View Single Post
Old 09-23-2011, 11:02 PM   #35
Wallace108
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Member Number:
Default Re: offender fined for low hit on big bens knee

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodens Grav View Post
If a player is going to hit a quarterback in the knees, then you DO expect him to "just fall to the ground and stay there" instead of making an illegal hit.
I've watched a lot of football, but I don't recall ever seeing a player fall to the ground and just stay there out of fear of making an illegal hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodens Grav View Post
IIt doesn't matter that he was 'tripped' because he was still under control enough to avoid the collision with the knee after the 'trip'.
Have you ever tripped (or been tripped) and fell to the ground? It happens fast, and you don't have time to think. I'm sure you've watched that play in slow motion, as I have, and it gives you a different perspective. We can analyze it frame by frame and try to determine whether he could have avoided the collision. But as the play happened, in real time, at full speed, I'm sure avoiding the collision never entered his mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodens Grav View Post
He is still responsible for where he hits the quarterback.
I agree, to a point, and that's why I feel the flag was justified. But I don't think the fine was justified. I think fines should be reserved for things done with malicious intent. I don't think there was any malicious intent on the play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodens Grav View Post
Besides, that 'trip' is unconvincing, anyway. Gilbert whiffs trying to block right when Brock spins the opposite way, so his upper body moves left, but he maintains position with his lower half. It's not like he stuck his leg up 2 feet off the ground.
All of your other arguments are good arguments and worthy of debate. But I don't think there's any debate on whether or not Gilbert tripped him and caused him to fall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodens Grav View Post
He's supposed to not hit a quarterback in the knee, regardless of what action he has to take to make that happen.
I agree with you in theory, but I don't think it works in reality. In the time between being tripped and hitting Ben, Brock didn't have much opportunity for rational thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodens Grav View Post
Obviously when the league looked at the play, they decided that what happened with Gilbert did not constitute as a trip by the league rule. If it was a trip, he would have been fined too. He was trying to maintain his original position, and he was entitled to do that.
I'm not so sure they fined him because they believe he wasn't tripped. If anything, I think the league would agree with your other argument ... that even if he was tripped, he still has to maintain control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodens Grav View Post
IHad he not tripped over Gilbert's leg, is it likely that he doesn't hit the knee? Possibly, but that is irrelevant, because he did trip over Gilbert's leg.
Wait, was he tripped or was he not tripped?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodens Grav View Post
It doesn't matter whether a defender consciously decides to hit a player illegally. I'm willing to bet that 99% of all illegal hits are not intentional.
I completely agree with you here. And whether it's intentional or not, an illegal hit still deserves a penalty. But I don't think they should be fined on top of it if it wasn't intentional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodens Grav View Post
I'm not arguing whether or not a fine is 'worthy'. I'm saying that by the precedent set over the last few years, that hit was going to merit a fine.
You could be right. My take though is that had he not been tripped and just dove at Ben's knees, it would deserve a fine. But since he was tripped, it removes some of the responsibility from him. The question is whether or not he could have avoided the contact after being tripped. And that's what's debatable. Apparently, the league agrees with you, and not me. But the league isn't always right.
  Reply With Quote