Original Byrd Man Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Just a question about the penalty and subsequent fine on Ganther for his hit on Vikes punter during a return. It was not a late hit, or a block in the back penalty, so it must have happened during the play, and was technically sound, so why the issue? How can you not be allowed to block the punter? I understand the desire to protect them, but he is part of the kicking team and does make tackles. Is there a time and place when it is illegal, and another when it isn't? If anyone can shed some light on this I would appreciate it. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 I believe the league instituted the penalty a few years ago bc of warren sapp. He laid out I believe a qb after a pick that was nowhere near the play. After that it became a penalty to hit players not involved in the play. I have to believe this was why the penalty was called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Just a question about the penalty and subsequent fine on Ganther for his hit on Vikes punter during a return. It was not a late hit, or a block in the back penalty, so it must have happened during the play, and was technically sound, so why the issue? How can you not be allowed to block the punter? I understand the desire to protect them, but he is part of the kicking team and does make tackles. Is there a time and place when it is illegal, and another when it isn't? If anyone can shed some light on this I would appreciate it. Thanks I too wasn't very clear about the rules on that type of play. One thing I am certain of is that was bush league on the part of Ganther. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 I have no recollection of the play; when did it happen? Feel bad for Ganther; the dude barely plays, makes probably the vet minimum, and gets hit with a fine (for what sounds like a legal block on the punter)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimp on da' net Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 I believe the league instituted the penalty a few years ago bc of warren sapp. He laid out I believe a qb after a pick that was nowhere near the play. After that it became a penalty to hit players not involved in the play. I have to believe this was why the penalty was called. The play your talking about happened against a OT from Green Bay, it was Chad Clifton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Because of situations like this, I think it's a god damned crime the NFL doesn't make the PRECISE verbiage of infractions available online. And if it is online, it's certainly not easy to find. I searched high and low for the definition of forward progress after the Baltimore game, nothing. Definitely not motivated to do any more scouring to figure this one out. Already gave it a cursory looks see, and couldn't find it "defined" anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 The play your talking about happened against a OT from Green Bay, it was Chad Clifton. Yep your right and the league instituted the rule right after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Yep your right and the league instituted the rule right after. Yeah, but what's the "rule?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 I too wasn't very clear about the rules on that type of play. One thing I am certain of is that was bush league on the part of Ganther. If you don't want to be hit do NOT put the uniform on- he sure as hell would have tried to make the tackle if it presented itself. Nothing bush league about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Yeah, but what's the "rule?" The ruling on the Warren Sapp/Chad Clifton play was unnecessary roughness. It was a major violation though. Clifton suffered a fractured pelvis and couldn't even walk for over a month. After blindsiding Clifton, Sapp celebrated on the field. The Ganther penalty against Vikings punter Chris Kluwe was also unnecessary roughness…although to a much lesser degree. Here's the thing: Ganther hit Kluwe at end the of the play. He also made the "block" away from the play. In addition, Ganther kind of snuck up on Kluwe who was unawares and not protecting himself…he did not expect the hit. Then Ganther unloaded on him. Lots of Bills fans (in the Shoutbox) were angry that a penalty was called. Was the block strictly legal? Yes. Was it unnecessary? Yes, it was unnecessary. IMO. Feel bad for Ganther; the dude barely plays, makes probably the vet minimum, and gets hit with a fine (for what sounds like a legal block on the punter)? I agree. ProFootballTalk has been crusading that such fines should be a percentage of a players earnings. James Harrison has been fined $150,000 for three hits in which he led with his helmet. But Harrison makes an average of $8.53 million each year. Ganther's fine was only $5000…but he signed with the Bills for $583,000. In this case the percentages are not far off but Harrison's three violations were all pretty major. One resulted in a concussion. Ganther's violation was pretty minor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 The ruling on the Warren Sapp/Chad Clifton play was unnecessary roughness. It was a major violation though. Clifton suffered a fractured pelvis and couldn't even walk for over a month. After blindsiding Clifton, Sapp celebrated on the field. The Ganther penalty against Vikings punter Chris Kluwe was also unnecessary roughness…although to a much lesser degree. Here's the thing: Ganther hit Kluwe at end the of the play. He also made the "block" away from the play. In addition, Ganther kind of snuck up on Kluwe who was unawares and not protecting himself…he did not expect the hit. Then Ganther unloaded on him. Lots of Bills fans (in the Shoutbox) were angry that a penalty was called. Was the block strictly legal? Yes. Was it unnecessary? Yes, it was unnecessary. IMO. I agree. ProFootballTalk has been crusading that such fines should be a percentage of a players earnings. James Harrison has been fined $150,000 for three hits in which he led with his helmet. But Harrison makes an average of $8.53 million each year. Ganther's fine was only $5000…but he signed with the Bills for $583,000. In this case the percentages are not far off but Harrison's three violations were all pretty major. One resulted in a concussion. Ganther's violation was pretty minor. Totally agree about % of pay. So at what point does a live player (evidently position specific) suddenly become "unblockable" as a play is developing? This is what I don't understand about the ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Totally agree about % of pay. So at what point does a live player (evidently position specific) suddenly become "unblockable" as a play is developing? This is what I don't understand about the ruling. I know Big Cat. I had my opinion about the play but the Ganther play really is in a grey area. I thought it was unnecessary…but as Cardinal Scotts pointed out, if somehow the play stayed alive and came towards Kluwe, he would have probably made an effort to make the tackle. My reply to that would be that Ganther would be in a position to make the block if that had happened, so it was still unnecessary. But what if Kluwe defeated the block attempt by Ganther and made the tackle? So I admit, it's a grey area. I just don't like seeing borderline cheap shots like that. The counter-argument is similar to when a hockey player is near the boards or in the corner…he'd better have his head on a swivel, his hands against the boards, and not be surprised by any body check attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 You've got to be kidding me. It was a cut and dry case of hitting a defenseless player. The punter, probably at least 25 yards away from the play? It was a total cheap shot. If you can't see that then...wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 I saw a Pats player do the exact same thing versus the Jets and no call...of course PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Its actually illegal to hit hard in the NFL. You are allowed to hit, or slightly collide, but hitting hard has been ruled illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 Its actually illegal to hit hard in the NFL. You are allowed to hit, or slightly collide, but hitting hard has been ruled illegal. That's just ignorant and propaganda. It's illegal to hit in a way that could kill or paralyze someone or is 30 yards from the play for no reason. Should late hits be allowed too? I mean they get paid so man up right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firemedic Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 (edited) Unbelievable! First, the hit was a love tap, no snapping of the neck, with minimal head movement on impact, basically ran the guy off the road and the punter lost his balance and fell. Secondly, where was the play occurring? I think it was a legal hit. Even if it was an illegal hit, it certainly didn't warrant a fine. Edited December 12, 2010 by firemedic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 Unbelievable! First, the hit was a love tap, no snapping of the neck, with minimal head movement on impact, basically ran the guy off the road and the punter lost his balance and fell. Secondly, where was the play occurring? I think it was a legal hit. Even if it was an illegal hit, it certainly didn't warrant a fine. The whole thing with illegal hits, is they will be fined consistently now. The thing driving me nuts is - but he got away with it! Just like holding, or any other penalty, the refs can't watch all 22 players and have great angles at all times. Even if they can see the play, all the refs won't be 100% the same. They'll all have slightly different strike zones you could say. I bet they all call holding and PI a little differently too. The NFL hasn't been bad on this. Not perfect but honestly not awful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 If you don't want to be hit do NOT put the uniform on- he sure as hell would have tried to make the tackle if it presented itself. Nothing bush league about it The hit was away from the play and had/would have had, no affect whatsoever on the outcome of the return. So that angle really doesn't apply. If the play is coming towards him, by all means, fire at will. It was a bigger guy lighting up a punter for no reason. I'm not an advocate for the "wussification" of the league whatsoever. The play was simply stupid IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 I saw a Pats player do the exact same thing versus the Jets and no call...of course PTR The rule on penalties is more at the discretion of the officials when the Patriots are playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts