emoney_33
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Messages
- 5,218
- Reaction score
- 42
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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.
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.
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.
If you believe that Wilfolk didn't intentionally hit Lossman then you probably believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and honest politicians.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.
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.Nope, no case can be made for that all. No way in hell.
I believe it was a dirty play, I just said he could make a case that it wasn't and it would be plausible.He turned himself into a missile and lunged at Brady's knee, end of story.
MAJOR double standard here.
Roger Goodell is the most biased, in over his head commish in the pst 30 years.
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.
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.
Pollard better hope he never has to face the Patriots again in his career.
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....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.
Wilfork is out of his mind
He clearly raises his elbow and aims for his knee
Both hits were legit. It's tackle football. Wilfy shouldn't have been fined.
No, they just decided that because it was done TO a Patriot rather than BY a Patriot, it was "clean."
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