James Harrison, 2 others, fined for hits Sunday.

[tripwire]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

I don't think that play would result in a fine no matter what color the uniforms are or which side of the ball recipient of the hit was on. Looking at it again from a poor angle from youtube it all looks incidental. Pollard jumped to make an INT as Celek was running his route to catch it, he was coming down as Celek moved in front of him to catch/deflect it at that point. The helmet to helmet contact was incidental. The end result is what usually happens when someone collides with someone 3 inches taller and 30lbs+ heavier. If Celek were to intentionally have plowed into Pollard the result would have been much different and a bit harsher, as he was airborne of his own accord and would have probably been blasted backwards a couple of yards. You have a point that offensive players should be held responsible too, I think you're just hanging your hat on the wrong play. I am sure you've seen plenty from Ward that you'd expect to get scrutiny and fines that might not have in the past though.

The contact doesn't even have to be "intentional". As the League Office has stated, the defender will be held accountable, irregardless of true intent. In other words, it's his responsibility to avoid any contact that the league deems "illegal". No intent doesn't mean it's not illegal in the League's eyes.

Ray Anderson mentioned that the level of intent would be used when they review the hits, so as to properly asses what type of fine and/or suspension would be used. So level of intent would only count towards level of punishment.

Anyways, forget about last night's hit. You already get the point. Clarity and consistency is vital if a business is trying to pass a message, or else the message itself becomes convoluted, like it is now.

[mKoz26]

Quote: Originally Posted by mjb2124

I'm glad someone finally came forward and was truthful. Don't you feel much better now? My point is the same and still 100% accurate whether you want to believe it or not. There's no sense for you to "fight the good fight". What good does it do you or anyone else? If people put this much effort into their career's as they do whining about stuff on the internet, they'd be much more successful. Just sayin'...

You're right, awesome, successful, and I suck at my job and life in general. And you implied none of this while whining on the internet about people who whine on the internet, and none of it was said while you could have been ascending to the top of your career.

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by tripwire

The contact doesn't even have to be "intentional". As the League Office has stated, the defender will be held accountable, irregardless of true intent. In other words, it's his responsibility to avoid any contact that the league deems "illegal". No intent doesn't mean it's not illegal in the League's eyes. Ray Anderson mentioned that the level of intent would be used when they review the hits, so as to properly asses what type of fine and/or suspension would be used. So level of intent would only count towards level of punishment. Anyways, forget about last night's hit. You already get the point. Clarity and consistency is vital if a business is trying to pass a message, or else the message itself becomes convoluted, like it is now.

That quote is out of context though, the defender is responsible if they hit a player and through the course of the hit the end result is helmet to helmet contact. This specific circumstance is generally seen on hits to the upper body and while the initial contact was fairly clean, the follow through or natural motion of the contact results in the helmets smacking. It's the defender's responsibility to prevent the helmet to helmet hit by tackling properly.

The word defender could surely apply to an offensive player should they be the one applying the hit. In the case of the Celek hit, it's more of a collision of 2 players going for the ball than a hit from one on the other.

[mjb2124]

Quote: Originally Posted by mKoz26

You're right, awesome, successful, and I suck at my job and life in general. And you implied none of this while whining on the internet about people who whine on the internet, and none of it was said while you could have been ascending to the top of your career.

Perfect. I'm glad we're on the same page. Now if only more people would listen, we wouldn't have to hear people whine and cry about not being able to afford nice things in life.

[tripwire]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

That quote is out of context though, the defender is responsible if they hit a player and through the course of the hit the end result is helmet to helmet contact. This specific circumstance is generally seen on hits to the upper body and while the initial contact was fairly clean, the follow through or natural motion of the contact results in the helmets smacking. It's the defender's responsibility to prevent the helmet to helmet hit by tackling properly. The word defender could surely apply to an offensive player should they be the one applying the hit. In the case of the Celek hit, it's more of a collision of 2 players going for the ball than a hit from one on the other.

Good point

It seemed like he lowered his head as to brace for contact, but we'll never really know for sure. It could be looked at both ways. I don't think he intended to flatten the defender, but his actions were the main contributing factor to the end result.

Same with running backs using their heads as battering rams every week. Arrington, and other defensive players who have commented similarly, have a valid point.

If the NFL is trying to reduce head injuries, then why only concentrate on one aspect of it? Why punish only the defensive players?