They really need to make this change to stop helmet/helmet hits

[PackAttack12]

Rob Gronkowski was not a repeat offender. Jon Runyan was very clear in his letter to Thomas Davis that he lost two games because of his fine history.

What Gronk did could have caused serious long term damage to another person. The filthy, disgusting nature of what Gronk did should warrant more than a 1 game suspension. It occurred waaaaaay after the whistle. Had nothing at all to do with making a football play.

The punishment came no where close to fitting the crime on this play. Do you really think a 1 game suspension is going to keep Gronk from doing that again? Do you really think a 1 game suspension will teach Thomas Davis a lesson for the hit he laid on Davante?

The NFL needs to get serious about this.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

The outrageousness and egregiousness of the Gronk hit should have been equated to a repeat offender.

Repeat offender means a player has been fined and/or suspended in the past. I like it that way. My issue is when players are fined or suspended more for less severe rule violations. That does not apply to Thomas Davis, whose hit deserved losing 2 games. I would like to see heavier discipline for the most egregious penalties. Fit the fine with the crime.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

What Gronk did could have caused serious long term damage to another person. The filthy, disgusting nature of what Gronk did should warrant more than a 1 game suspension. It occurred waaaaaay after the whistle. Had nothing at all to do with making a football play.

The punishment came no where close to fitting the crime on this play. Do you really think a 1 game suspension is going to keep Gronk from doing that again? Do you really think a 1 game suspension will teach Thomas Davis a lesson for the hit he laid on Davante?

The NFL needs to get serious about this.

Thomas Davis was suspended the last two games of the regular season. If Carolina misses the playoffs, sure, he will learn it was his fault the Panthers played only 16 games. It would be a different story if this happened in Week 3.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You know how players are about money.... They don't want to lose a cent.

I think you could broaden that to "human beings".

 

[Mijapi]

Not all head to head hits occur after a turnover takes place. So you're saying teams should only be penalized for helmet to helmet hits if they legitimately forced a turnover, recovered the ball, and then committed the act?

They just need legitimate targeting rules like college has. If a player makes a hit like that, the refs should have the capability of reviewing the play and ejecting the offender. There should also be stricter discipline by the league. Automatic one game for first offenders, four games for repeat offenders, and full season suspension for third time offenders.

Allowing players to head hunt, and then finish the game, and not have to worry about more than a measly one game suspension is ridiculous. He basically got to significantly increase their odds of eliminating the Packers in exchange for a risk of missing one game against the Bucs.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

If HTH hits were reviewed, all 17 referees need to be full-time officials because if you don't see the players practice good tackling methods, you can't tell if they were trying to hurt the opponients.

 

[Royal Pain]

Davis was responsible for ending the career of Terrence Murphy, a promising rookie receiver, during a game against the Packers in 2005. The injury happened on a kickoff return when Murphy picked up a fumble and Davis hit him helmet to helmet. I was at that game as well and remember how violent the collision sounded. Davis has been a headhunter since he came into the league.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

Davis was responsible for ending the career of Terrence Murphy, a promising rookie receiver, during a game against the Packers in 2005. The injury happened on a kickoff return when Murphy picked up a fumble and Davis hit him helmet to helmet. I was at that game as well and remember how violent the collision sounded. Davis has been a headhunter since he came into the league.

I only remember the fact a Green Bay player suffered a career-ending injury at Carolina, but the fact Thomas Davis did it explains the decision to suspend him two games this time.

 

[Forget Favre]

I believe it is unfair for the fact that the game would have easily changed the outcome with Adams in for the rest of the game as he was making a big impact before that and he was 1 less wide receiver the Panthers didn’t have to guard. It’s funny how the person who puts the hit on him gets to place for the rest of the game when technically he should’ve been either ejected right away or have the same concussion rule apply to him as there were 2 heads that collided. Suspending the players is not changing the game and is literally doing nothing, they need to suspend these clear and obvious hits with them being gone for the rest of the season of 16 games along with it stretching to the next season if the hit comes late in the season.

That's what I'm talking about.
Something more than just fines and a 15 yard penalty when caught.
Something, anything that is harsh and will prevent H-H hits.

 

[Forget Favre]

Not all head to head hits occur after a turnover takes place. So you're saying teams should only be penalized for helmet to helmet hits if they legitimately forced a turnover, recovered the ball, and then committed the act?

It would depend on the situation.
Goes back to the team who lost the ball if it's a turn over.
During a kick off or punt, if the receiving team does the H-H, then the kicking team gets the ball back with 15 yards from the spot of the ball.
If the kicking team does the H-H then it's 15 yards for the receiving team from the spot of the kick off.
Etc.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

Meh, 2 games? It'll hit his pocketbook, but if I'm a coach or owner? He'll be fresher for the playoffs (plus he loses a game check?.... owner get's to KEEP his game check.... or does the league get it??)

The NFL automatically deducts the player's salary and gives the money to chairites.

 

[fix8ed]

Serious suspensions in lieu of fines, period, with consistent enforcement. No picking and choosing depending on the offender or victim. The fines aren't meaningful with the kind of money these guys make.

Yeah, and how about quadrupling the fine for what clearly constitutes an intentional hit.......and directly charge the club's owner/s with the assessment? I guarantee this would drastically reduce such incidents in the future assuming Goodell approved the solution(unlikely, yes, and for obvious reasons). One thing does stand out here: Green Bay as a TEAM itself is being targeted by unscrupulous individuals who apparently feel that injuring a star opponent will be preferable to competing against him for the all important " win." Ironically, GB is a team not known for dirty play, so who better to target out there? And finally: will Murphy or Thompson EVER step out of the shadows and lodge a loudly publicized formal complaint with the League? They could start with this: "our club was effectively removed from competing this season as a consequence of two dirty hits to our best players."

 

[Half Empty]

I think you could broaden that to "human beings".

Take this to one of the allowable forums, and we could probably have a lively discussion.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Take this to one of the allowable forums, and we could probably have a lively discussion.

Oh, please.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

Oh, please.

The point is don't get this thread off topic.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The point is don't get this thread off topic.

Observing that human beings in general like money just like football players is:

1) not controversial and

2) an on-point response to the post quoted

3) it was a throw away comment

So, if you have some kind of beef, take it up with the guy who indicated that football players are somehow unique in this regard.

In conclusion: Oh, please, again.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Repeat offender means a player has been fined and/or suspended in the past.

Oh, really? I would not have known what a "repeat offender" might be without such insightful information.

Guys have gotten booted for entire seasons for being a first time offender in smacking his kids or whomping on his girl in an elevator. It think an assault and battery on the football field should be granted such "special consideration".

 

[HardRightEdge]

The point is don't get this thread off topic.

I just realized that guy was you! LOL

 

[TouchdownPackers]

Oh, really? I would not have known what a "repeat offender" might be without such insightful information.

Guys have gotten booted for entire seasons for being a first time offender in smacking his kids or whomping on his girl in an elevator. It think an assault and battery on the football field should be granted such "special consideration".

That is totally different. Jon Runyan's letter to Thomas Davis clealry referred to past on-field violations, such as the aforementioned Terrance Murphy hit.

 

[Half Empty]

Observing that human beings in general like money just like football players is:

1) not controversial and

2) an on-point response to the post quoted

3) it was a throw away comment

So, if you have some kind of beef, take it up with the guy who indicated that football players are somehow unique in this regard.

In conclusion: Oh, please, again.

You changed the premise from

You know how players are about money, playing time, etc. They don't want to lose a cent.

I think you could broaden that to "human beings".

to

Observing that human beings in general like money just like football players is:

If your contention is that nobody is willing to give up a cent, then, as I suggested, we can talk about a lot of folks who have taken less than they could get for a variety of reasons. If your contention is that, in general, people like money, no argument.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If your contention is that nobody is willing to give up a cent, then, as I suggested, we can talk about a lot of folks who have taken less than they could get for a variety of reasons. If your contention is that, in general, people like money, no argument.

I didn't change the premise. You parsed it the way you wanted to read it.

My contention is that most folks, if sent home by their boss without pay for some alleged offense and told not to come back for a week, would avail themselves of whatever appeal or ombudsman process is available to them. Football players are not unique in seeking to restore a lost paycheck if there is such a mechanism available to them.

That people seek occupations knowing they forego income, whether for altruistic reasons or not wanting the headaches that come with more money (I'm familiar with the latter) is not in dispute.

But once in a job, and told to go home without pay, most people will seek recourse if that avenue is open to them. In a union setting, they might even be pressured to do so to avoid precedent or keep a lid on workplace sanctions.

 

[Half Empty]

Given that explanation, agreed.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Given that explanation, agreed.

Fine, but you assumed that I would think there are no such beings as artists, nurses, Mother Theresa, people who would prefer not to work 70 hours per week, or who decline participation in lucrative criminal activity.

You surmised that from one throw away line.

And then pretty much demanded a defense of something that should have been obvious to you.

And then sat in judgement of that defense.

Therefore, I decline your agreement.