CrackerDog Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Sounds about right. I don't think he'd have gotten fined at all if it weren't for his opening his mouth earlier in the week talking about it before he did it. I swear, some of this dipshits need to grow a brain. Regardless, it's always great to see the Packers, low lifes that they are, fined for being stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Sounds about right. I don't think he'd have gotten fined at all if it weren't for his opening his mouth earlier in the week talking about it before he did it. I swear, some of this dipshits need to grow a brain. Regardless, it's always great to see the Packers, low lifes that they are, fined for being stupid. It will have to come out of his Campbell Chunky Soup allowance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Fathead... It will have to come out of his Campbell Chunky Soup allowance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daventry Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Should be 150,000 at least........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted September 14, 2013 Report Share Posted September 14, 2013 Gotta love the NFL-- Clay Mathews: 15k for a dirty horse collar tackle 3 yards out of bounds that could have caused serious injury to the QB who was not in the field of play. No ejection though. Jon Bostic: 21k for a perfectly legal hit to the chest on a receiver who had already made a move to turn upfield I'll never understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daventry Posted September 14, 2013 Report Share Posted September 14, 2013 Gotta love the NFL-- Clay Mathews: 15k for a dirty horse collar tackle 3 yards out of bounds that could have caused serious injury to the QB who was not in the field of play. No ejection though. Jon Bostic: 21k for a perfectly legal hit to the chest on a receiver who had already made a move to turn upfield I'll never understand it. ABSOLUTELY! That is a perfect example of a real injustice; although I think the NFL is doing a good job overall they missed the boat on these particular examples....Matthews should have been ALOT harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted September 15, 2013 Report Share Posted September 15, 2013 Gotta love the NFL-- Clay Mathews: 15k for a dirty horse collar tackle 3 yards out of bounds that could have caused serious injury to the QB who was not in the field of play. No ejection though. Jon Bostic: 21k for a perfectly legal hit to the chest on a receiver who had already made a move to turn upfield I'll never understand it. I don't disagree about the fine amount dissimilarity, but you're wrong about the Bostic hit. It was perfectly illegal, and a nearly textbook case of leading with the crown of the helmet (i.e. spearing). http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-footba...-him-21k-anyway Look at the second shot in that link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted September 15, 2013 Report Share Posted September 15, 2013 I don't disagree about the fine amount dissimilarity, but you're wrong about the Bostic hit. It was perfectly illegal, and a nearly textbook case of leading with the crown of the helmet (i.e. spearing). http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-footba...-him-21k-anyway Look at the second shot in that link. Agreed. His technique was perfect until about the last 2 feet. So, 1/100 of a second cost him 21K. Clay Matthews had a lot more time to process his decision. So, I can see the injustice. The point I bring up is: Shouldn't the NFL look at the infractions in three ways, in this progression. 1) Actual violation= base 2) Time to process decision. IE: degree of intent 3) Reoccurrence. (They can create a simple formula that all risk analysis folks use in process FMEA's) Lastly, all fines should be based on the NFL minimum and increased at the same ratio the players salary increases. That way the fine will punish the vet as hard as the rookie and create the same expectation for all. My thought would be that the vets would be leading the younger guys by example in proper hitting technique at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted September 15, 2013 Report Share Posted September 15, 2013 I don't disagree about the fine amount dissimilarity, but you're wrong about the Bostic hit. It was perfectly illegal, and a nearly textbook case of leading with the crown of the helmet (i.e. spearing). http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-footba...-him-21k-anyway Look at the second shot in that link. In the link it says he was fined for lowering his head on a defenseless players body. I'm sorry, but in no way was that player defenseless. If you watch the entire clip, the guy was already making a move to turn up field and just flat didn't see Bostic coming. It should have been a fumble, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daventry Posted September 15, 2013 Report Share Posted September 15, 2013 Bostic's hit might well have been "illegal" but it certainly could not be compared to Matthews hit, and that is the problem with the system that is in place. How can you give Bostic a fine for a hit, that basically was a solid football hit but not within the current rules, that is higher that a blatant off the field of play hit from a guy who made clear before the game that the team were going to be hitting the QB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan2000 Posted September 15, 2013 Report Share Posted September 15, 2013 Bostic's hit might well have been "illegal" but it certainly could not be compared to Matthews hit, and that is the problem with the system that is in place. How can you give Bostic a fine for a hit, that basically was a solid football hit but not within the current rules, that is higher that a blatant off the field of play hit from a guy who made clear before the game that the team were going to be hitting the QB? This 100% Also agree that intent/premeditation should play into how big/small a fine is. Right now it seems so random that I wouldn't be surprised if they spin a wheel (Think wheel of fortune) to determine the fine amount because there is often little to no logic behind it. Not only that but what get's fined and what doesn't This IMHO creates an atmosphere where Defenders don't quite know how to play the game, will I be fined if that player I've got an angle on changes his body orientation in the last second and my helmet happens to touch (hard or soft), will I be flagg, fined, suspended, etc. Because it's not consistently ruled, officiated, etc. It creates a huge grey area. A lot of Helmet to helmet hits are hits where there is no intent to harm or hit with the helmet. It is a violent game played at increasing speed. You cannot eliminate the helmet being involved in a hit no matter how much you stand on a soap box and say "don't do that." If Goodell had ever suited up and played in the NFL he'd realize it's not that simple. I hope he steps down from the league as commissioner in the near future as he is ruining this game. 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.