Spartacus Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Since the Danny Trevathan hit there has been a lot of debate on if the suspension was justified. One of the arguments that I heard was that if Adams had not been injured on the play and just gotten back up it wouldn't have been a suspension or penalty at all. This got me thinking about how to enforce illegal or dangerous plays. I'm curious to see if illegal hits that result in an injury to a opposing player result in a larger punishment than the action would otherwise result in? I don't really lean one way or another but I use an example of a drunk driver. A drunk drive gets pulled over, spends a night in jail, gets a fines, ect.. but thats pretty much it. If that drunk driver injures someone however the punishment is much more severe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 Can someone move this to NFL Gen? Sorry I placed it in the wrong place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cddolphin Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 No. No. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beezee Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StLunatic88 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Not at all. If that is the case, then why have any rules regarding these things at all? You would then just be taking every action and judging it by the result. It could be a well intended hit, that a guy ducks into, and causes an injury (long concussion) and you penalize that hitter worse than a guy who is out there head hunting, but just hasnt connected clean enough to knock a guy out of a game? Just foolish way to go about it. Everyone who watched the Travathan hit, and isnt stuck in the late 90's mindset of "Jacked Up!", immediately knew that was going to be a suspension.That was even before we saw the resulting injury. A guy being stood up by other defenders, the absolute true definition of a defenseless player (not the made up definition of a receiver going for a ball) and he lines that guy up, drops the crown of his helmet, and takes two full steps at him to connect right in the jaw... Just a garbage play that deserved atleast the suspension that he received. Its all about intent of the action. And while many hits are grey areas, that can be debated, this is not one of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StLunatic88 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 25 minutes ago, Spartacus said: I don't really lean one way or another but I use an example of a drunk driver. A drunk drive gets pulled over, spends a night in jail, gets a fines, ect.. but thats pretty much it. If that drunk driver injures someone however the punishment is much more severe. Also this analogy does not apply. If you get a DUI, weather you cause injury or worse to someone/something else, the DUI penalty is still the same. Its the corresponding penalties to the additional crimes you have committed that are what make the punishment worse. And this is where the analogy falls apart, those additional penalties you receive can be levied against you weather you were drunk driving or not. So if you smash into a building/car completely sober, you are still just as responsible for paying those fines and penalties as if you were black out drunk. So if this is how you were to enforce in the NFL, guys who are making completely clean hits would then need to be punished for causing injuries (Broken bones, torn ligaments, etc.) It just does not apply in a game like Football, where you are going to have injuries to some extent during just about every time the ball is snapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 minute ago, StLunatic88 said: Also this analogy does not apply. If you get a DUI, weather you cause injury or worse to someone/something else, the DUI penalty is still the same. Its the corresponding penalties to the additional crimes you have committed that are what make the punishment worse. And this is where the analogy falls apart, those additional penalties you receive can be levied against you weather you were drunk driving or not. So if you smash into a building/car completely sober, you are still just as responsible for paying those fines and penalties as if you were black out drunk. So if this is how you were to enforce in the NFL, guys who are making completely clean hits would then need to be punished for causing injuries (Broken bones, torn ligaments, etc.) It just does not apply in a game like Football, where you are going to have injuries to some extent during just about every time the ball is snapped. I was using it as an example but I did not intend to say that punishment in the NFL has to be exactly like punishment in the court of law. Just thought it was a curious question that would spur some discussion but it seems like its pretty much a settled topic already ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footbull3196 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Ideally it shouldnt, but you cant tell me that the NFL wont be looking to come down harder on the players that end up causing a significant injury to another player, especially if it ends up being someone like Vontae Burfict who already has a reputation of being a dirty player and a history of being suspended Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footbull3196 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Ideally it shouldnt, but you cant tell me that the NFL wont be looking to come down harder on the players that end up causing a significant injury to another player, especially if it ends up being someone like Vontae Burfict who already has a reputation of being a dirty player and a history of being suspended Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJ Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 21 minutes ago, footbull3196 said: Ideally it shouldnt, but you cant tell me that the NFL wont be looking to come down harder on the players that end up causing a significant injury to another player, especially if it ends up being someone like Vontae Burfict who already has a reputation of being a dirty player and a history of being suspended The next time Vontaze looks at a QB sideways he's getting an 8 game suspension. I'm actually waiting for the suspension announcement for his perfectly clean hit on Kizor last Sunday. Any time now... To answer the OP, no. It should be based on intent. But it's hard to deny that result doesn't come into the equation in some ways. Burfict probably doesn't get 6 games or whatever it was after the Antonio Brown hit in the 2015 playoffs if he gets up and plays the next snap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Smithers Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 While I agree that the result shouldn't play a part in punishment, you can't tell me that 1. Everybody's reaction and outrage isn't swayed by the result. 2. The NFl don't hand out punishments like this. Heck the NFL has numerous occasions reacted to the reaction rather than the action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjab360 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 2 hours ago, StLunatic88 said: Also this analogy does not apply. If you get a DUI, weather you cause injury or worse to someone/something else, the DUI penalty is still the same. Its the corresponding penalties to the additional crimes you have committed that are what make the punishment worse. And this is where the analogy falls apart, those additional penalties you receive can be levied against you weather you were drunk driving or not. So if you smash into a building/car completely sober, you are still just as responsible for paying those fines and penalties as if you were black out drunk. So if this is how you were to enforce in the NFL, guys who are making completely clean hits would then need to be punished for causing injuries (Broken bones, torn ligaments, etc.) It just does not apply in a game like Football, where you are going to have injuries to some extent during just about every time the ball is snapped. That's actually not true, at least not in my state. We have something called levels of a DWI, things like if you had children in the car, if you caused injury, if you blow over a .15, etc. factor in to the punishment. And then on top of that you have the additional charges to the corresponding crimes. I'm not necessarily saying that should apply here though, it's an interesting debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwibrown Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 no. but it does. See attempted murder and murder. A dude recently tampered with his wife's parachute and she survived, attempted murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarCrazy2832 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 No. At the end of the day your job is tackle the ball carrier. But if you hit Sproles and Kelce the same way illegally you might hurt Kelce but could kill Sproles. Shouldn't be a factor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.