NFL Rules One James Harrison Hit Legal, Still Reviewing Second Hit

It's funny that you think I am defending the hit as it wasn't a bad hit. I've said numerous times, if you'd bother to read the posts, that he should be fined for hitting a defenseless receiver. I said he shouldn't be suspended because there wasn't an intent to injure.

By the way, how do you figure it was H2H when he hit with his right shoulder and then threw his arms out wolverine style?

 

No suspension for the win, I feel bad for the Dolphins. Harrison is going to be pissed.

 

I was thinking 20K instead of 15K as the butthole tax. 75 instead of 50 is pretty steep. Wouldn't have happened if there weren't 4 hits spread across 3 games.
LOL at no flag for the biggest fine. Refs should get a fine too.

 

Um, no. It's Roger Goodell's call. If 4 out of 5 say it was legal/clean and Goodell disagrees, what do you think's gonna happen...

This is the one think upon which I can agree with you. It really has/should have nothing to do with how seriously the guy's hurt. It's about intent. According to NFL rules, a player in Cribbs' situation is not defenseless because he has the ball. He has to be unsuspecting, having no time to get out of the way. However, I'd expect the competition committee to take a very serious look at this rule this offseason and possibly extend the requirements of being "defenseless." I would not be surprised if all helmet-to-helmet or helmet-to shoulder/neck hits are flagged next year.

Anyone remember this Jason Witten play from 2007, when the league wasn't as serious about these types of hits as they are now? Witten got hit by Quentin Mikell helmet-to-helmet, but somehow kept his balance and ran, helmetless, for 20 more yards before being tackled. That play was remembered for Witten's toughness, running all that way without a "hat." (Sidebar - I love how John Madden and other broadcasters call a helmet a hat). But the bottom line is, That play was dirty. It was a helmet-to-helmet hit that in 2010 might have drawn a fine or suspension. But since Witten wasn't hurt at all, Mikell wasn't penalized. He launched and hit high, leading with the helmet. Somehow, Witten stayed on his feet. But the idea is to discourage those types of hits because a helmet-to-helmet hit on a defenseless receiver is a helmet-to-helmet hit on a defenseless receiver. The results could range anywhere from Jason Witten to DeSean Jackson and Dunta Robinson.

 

Being pissed won't help. According to a few people here on GIF, Harrison's going to have to tap each player on the shoulder and ask to tackle him. James better be sure to keep his arms in at his sides though. He may get fined for being a super hero.

 

I'm talking about player suspensions. There CANNOT be any grey area when the time comes and a decision has to be made whether or not a defender gets suspended. They have to make the rule crystal clear. They can't use a word like "devastating" when writing the rule.

 

I don't listen to clowns on here sorry, that's why you never see me respond.

 

A. Meriweather had clear intent and wasn't suspended, so I think it's pretty clear the suspensions will start from now on because perhaps the league views it as unfair to suspend players who had illegal hits in last week's games because it hadn't been announced that suspensions would be forthcoming; maybe the players would be more careful if a game and gamecheck were on the line.

B. Stop trying to play Harrison's player rep and scrutinizing the language of the rule. It was a dirty play. It was a late hit from a cheap-shot artist who actually said he wanted to hurt players. Suspensions may be the only way to get through to players like Meriweather, Harrison, and Ward (whose hit was intentional and brutal, in my opinion; he launched and led with the helmet). They don't care if they're fined; they want to instill fear in their opponents by letting them know they will break the rules to hurt them.

 

The more times you get fined, the less gray area there is. It's not going to be a suspension for the first hit type of thing.

 

I feel good for the Saints. When Harrison takes out his frustration on the Dolphins and gets flagged again for a late hit on a defenseless receiver, he'll be surely suspended.

 

I think the "new rules" in place for Sunday will be suspensions dealt for first timers as well as the repeat offenders. Harrison, Merriweather and Robinson would most likely be suspended if those hits happen in Week 7.

 

Case and point. I'm not into 14 year old logic.

 

They aren't making ANY rule Ward. They are simply enforcing the rules that are in place.

Your right RF52 that Mikell hit on Witten is exactly the type of hit that should be a fine/suspension now a days.

 

I do agree that the word "devastating" is completely subjective, but bottom line is Roger has the final say. That's all I'm saying. The league is saying that from here on out, any player who launches and leads with his head intentionally on a defenseless player will be fined $50K at the very least. I'd expect suspensions to come for repeat offenders, unless we see a repeat of week 6, in which case suspensions would be automatically handed out if the situation meets the one I just described.

 

15 :icon_cheesygrin:. What exactly have I said that is "clownish?" Tell me what I'VE said that's so ridiculous it shouldn't be dignified with a response.

 

You know, on second thought, after all this hype and these headlines, if there are more of these hits next week, I'd expect a one-game suspension. Take a first-time offender and substitute him in for Dunta Robinson, Brandon Meriweather or James Harrison, and change the week # from 6 to 7, and I think the league would suspend him one game just because they'd be mad that they're message is not being received.

 

Hence the QUOTE new rules UNQUOTE. I know they are enforcing the current rules and clarifying some things up for the officiating crews.

Anderson has said that all of those players, if it occurred this Sunday, would be reviewed much differently than they were this week.

 

I see quotes around devastating but it sure looks like you though they were writing a new rule.

 

They have been talking all day about reviewing the rule on devastating hits. Devastating is too vague was my point...writing the rule was my error. "writing the rule."