pollard's was intentional.

I see this as having a lot of similarities to the Wilfork hit last year.

The bigger point, hoever, is that this exercise is pointless. Clean, dirty, so what? The issue is moving on and winning.

emoney_33 said:

Stop arguing that it is OK to turn yourself into a launching missle at a QB's legs just because you find yourself on the ground... SERIOUSLY. It's not OK, and it doesn't matter if it is legal today. IT IS NOT OK. You sound foolish.

Click to expand...

He didn't do any of what you claim.

You're an ignorant fool who is arguing against reality, reason and the rule. The people who wrote the rules, too.

bradmahn said:

He didn't do any of what you claim.

You're an ignorant fool who is arguing against reality, reason and the rule. The people who wrote the rules, too.

Click to expand...

It USED to be legal to launch at a defenseless WR in the air. It USED to be legal for a horse-collar tackle. It USED to be legal to CLOTHESLINE people. It USED to be legal to grab facemasks. Just because it doesn't break a rule doesn't make it right.

Exactly what did I describe did not happen? GO TO YOUTUBE and watch the damn play. He LAUNCHED himself like a missile into Brady's knees.

emoney_33 said:

It USED to be legal to launch at a defenseless WR in the air. It USED to be legal for a horse-collar tackle. It USED to be legal to CLOTHESLINE people. It USED to be legal to grab facemasks. Just because it doesn't break a rule doesn't make it right.

Exactly what did I describe did not happen? GO TO YOUTUBE and watch the damn play. He LAUNCHED himself like a missile into Brady's knees.

Click to expand...

Missiles don't roll on the ground.

bradmahn said:

He didn't do any of what you claim.

You're an ignorant fool who is arguing against reality, reason and the rule. The people who wrote the rules, too.

Click to expand...

Pollard had a choice - he wasn't launched into Brady. The only way he could get to him was to lunge forward and hit him in the lower leg. It was a conscious decision, not an accident. And it was all in front of him so he could see exactly what he was doing.

bradmahn said:

Missiles don't roll on the ground.

Click to expand...

This is really your rebuttal? REALLY?

Pollard didn't roll on the ground into Brady's knee. You haven't watched the replay, you probably refuse to huh?