 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » NFL Penalties
thatrogue
This can be limited to a certain number of illegal moves: tripping, chop blocks, helmet to helmet hits, horse collar tackles, etc, that are more likely to result in injuries. It is kind of screwed up for one team to take out another team's best player for several weeks due to a concussion or knee injury resulting from a blatant penalty...and then beat that team for a playoff spot because the player committing the penalty only gets a fine.
NFL Penalties
September 24, 2009 at 09:14AM View BBCode
Instead of fines, I believe that if a player commits a penalty resulting in the injury of another player, then the player committing the penalty should have to be inactive for the length of time that the injured player is forced to miss. This comes to my mind several times per season, most recently from seeing penalty-prone Flozell Adams' trip of Justin Tuck, which has resulted in a shoulder injury.This can be limited to a certain number of illegal moves: tripping, chop blocks, helmet to helmet hits, horse collar tackles, etc, that are more likely to result in injuries. It is kind of screwed up for one team to take out another team's best player for several weeks due to a concussion or knee injury resulting from a blatant penalty...and then beat that team for a playoff spot because the player committing the penalty only gets a fine.
thatrogue
Seeing guys play hard, with big hits = good. Sticking a leg out to trip a player because he beat your block = cowardly.
September 24, 2009 at 09:32AM View BBCode
Depending on how blatant the injury was and the length of season remaining, the player committing the penalty misses at minimum, the remainder of the current season, and at most the next season too.Seeing guys play hard, with big hits = good. Sticking a leg out to trip a player because he beat your block = cowardly.
cubfan531
And I say make them unpaid suspensions. It has to be clearly intentional injury (and appealable if you can prove it was honestly an accident), but, yeah, don't pay the S.O.B. to sit at home after rupturing someone's knee ligaments.
September 24, 2009 at 09:41AM View BBCode
Exactly. Sacking the quarterback which leads to a dislocated shoulder is one thing. Sacking the QB after he's clearly gotten rid of the ball just because you're pissed that he's torn apart your defense should lead to these suspensions.And I say make them unpaid suspensions. It has to be clearly intentional injury (and appealable if you can prove it was honestly an accident), but, yeah, don't pay the S.O.B. to sit at home after rupturing someone's knee ligaments.
thatrogue
Regarding pay, I say you still pay the player through the end of the current season, because in most cases, they were trying to help their team. After the season, they can be cut (assuming the injury was career ending and they are forced to sit out the next season).
September 24, 2009 at 10:04AM View BBCode
Yeah...all injuries would not result in suspension, nor would all penalties (holding a guy outside the shoulderpads causing a twisted knee...or tackling a guy barely out of bounds are forgiveable actions). Also, the actions need to be considered using game speed, as slow-motion instant replay can make something seem worse than it was when looking at the actual speed of the play.Regarding pay, I say you still pay the player through the end of the current season, because in most cases, they were trying to help their team. After the season, they can be cut (assuming the injury was career ending and they are forced to sit out the next season).
cubfan531
Either way, something like this would have to be part of the next collective bargaining agreement, and I think the teams would have the right to tell a player they won't pay him for suspended time.
September 24, 2009 at 10:31AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
They can be paid for the service time they put in, but, if you're ineligible to play for 9 of your team's games, you're not doing much help.
Either way, something like this would have to be part of the next collective bargaining agreement, and I think the teams would have the right to tell a player they won't pay him for suspended time.
thatrogue
September 24, 2009 at 11:03AM View BBCode
Originally posted by cubfan531You don't want the players thinking about their paychecks. Flozell Adams trip was bush league, but he did it to stop Tuck from getting to Romo. If the paycheck is on the line, maybe he lets Tuck through, Tuck blows up Romo who injures a shoulder and is now out for the season himself. Adams did not mean to injure Tuck, so while penalizing the Cowboys for as long as the Giants are impacted by Tuck's injury makes sense...taking away the man's paycheck for trying to protect his quarterback seems like the wrong message to send.
They can be paid for the service time they put in, but, if you're ineligible to play for 9 of your team's games, you're not doing much help.
Either way, something like this would have to be part of the next collective bargaining agreement, and I think the teams would have the right to tell a player they won't pay him for suspended time.
cubfan531
September 24, 2009 at 11:26AM View BBCode
True, true. Well, maybe the pay removal in the instances where it serves no purpose other than injuring the other player. We're talking full-on unsportsmanlike conduct. Tackling a guy nowhere near the ball after the ball is down type deal. The stuff bush leagues frown upon.
DwightKSchrute
September 24, 2009 at 11:51AM View BBCode
The problem with this concept is that the amount of time an player will be injured from any of these actions varies from no time to the rest of their career. The same hit may do nothing to Brett Farve but could end Trent Greens career. That doesn't make the action any more wrong. The action and intent is the same. Personally, I get sick of hearing about all these after the fact suspensions of players that were just making football plays and someone happened to get hurt. My feeling is what you are proposing would only add to the frequency of that.
thatrogue
The problem is with blatantly fouls that result in injury. You can see Adams deliberately stick out his leg to trip Tuck once Tuck beats his block. The fact that Tuck is out with a shoulder injury unfairly helps the Cowboys, in that they are competing for the same playoff spots. Thus, the Cowboys should lose Adams for the same amount of time as the Giants lose Tuck.
September 24, 2009 at 11:54AM View BBCode
The problem is not with making football plays and causing injuries. The hit on Brady last season was legal, it was just unfortunate he was hurt.The problem is with blatantly fouls that result in injury. You can see Adams deliberately stick out his leg to trip Tuck once Tuck beats his block. The fact that Tuck is out with a shoulder injury unfairly helps the Cowboys, in that they are competing for the same playoff spots. Thus, the Cowboys should lose Adams for the same amount of time as the Giants lose Tuck.
dirtdevil
September 24, 2009 at 12:38PM View BBCode
i'm sorry, but this is just a horrible idea. i do sympathize with what you're saying, but this is not the way to go about it. the fans don't want this, the teams don't want this and the players don't want it either. in sports people get hurt. it's part of the game and will always remain so. if someone injures another player by a dirty play he should be suspended by the league based on the actions, the likelihood of them leading to a serious injury, his apparent intention to cause injury and his previous record. that's it.
thatrogue
I don't know if fans would like this or not. I know that Eric and I like the idea and that you and Dwight don't, so out of the current sample size of four, the sentiment is split.
September 24, 2009 at 01:23PM View BBCode
People getting hurt is fine...it is sports and it happens. People getting hurt as a result of blatantly dirty plays is not fine, for the reasons I previously outlined. I simply propose penalizing the team with the "dirty" player for the same length of time as the team with the "victim" player.I don't know if fans would like this or not. I know that Eric and I like the idea and that you and Dwight don't, so out of the current sample size of four, the sentiment is split.
barterer2002
September 24, 2009 at 01:32PM View BBCode
Daren this is your second day in a row of bad ideas. Time to get some fresher milk
thatrogue
September 24, 2009 at 02:19PM View BBCode
Shouldn't you be gathering statistics that have nothing to do with refuting my points.
barterer2002
September 24, 2009 at 03:13PM View BBCode
Shouldn't you be comparing Tuck to the kid who tripped over a crack in the sidewalk and broke his arm.
thatrogue
September 24, 2009 at 03:15PM View BBCode
Only if you're the guy who tripped that kid. I always pictured you as the neighborhood bully.
barterer2002
September 24, 2009 at 03:34PM View BBCode
OK Daren, I'm going to step away now. Clearly too much snarkiness going on from both of us here.
thatrogue
September 24, 2009 at 03:48PM View BBCode
Awwwww Bart...I was just joking. (Perhaps there was too much OGL coming out.)
dirtdevil
you aren't though, as you've already said that a career-ending injury would result in a one or two year suspension maximum. so you've already inherently acknowledged that this is a pretty flawed idea.
leaving that aside for the moment, let's assume that the player injured in flozell's case was a backup end spelling off the starter. then let's assume he's gone until week 16. if, in week 16 the cowboys and giants are playing each other for a playoff berth, do you not think that the giants might wish to announce their guy was too hurt to play, and thus keep the dallas starting tackle on the sidelines? your heart is in the right place d'aren, but this is just not a good idea.
September 24, 2009 at 04:01PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
People getting hurt is fine...it is sports and it happens. People getting hurt as a result of blatantly dirty plays is not fine, for the reasons I previously outlined. I simply propose penalizing the team with the "dirty" player for the same length of time as the team with the "victim" player.
you aren't though, as you've already said that a career-ending injury would result in a one or two year suspension maximum. so you've already inherently acknowledged that this is a pretty flawed idea.
leaving that aside for the moment, let's assume that the player injured in flozell's case was a backup end spelling off the starter. then let's assume he's gone until week 16. if, in week 16 the cowboys and giants are playing each other for a playoff berth, do you not think that the giants might wish to announce their guy was too hurt to play, and thus keep the dallas starting tackle on the sidelines? your heart is in the right place d'aren, but this is just not a good idea.
thatrogue
Regarding the week sixteen scenario, the Giants would have had to have the backup on injured status for every week leading up to week sixteen, and I imagine most teams are unlikely to do that for a whole season.
(Besides, if Flozell is getting beaten so badly by inconsequential backups that he resorts to tripping them, the Cowboys would be better off without him.)
September 24, 2009 at 04:13PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevilThe one year suspension (or through the end of the following season), allows time for a team to replace said injured player during the offseason (which could mitigate the disadvantage). That replacement cannot readily be obtained during the season.
Originally posted by thatrogue
People getting hurt is fine...it is sports and it happens. People getting hurt as a result of blatantly dirty plays is not fine, for the reasons I previously outlined. I simply propose penalizing the team with the "dirty" player for the same length of time as the team with the "victim" player.
you aren't though, as you've already said that a career-ending injury would result in a one or two year suspension maximum. so you've already inherently acknowledged that this is a pretty flawed idea.
leaving that aside for the moment, let's assume that the player injured in flozell's case was a backup end spelling off the starter. then let's assume he's gone until week 16. if, in week 16 the cowboys and giants are playing each other for a playoff berth, do you not think that the giants might wish to announce their guy was too hurt to play, and thus keep the dallas starting tackle on the sidelines? your heart is in the right place d'aren, but this is just not a good idea.
Regarding the week sixteen scenario, the Giants would have had to have the backup on injured status for every week leading up to week sixteen, and I imagine most teams are unlikely to do that for a whole season.
(Besides, if Flozell is getting beaten so badly by inconsequential backups that he resorts to tripping them, the Cowboys would be better off without him.)
thatrogue
September 24, 2009 at 04:15PM View BBCode
Originally posted by whiskybearIt's Mora. He had a stake in the dogfighting ring...
(It's Flozell Adams, isn't it?)
dirtdevil
in a league where the most high-profile franchise is accused of using video cameras to illegal steal the defensive signals and information from super bowl walkthroughs, you really don't think teams will do anything to gain an advantage?
it's a bad idea d'aren. just a bad, bad idea.
September 24, 2009 at 04:38PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
The one year suspension (or through the end of the following season), allows time for a team to replace said injured player during the offseason (which could mitigate the disadvantage). That replacement cannot readily be obtained during the season.
Regarding the week sixteen scenario, the Giants would have had to have the backup on injured status for every week leading up to week sixteen, and I imagine most teams are unlikely to do that for a whole season.
in a league where the most high-profile franchise is accused of using video cameras to illegal steal the defensive signals and information from super bowl walkthroughs, you really don't think teams will do anything to gain an advantage?
it's a bad idea d'aren. just a bad, bad idea.
whiskybear
September 24, 2009 at 04:42PM View BBCode
Come on, Deke, this isn't seriously up for debate, is it?Pages: 1 2