N/S Suspensions/Fines for egregious hits (3 Viewers)

Penguin

Subscribing Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2000
Messages
3,755
Reaction score
687
Age
52
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Offline
I wonder how many egregious, unsportsmanlike hits would be committed if this enhancement was added to the determination of punishment, specifically when the targeted player is injured:

In addition to the initial suspension timeframe, the offending player must also serve an additional suspension equal to the number of games that the targeted player misses due injury caused by the hit. For example, egregious helmet to helmet hit on a defenseless receiver. Offender suspended 1 game. Receiver misses 5 games due to concussion caused by the offending action. Offender automatically has 5 games tacked on, thus being suspended for 6 games.

Also, whatever fine is assessed is stated as a "per game missed". Using the same example, a fine of $10k is assessed. That fine increases to a total of $60k.

Of course, this would require a definition for the type of hit/action that qualifies as a trigger for this enhancement AND someone with the ability to apply the standard appropriately.

NOTE: I know that between the League itself, the Competition Committee, and the Players Union, something like this will NEVER happen.
 
Well Azeez Al-Shaair just got a 3 game suspension but he’s also a repeat offender
Repeat offenders usually get an extra increased fine. This time they are sending a message. I just hope the arbitrator the will rule on it this week doesn't lower it too much.
 
what happens if a hit ends a players career?
Then 2 careers end.

Just kidding. Maybe limit the suspension to the current season?

If you want to get really wacky and unrealistic, make the offender's team responsible too - for every missed game due to injury, an amount equal to the injured player's per-game salary is applied to their salary cap for the following year.
 
What if they accidently bump heads while the defensive player is trying to pull the flag off the ball carrier?
 
What if they accidently bump heads while the defensive player is trying to pull the flag off the ball carrier?
Ain't trying to hear any of this. Our team was 100% rail roaded in the name of heath and safety. We lost draft picks, suffered coach and GM suspensions, and have faced crooked officiating since then.

I'm no longer interested in even pretending that this is ever going away. Flag football hyberbole is just whining at this point. This direction is what happens when large amounts of money are impacted by injury. Ticket sales, career earnings potential, gambling... All are impacted and the NFL will continue to remove injuries from the game as long as it isn't hurting their bottom line
 
In addition to the initial suspension timeframe, the offending player must also serve an additional suspension equal to the number of games that the targeted player misses due injury caused by the hit. For example, egregious helmet to helmet hit on a defenseless receiver. Offender suspended 1 game. Receiver misses 5 games due to concussion caused by the offending action. Offender automatically has 5 games tacked on, thus being suspended

How about double what the other player misses without pay. So if I end a guy's season, I am going to be missing games into next season and will likely be cut.

The thing with the Lawrence hit was that the Defender was not just breaking down to make a hit but leaving his feet to deliver a massive blow. So even if Lawrence slid .5 of a second earlier or later he would still be hospitalised. Rugby has very specific rules outlawing this sort of thing and we seem to be drifting to their tackling ruleset.
 
Last edited:
I think we need to go back to the us and the bounty thing to have a realistic discussion. I do think most defensive players would not mind knocking guys out of the game with a concussion or something minor (nothing career-ending or life-threatening). I'm not making a normative point us that football, like boxing or MMA seeks to inflict a much pain as legally possible. Granted, the league has put in rules to protect QBs and defenseless players, but I don't think that changes to the core goal of the sport.

 
I think we need to go back to the us and the bounty thing to have a realistic discussion. I do think most defensive players would not mind knocking guys out of the game with a concussion or something minor (nothing career-ending or life-threatening). I'm not making a normative point us that football, like boxing or MMA seeks to inflict a much pain as legally possible. Granted, the league has put in rules to protect QBs and defenseless players, but I don't think that changes to the core goal of the sport.

In the past, sport was larger than life. 'Sacrifice for the team' was the mantra. It was some bizarre reflection of manhood.

But with media exposure, as grand as the specatacle of football is, people are realising more and more that these are human beings playing a sport. Allowing a powerful man to injure an other is not necessary.
 
In the past, sport was larger than life. 'Sacrifice for the team' was the mantra. It was some bizarre reflection of manhood.

But with media exposure, as grand as the specatacle of football is, people are realising more and more that these are human beings playing a sport. Allowing a powerful man to injure an other is not necessary.
I don't think the media gauze changes the nature of the sport, which is to put the other guy on his back. Obviously the league does not want that to be the centerpiece but they turn around and highlight big hits every week on their network and utube.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom