BearFan2000 Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Carter fined 5k for spearing Olsen which could have potentially knocked him out of the game Mark Anderson fined 10k for a push. doesn't seem fair to me, but politics as usual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 The NFL got it right. Carter did it in the heat of the game at game speed. Anderson was stupid and did it retaliating after a play. Carter fined 5k for spearing Olsen which could have potentially knocked him out of the game Mark Anderson fined 10k for a push. doesn't seem fair to me, but politics as usual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Carter fined 5k for spearing Olsen which could have potentially knocked him out of the game Mark Anderson fined 10k for a push. doesn't seem fair to me, but politics as usual I have never agreed with the way the NFL has handed out fines going back to Wilbur Marshall's hit on Detroit QB Joe Ferguson and Doug Planks hit on TB TE Jimmy Giles. Since leading with the helmet and "The defensless receiver rule" are now in the rule book I guess Carter's fine is legit but IMHO they both arrived at the same time and that type of contact couldn't be avoided. No matter how stupid what Anderson did it was not worth 10k. This reigning commissioner is getting way out of hand with his punishments;especially the ones that were not penalized during games. I believe the game officials have an idea whether a guy was trying to intentially hurt a player or not and if they are going to go back and freeze frame these type of plays then they should do it on all game plays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 No matter how stupid what Anderson did it was not worth 10k. This reigning commissioner is getting way out of hand with his punishments;especially the ones that were not penalized during games. I believe the game officials have an idea whether a guy was trying to intentially hurt a player or not and if they are going to go back and freeze frame these type of plays then they should do it on all game plays. Disagree. Often officials simply do not see something happen. Just because they missed the call on the field doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it should not be dealt with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 No matter how stupid what Anderson did it was not worth 10k. This reigning commissioner is getting way out of hand with his punishments;especially the ones that were not penalized during games. I believe the game officials have an idea whether a guy was trying to intentially hurt a player or not and if they are going to go back and freeze frame these type of plays then they should do it on all game plays. Disagree. Often officials simply do not see something happen. Just because they missed the call on the field doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it should not be dealt with. I'm not talking about Anderson I'm talking about Carter's hit on Olsen and all the replays and super slo-mos I saw didn't make me believe the hit was vicious or illegal. This is just a new rule that is being strictly enforced. If they wanted to they could review plays and issue holding penalties on every down. I'm simply stating that the game is being scrutinized too much now. I grew up watching all the great MLBs of the 60's and 70's and they would still owe money if they were being fined like they are now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan2000 Posted September 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Agree with what's being said about over analyzing and the commish's tendency to go overboard. I too think that they are trying to dictate how violent a violent game can be which is an unrealistic goal to do consistently or fairly across the board. Just like how you tackle a QB can draw you a foul or a fine the following week. If the official at the game thinks it was too violent he will throw the flag but a different official seeing the same play may think the hit/tackle is ok and let it go. They are trying to control what is difficult to control. Whey you are rushing the QB at full speed contact is hard to avoid whether he's got the ball or not. Players can't be as aggressive as they could be because they have to worry about whether their natural actions will draw a flag or a fine. There was another post earlier that the game is being pussified and I'd agree. We all like the big hits and they energize the crowds and when you reduce the game to glorified flag football it looses a lot. My point in making the post was the severity of the fine verses the severity of the incident. That aside the situation does play into it. Anderson knew what he was doing and it was after the play he lost his cool and shoved a guy. Where as Carter's hit was severe because his momentum lead him into Olsen and happened to hit him with his helmet. We complain about roughing the passer calls when the defensive player is in the air when the ball is thrown because he has no way of stopping and can only do so much to soften the blow. Same is true with that hit. The only argument could be that with Olsen on the sidelines he wouldn't need much of a hit but looking at the play he was hurrying over to help cover Olsen who had gotten behind his man. If he doesn't make that hit or defend Olsen likely would have scored on that play. While on the other hand Anderson's actions were not required, necessary or smart. That's the only way I can see why Anderson's fine was twice as much as Carter's fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 I'm not talking about Anderson I'm talking about Carter's hit on Olsen and all the replays and super slo-mos I saw didn't make me believe the hit was vicious or illegal. This is just a new rule that is being strictly enforced. If they wanted to they could review plays and issue holding penalties on every down. I'm simply stating that the game is being scrutinized too much now. I grew up watching all the great MLBs of the 60's and 70's and they would still owe money if they were being fined like they are now. i don't know. in both instances it seemed to me he lead with his helmet and deserved not just one fine but 2. the rule is there to protect BOTH players from serious injury and if a modern era player hasn't figured it out yet it is time he did so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 I'm of the opinion that no play on the field should ever result in a monetary fine. EVER. Plays on the field should be penalized in three ways and only three ways. 1.) Yardage - 15 yards for a personal foul 2.) Being thrown out of the game 3.) Suspended Asking these guys for $5k or whatever is absolutely meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 I'm of the opinion that no play on the field should ever result in a monetary fine. EVER. Plays on the field should be penalized in three ways and only three ways. 1.) Yardage - 15 yards for a personal foul 2.) Being thrown out of the game 3.) Suspended Asking these guys for $5k or whatever is absolutely meaningless. i have no problem with that although the game suspension would be considerably more than the fines are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChileBear Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 i have no problem with that although the game suspension would be considerably more than the fines are. I'd be in favor of suspension. Do it like they do in soccer, suspend the offender for one game. That way his teammates will let him feel the heat and it will make a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 I'd be in favor of suspension. Do it like they do in soccer, suspend the offender for one game. That way his teammates will let him feel the heat and it will make a difference. although i don't know a thing about soccer, it sounds good to me. i'm with you guys on this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 I think suspensions are a possibility, but only after multiple infractions. A player is not slapped w/ a suspension for doing it one time, but if he is nailed on multiple occasions, he does get nailed w/ a suspension. although i don't know a thing about soccer, it sounds good to me. i'm with you guys on this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 I think suspensions are a possibility, but only after multiple infractions. A player is not slapped w/ a suspension for doing it one time, but if he is nailed on multiple occasions, he does get nailed w/ a suspension. i can't go with the "multiple occasions" as most fines result from conditions that can cause serious injury. maybe one warning but that's my limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.