Smith-Schuster and Iloka both suspended 1 game

[26CornerBlitz]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I know the rule, but I whole heartedly disagree with your description of the play.  He hit Burfict square while he was in pursuit.  Just because Burfict didn't have the awareness to see him shouldn't make him illegal to block.  

 

Tell you what...find me ONE player who was suspended one game for a hit that is accurately comparable to this block.  Not one that matches your "description", one that compares to the video footage of this play.  I will be shocked if you find even one.

 

Defenseless is the key word.  Ju Ju was peeling back and the responsibility was on him not to hit Burfict up high.  Thus the flag. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz

[Alphadawg7]

14 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Defenseless is the key word.  Ju Ju was peeling back and the responsibility was on him not to hit Burfict up high.  Thus the flag. 

 

Again, no one has never been suspended for the hit JuJu did last night despite it happening many times a year.  JuJu didn't lead like a weapon, both were standing upright, he hit him square, Burfict was running towards JuJu more than JuJu running towards Burfict, and he was close to the ball in pursuit.  

 

Under no circumstance should this be an illegal hit is my point, nor is it one they have suspended players before on.  If they want to suspend for the taunting, perfectly OK with that.  But the only reason this hit was flagged was a combination of live speed making it hard to see if there was helmet to helmet or not, his taunting, and the context of the chippy game.  I don't even have an issue with a flag for those reasons, I do take issue with a suspension where this hit was deemed suspendible.  

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Again, no one has never been suspended for the hit JuJu did last night despite it happening many times a year.  JuJu didn't lead like a weapon, both were standing upright, he hit him square, Burfict was running towards JuJu more than JuJu running towards Burfict, and he was close to the ball in pursuit.  

 

Under no circumstance should this be an illegal hit is my point, nor is it one they have suspended players before on.  If they want to suspend for the taunting, perfectly OK with that.  But the only reason this hit was flagged was a combination of live speed making it hard to see if there was helmet to helmet or not, his taunting, and the context of the chippy game.  I don't even have an issue with a flag for those reasons, I do take issue with a suspension where this hit was deemed suspendible.  

 

Whether is should be is another question, but it is 100% illegal and the rule against that kind of hit was put in as a player safety measure.  There's no debating the illegality of it irrespective of your opinion. 

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

49 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

All 3 suspensions being the same is a joke. I watched NFL live during lunch and they crushed the NFL for it. Those actions were completely different. Gronk should have gotten at least 2 games but the NFL didn’t want him to miss the Steelers game.

 

What will happen is juju and ioka will be overturned on appeal and gronk will be upheld.

[YoloinOhio]

 

[SoCal Deek]

Is it really all that surprising in the context of Roger Goodells crap show?

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, Idandria said:

This makes me believe Gronk should have gotten 2 games.

 

what Juju did was a total scumbag move, but at least it was during a play.

 

Gronks hit was dirty and way after the play ended. That should be taken into account by the NFL.

 

..absolutely agree......but then he would miss the Steelers game as well and with sinking ratings........hmmm.....

[SoCal Deek]

The real question is whether the League suspends the ESPN crew for calling out the poor quality of the on field product and officiating during the game!

[YoloinOhio]

Seeing these and waiting on why Jarvis Landry wasn’t suspended for ending AW’s career with his block last year like:

[Kirby Jackson]

18 minutes ago, JR in Pittsburgh said:

 

What will happen is juju and ioka will be overturned on appeal and gronk will be upheld.

Probably true

[Bing Bong]

59 minutes ago, JR in Pittsburgh said:

Timing is everything. If the bills had played on  Monday and the Steelers on Sunday, then gronk would have gotten 2 games. 

That's sadly the case primarily because Goodell is a moron arbiter.

18 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

..absolutely agree......but then he would miss the Steelers game as well and with sinking ratings........hmmm.....

I see the Pats killing the Steelers with or without Gronk, but yea.. marquee matchup.

[Alphadawg7]

2 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Whether is should be is another question, but it is 100% illegal and the rule against that kind of hit was put in as a player safety measure.  There's no debating the illegality of it irrespective of your opinion. 

 

I still whole heartedly disagree with your assessment being illegal.  You are deeming it illegal under a rule that did not come into play here.  That is my issue.  You categorized it as a defenseless player and the defender coming from the blindside.  Neither of those circumstances are apparent in this play.  So again, you are comments are as much opinion as mine.  The player contact was not from the blindside, JuJu was standing right in front of him, Burfict ran into him, and JuJu laid him out with a legal shoulder hit moving his helmet away.  Both players were face to face and squared up, there is no blindside factor.  And Burfict was not defenseless, he was in pursuit and ran right into a guy right in front of him.  

 

So while I get the rule, I absolutely disagree that this play falls into the rule. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[Rob's House]

2 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Whether is should be is another question, but it is 100% illegal and the rule against that kind of hit was put in as a player safety measure.  There's no debating the illegality of it irrespective of your opinion. 

I don't think this is right. The rule reads as follows:

 

An offensive player cannot initiate contact on the side and below the waist against an opponent if:

1. the blocker is moving toward his own end line; and
2. he approaches the opponent from behind or from the side.

Note: If the near shoulder of the blocker contacts the front of his opponent’s body, the “peel back” block is legal.

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/illegal-peel-back-block/

[26CornerBlitz]

7 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I still whole heartedly disagree with your assessment being illegal.  You are deeming it illegal under a rule that did not come into play here.  That is my issue.  You categorized it as a defenseless player and the defender coming from the blindside.  Neither of those circumstances are apparent in this play.  So again, you are comments are as much opinion as mine.  The player contact was not from the blindside, JuJu was standing right in front of him, Burfict ran into him, and JuJu laid him out with a legal shoulder hit moving his helmet away.  Both players were face to face and squared up, there is no blindside factor.  And Burfict was not defenseless, he was in pursuit and ran right into a guy right in front of him.  

 

So while I get the rule, I absolutely disagree that this play falls into the rule. 

 

Quote

 

In his letter to Smith-Schuster notifying him of the suspension, Runyan noted that Smith-Schuster violated Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7 which prohibits unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture and Rule 12, Section 3, Article 1 which prohibits unsportsmanlike conduct. 

Runyan wrote: 

“You are suspended for the dangerous and unsportsmanlike acts you committed during the fourth quarter of last night’s game.  Specifically, with 7:10 remaining, on a passing play to a running back, you lined up a defender and delivered a violent and unnecessary blindside shot to his head and neck area.  You then “celebrated” the play by standing over him and taunting him.   The contact you made with your opponent placed the opposing player at risk of serious injury and could have been avoided.  Your conduct following the hit fell far below the high standards of sportsmanship expected of an NFL player.” 

 

 

You can disagree all you'd like, you remain incorrect. 

10 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

I don't think this is right. The rule reads as follows:

 

An offensive player cannot initiate contact on the side and below the waist against an opponent if:

1. the blocker is moving toward his own end line; and
2. he approaches the opponent from behind or from the side.

Note: If the near shoulder of the blocker contacts the front of his opponent’s body, the “peel back” block is legal.

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/illegal-peel-back-block/

 

Join the party as you are also incorrect. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz

[Alphadawg7]

6 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

 

You can disagree all you'd like, you remain incorrect. 

 

Lmao, I already know what the verdict was.  That doesn't mean it was applied correctly, in fact, most seem to completely disagree about the NFLs ruling, which is OFTEN wrong in how they hand out punishment, fines, or suspensions which is why so many are appealed and even taken to court to fight.  So sorry, you posting this statement doesn't make me "wrong" about the details of the hit which are 100% clear as day in the video of the hit.

 

And you know full well that this punishment has MORE to do with the unsportsmanlike conduct and the overall violence and actions of the game.  Had NO other incidents occurred in that game there is about a 0% chance he got suspended today.  So ONCE AGAIN...you can cite the rule all you want, but its being stretched to be applied here and he is being made an example of after lots of bad press for the NFL lately with Oak/Den brawl, Gronk, and all the issues from the national spotlight of Mondays game.  

 

The player did NOT come from his blindside, standing right in front of him as Burfict ran to him.  And like I challenged you before, find me ONE, just ONE, other suspension for this exact type of play which happens to occur many times every single NFL season.  You can't and that is the point.  

Edited December 5, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Lmao, I already know what the verdict was.  That doesn't mean it was applied correctly, in fact, most seem to completely disagree about the NFLs ruling, which is OFTEN wrong in how they hand out punishment, fines, or suspensions which is why so many are appealed and even taken to court to fight.  So sorry, you posting this statement doesn't make me "wrong" about the details of the hit which are 100% clear as day in the video of the hit.

 

And you know full well that this punishment has MORE to do with the unsportsmanlike conduct and the overall violence and actions of the game.  Had NO other incidents occurred in that game there is about a 0% chance he got suspended today.  So ONCE AGAIN...you can cite the rule all you want, but its being stretched to be applied here and he is being made an example of after a weekend of bad press for the NFL lately with Oak/Den brawl, Gronk, and all the issues from the national spotlight of Mondays game.  

 

The player did NOT come from his blindside, standing right in front of him as Burfict ran to him.  And like I challenged you before, find me ONE, just ONE, other suspension for this exact type of play which happens to occur many times every single NFL season.  You can't and that is the point.  

 

Don't try to shape shift.  I'm not arguing about the suspension. My point all along has been and remains that the block was illegal and the NFL cited the exact reasons I stated from the beginning.  You continue to obstinately argue to the contrary with no case .  Have at it.  

[Rob's House]

29 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Join the party as you are also incorrect. 

You're the one who mentioned peelback blocks so I posted the rule on that, which clearly wasn't violated. By the way, that's not even the rule the league cited.

[26CornerBlitz]

12 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

You're the one who mentioned peelback blocks so I posted the rule on that, which clearly wasn't violated. By the way, that's not even the rule the league cited.

 

I didn't cite any rule, I stated what he did on defenseless player. Bottom line is that it was an illegal block. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz

[Imissbeastmode]

Don’t worry too much about the dirty plays by Ju-Ju and Gronk, Bills fans. You’ll be able to watch both dirty players play in the playoffs because the respectable Bills won’t be in them.

[26CornerBlitz]