Steely Dan Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Buy a team, attend an owner's meeting and raise the issue. Per ESPN: According to the league, the hit on Edwards violated the rule stating that "a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down and land on top of him with all or most of the defender's weight." There's nothing dumb about having rules to prevent players from getting seriously injured. A concussion is very serious. I don't think it's dumb at all. The league looks to protect it's QBs. Facts have no purpose here.
lets_go_bills Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Facts have no purpose here. Well, well, well. Nice of you to show.
bbills17 Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Dumbest thing I've ever read. A helmet to helmet...fine...sure...he deserved it. But "landing with all of his weight" is the DUMBEST reason I've ever heard for a fine. You can call it dumb but what you and Alphafrog don't realize is it's about what the RULE is, not what you think it should be. If you read the rules it clearly wasn't a legal hit.
BillsNYC Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 You can call it dumb but what you and Alphafrog don't realize is it's about what the RULE is, not what you think it should be. If you read the rules it clearly wasn't a legal hit. It's football, it's called a tackle. If this was Whitner and Brady, everybody on this board would be up in arms.
The Dean Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 It's football, it's called a tackle. If this was Whitner and Brady, everybody on this board would be up in arms. I agree, to a point. After further review, I thought Wilson DROVE him into the ground, after the pass was thrown. But, these calls are SO subjective, it is almost always going to start a controversy. Because of that, they are calling too many penalties, and fining too many players, IMO. This makes the obviously dirty plays less noteworthy, and more run-of-the mill, IMO.
bbills17 Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 It's football, it's called a tackle. If this was Whitner and Brady, everybody on this board would be up in arms. One last time, READ THE RULES. How difficult is that for you? I don't care what you think it was, read the rules, you don't write the rulebook.
Simon Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Dumbest thing I've ever read. A helmet to helmet...fine...sure...he deserved it. But "landing with all of his weight" is the DUMBEST reason I've ever heard for a fine. He spiked him. And you're not allowed to spike QB's any more. Although this is the first time in my memory that a DB has ever been called/fined for it. Can anybody else recall any examples of anybody outside the front 7 ever being flagged or fined for turfing a QB?
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Looked clean to me. Flip flop much Deano?
thebug Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Flip flop much Deano? He did say "after further review"...... GO BILLS!
The Dean Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Flip flop much Deano? I have said that from the get-go. The hit looked clean, and the initial hit was ruled as such. I thought that, after seeing the play, over and over, that it looked like Wilson drove Trent to the ground. That becomes a real judgment call, and that I have trouble with. (I think I have been clear on that, too.) My biggest problem with the ruling (and fine) isn't that it was wrong (again, a judgment call), but that it tends to lessen the rhetorical impact of a REALLY dirty hit. All of these hits (blatantly illegal and deemed illegal after many reviews) start to get lumped together (in a way), I think, as there have been many fines for borderline hits, like this one. This may come as a shock to you, but when I take a position, I remain open to other views and ideas. Rethinking a position, based on these other points of view (and other factors) isn't flip-flopping...it's THINKING. Try it, you might find it refreshing.
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 I have said that from the get-go. The hit looked clean, and the initial hit was ruled as such. I thought that, after seeing the play, over and over, that it looked like Wilson drove Trent to the ground. That becomes a real judgment call, and that I have trouble with. (I think I have been clear on that, too.) My biggest problem with the ruling (and fine) isn't that it was wrong (again, a judgment call), but that it tends to lessen the rhetorical impact of a REALLY dirty hit. All of these hits (blatantly illegal and deemed illegal after many reviews) start to get lumped together (in a way), I think, as there have been many fines for borderline hits, like this one. This may come as a shock to you, but when I take a position, I remain open to other views and ideas. Rethinking a position, based on these other points of view (and other factors) isn't flip-flopping...it's THINKING. Try it, you might find it refreshing. Aka fence riding.
The Dean Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Aka fence riding. Some small thinkers may see it that way.
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Ditto. He did not lead with his helmet, from what I saw. Like I said, the hit was vicious, but clean. I was one of the few people who said that this hit would draw a fine from the NFL. You were on record from page 1 of this thread saying that it was a clean hit. Many joined the chorus. Now, after the fine, it seems that you are changing your tune. I'm out to dinner, so I'll check in later on. I'm not ducking any reply you may have.
The Dean Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 I was one of the few people who said that this hit would draw a fine from the NFL. You were on record from page 1 of this thread saying that it was a clean hit. Many joined the chorus. Now, after the fine, it seems that you are changing your tune. I'm out to dinner, so I'll check in later on. I'm not ducking any reply you may have. Again the HIT was clean. No leading with the helmet (contrary to what some claimed) and he made contact right after the ball was thrown, He hit Trent HARD, but cleanly. It was what I saw in real time, and on the replay on TV. I still think that part is as I originally stated (which was contrary to what some here were saying). What Wilson was fined for, is for what he did after the initial impact, and that was questionable. I didn't really realize Wilson drove Trent to the ground like that until I viewed it a couple of times, on my computer, up close and from the comfort of my computer chair. Still, I don't know if I would fine him for it. Furthermore, I read, with interest, the postings of some TSW contributors who I respect, and who know some of the finer points of NFL rules, and their interpretation and enforcement, than do I (Simon and Lori, to name two). I actually LEARNED some stuff. (Again, try it, learning isn't a bad thing.) So, when the fine came down, and the ruling wasn't for the hit, but rather the velocity with which Wilson drove Trent to the ground, I accept the fine as legit. The ruling seems to conform to the NFL rules for acts of that nature (from what I now understand). Had it been for the hit itself, I would complain, like others still are. Still, I am not sure if I would fine Wilson for it. Tough call, really. I'm guessing that if Trent bounced up, and continued to play QB, no fine would have been issued. Just a guess, of course. Is it a good rule? Well, that's another conversation, isn't it. EDIT: By the way, your initial post you claimed that the hit itself was also dirty. Do you still believe that? Did the NFL just miss that, or ignore it? Are you sticking to your earlier statement, even though it has been rejected by the NFL powers that be?
Beerball Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 I was one of the few people who said that this hit would draw a fine from the NFL. You were on record from page 1 of this thread saying that it was a clean hit. Many joined the chorus. Now, after the fine, it seems that you are changing your tune. I'm out to dinner, so I'll check in later on. I'm not ducking any reply you may have. Why can you not understand that the hit was CLEAN i.e. NOT DIRTY, but at the same time it was against the rules and the player was fined.
BillsWatch Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 This may come as a shock to you, but when I take a position, I remain open to other views and ideas. Rethinking a position, based on these other points of view (and other factors) isn't flip-flopping...it's THINKING. Try it, you might find it refreshing. Stop confusing him with consistant facts! It is not fair for in a battle of witts the poster is unarmed.
The Dean Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Why can you not understand that the hit was CLEAN i.e. NOT DIRTY, but at the same time it was against the rules and the player was fined. To his credit, though (and I think that is the crux of the biscuit here), BILZFAN did predict there would be a fine. I think he was wrong on some the fine points of the reason for the fine, but there was a fine...on that he get's one "I told you so!"
Jerry Jabber Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 omg jerry, even the majority of the posters on here dont think it was dirty...this was a fine based on reputation, even refers to it in the article...who really cares, it has no impact on us, so who really cares...keep sucking it up there with Lori too, lol ... I stand here in amusement that this thread is still continuing...It would make more sense if an actual fine on this player had any impact what so ever on our team. Like someone said, they could care less in AZ, so why do we care? I care about this as much as I care about my $35 parking ticket I got yesterday...I am sure Wilson could care less too now that he is free and clear of any suspension. Its all good though, guess you guys need something to whine about in order to get a "moral" victory after the cards used the Buffalo D like used toilet paper last week and the O line got smacked down like Ike hitting Tina... So congrats on proving reputation costs you money in this league and the NFL is one more rule away from making defensive players count alligators before they can rush... Obviously, this post means something to you, even though you say it doesn't. If this post is as useless, and meaningless as you proclaim, you would've stop posting a long time ago. Bottom line, the NFL fined Wilson because he violated the rules that they set up. If you have a problem with those rules, contact the NFL and complain to them.
Boomer860 Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Here is a thought , when a player gets fined for a dirty hit on another player , the player that gets hit gets the fine money. Where does the money for the fine go and for what purpose is it used.
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Again the HIT was clean. No leading with the helmet (contrary to what some claimed) and he made contact right after the ball was thrown, He hit Trent HARD, but cleanly. It was what I saw in real time, and on the replay on TV. I still think that part is as I originally stated (which was contrary to what some here were saying). What Wilson was fined for, is for what he did after the initial impact, and that was questionable. I didn't really realize Wilson drove Trent to the ground like that until I viewed it a couple of times, on my computer, up close and from the comfort of my computer chair. Still, I don't know if I would fine him for it. Furthermore, I read, with interest, the postings of some TSW contributors who I respect, and who know some of the finer points of NFL rules, and their interpretation and enforcement, than do I (Simon and Lori, to name two). I actually LEARNED some stuff. (Again, try it, learning isn't a bad thing.) So, when the fine came down, and the ruling wasn't for the hit, but rather the velocity with which Wilson drove Trent to the ground, I accept the fine as legit. The ruling seems to conform to the NFL rules for acts of that nature (from what I now understand). Had it been for the hit itself, I would complain, like others still are. Still, I am not sure if I would fine Wilson for it. Tough call, really. I'm guessing that if Trent bounced up, and continued to play QB, no fine would have been issued. Just a guess, of course. Is it a good rule? Well, that's another conversation, isn't it. EDIT: By the way, your initial post you claimed that the hit itself was also dirty. Do you still believe that? Did the NFL just miss that, or ignore it? Are you sticking to your earlier statement, even though it has been rejected by the NFL powers that be? I've got to admit that I did get the first part wrong. When I saw the hit live and the replays on T.V., I thought that there was more helmet to helmet. It wasn't until I was able to see Internet replays that I realized that it was more of a glancing blow to the side of the helmet/ into shoulder pad hit. So there you go, just like you, I reserve the right to remain open to other views and ideas. I guess that makes me a real good thinker after all. It also makes me half right!
Recommended Posts