Vontaze Burfict facing five game suspension

[theJ]

3 hours ago, IDOG_det said:

I mean...did he not hit him in the "head/neck" area?

I haven't definitely seen that.  I've seen a video of him going shoulder to shoulder with the guy.

[Leoric]

If it was Joey Porter it would have been a year long suspension. 

[INbengalfan]

8 hours ago, Boltstrikes said:

If it was Joey Porter it would have been a year long suspension. 

Unless it also involved us, which would lend the league to send him a thank you card.

[Kip Smithers]

Cheap shot? Yeah. Dirty? No. Hence no suspension should be given. 

[BillsGuy82]

17 hours ago, domepatrol91 said:

My coworker lost his license for 12 years after his 6th DUI. You could argue he got that harsh of a punishment for being who he is. That doesn't make it unfair.

He's lucky he didn't get 3 years in jail 

[Dome]

12 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

Cheap shot? Yeah. Dirty? No

Not sure I can agree with this. Aren't cheap shots dirty by definition?

[Kip Smithers]

9 minutes ago, domepatrol91 said:

Not sure I can agree with this. Aren't cheap shots dirty by definition?

At least not in my eyes. Cheap shots are just unnessary while dirty plays are unnecessary and crossing line intending to cause injury. In simple terms, not all cheap shots are dirty while all dirty plays are cheap.

[Dome]

Just now, Kip Smithers said:

At least not in my eyes. Cheap shots are just unnessary while dirty are unnecessary and crossing line intending to cause injury. In simple terms, not all cheap shots are dirty while all dirty plays are cheap.

Fair enough

[CWood21]

12 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

At least not in my eyes. Cheap shots are just unnessary while dirty plays are unnecessary and crossing line intending to cause injury. In simple terms, not all cheap shots are dirty while all dirty plays are cheap.

There was no football intent there...so that would be by definition a dirty play.

[Kip Smithers]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

There was no football intent there...so that would be by definition a dirty play.

Key part of that sentence is "to cause injury" and what the heck is football intent lol

[CWood21]

Just now, Kip Smithers said:

Key part of that sentence is "to cause injury".

I'm not sure you really need to differentiate there.  Was there a football play there?  No.  Could it have hurt the opposing player?  Absolutely.  By definition, that's a dirty play/cheap shot.  There was no reason to hit a defenseless receiver like Burfict did.

[Kip Smithers]

20 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm not sure you really need to differentiate there.  Was there a football play there?  No.  Could it have hurt the opposing player?  Absolutely.  By definition, that's a dirty play/cheap shot.  There was no reason to hit a defenseless receiver like Burfict did.

Exactly it being unnessary makes it a cheap shot to me but it didn't cross the line and its has long been a football play that has recently been outlawed. Could he have hurt somebody? Yeah. Was he intending to? I don't think so. Just like I don't consider a late hit on a QB dirty. I think it's cheap. But I can't be asked to get into a semantics argument 

[MacReady]

It's a vicious and unnecessary hit that fits the pattern of him being a dirty player.  It was probably a legal hit, but that's the type of hit that was extremely unnecessary and that could do some major brain damage to the player on the receiving end.  Even though it looked like a legal hit (5 yards, shoulder to chest), he didn't have to de-cleat him and probably could have had the same effect on the play if he would have not de-cleated him.  His past history of getting away with like a dozen dirty cheap shots (twisting Greg Olsen's ankle and Cam Newton's ankle that I can remember) are the reason he's getting suspended, and he deserves it.  He has to quit going out there trying to injure people or quit playing the game. 

I hope he's suspended for five games so somebody as dirty as him, so somebody who purposefully tries to injure players like he does, doesn't get a chance to play the Packers. 

[BLick12]

32 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm not sure you really need to differentiate there.  Was there a football play there?  No.  Could it have hurt the opposing player?  Absolutely.  By definition, that's a dirty play/cheap shot.  There was no reason to hit a defenseless receiver like Burfict did.

Well, as a linebacker you're always taught to hit any crosser within 5 yards, so I'd say the intent was to end his route (which is perfectly legal).  The problem is the QB was already throwing the football, and given Burfict's history, it is hard to give him the benefit of the doubt anymore with anything that's toeing the line.

[showtime]

1 hour ago, Kip Smithers said:

Cheap shot? Yeah. Dirty? No. Hence no suspension should be given. 

Vontaze Burfict should be given no benefit of the doubt.  You can call it a cheap shot or a dirty play, the wording does not matter.  He 100% should be suspended.