(11-27-2017, 01:35 PM)sandwedge Wrote: By definition, what he did wasn't a foul. I believe it was called just because it was unneeded and done by a guy who has a reputation for unneeded stuff. 

Good point. I was focusing on the illegal contact when I believe it was called for unnecessary roughness.
And what sucks about unnecessary roughness is it's a subjective penalty based on opinion. It's not always clear cut like contact to the head/neck, false start, offsides, etc.
IMO the only way Burfict will be able to avoid these things is to change his playstyle such that he always has his eyes to the football instead of a defender and make wrapup tackles rather than hits.

EDIT - And I don't think the NFL is out to specifically screw over Burfict or the Bengals, but moreso to target any player who seems to have a desire to hit people for the sake of hitting people. The NFL is clearly all about player safety now (even at the expense of viewer enjoyment), and those players that don't adapt their game will suffer the consequences (flags, fines, suspensions).

(11-27-2017, 01:44 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Good point. I was focusing on the illegal contact when I believe it was called for unnecessary roughness.
And what sucks about unnecessary roughness is it's a subjective penalty based on opinion. It's not always clear cut like contact to the head/neck, false start, offsides, etc.
IMO the only way Burfict will be able to avoid these things is to change his playstyle such that he always has his eyes to the football instead of a defender and make wrapup tackles rather than hits.

Exactly. Tez could have just ran by the guy on his way to the guy with the ball, like 95% other players do. 

(11-27-2017, 01:44 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Good point. I was focusing on the illegal contact when I believe it was called for unnecessary roughness.
And what sucks about unnecessary roughness is it's a subjective penalty based on opinion. It's not always clear cut like contact to the head/neck, false start, offsides, etc.
IMO the only way Burfict will be able to avoid these things is to change his playstyle such that he always has his eyes to the football instead of a defender and make wrapup tackles rather than hits.

EDIT - And I don't think the NFL is out to specifically screw over Burfict or the Bengals, but moreso to target any player who seems to have a desire to hit people for the sake of hitting people. The NFL is clearly all about player safety now (even at the expense of viewer enjoyment), and those players that don't adapt their game will suffer the consequences (flags, fines, suspensions).

This is where the NFL pisses me off on this. If Vontaz hit the guy in the head then I would have no problem with the penalty and I would have no problem with the suspension. However he didn't hit him in the head there for no call should have been made. Player safety is important but Vontaz wasn't putting the player in danger there he was just hitting him hard.

(11-27-2017, 01:58 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: This is where the NFL pisses me off on this. If Vontaz hit the guy in the head then I would have no problem with the penalty and I would have no problem with the suspension. However he didn't hit him in the head there for no call should have been made. Player safety is important but Vontaz wasn't putting the player in danger there he was just hitting him hard.

And thus the subjectivity. While you and I might feel that a hard hit isn't jeopardizing a player's safety, the officials get to determine that.

(11-27-2017, 12:38 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Ok, so that tells me what I was thinking is probably correct. I think the league's plan, is to have the refs throw a Unsportsmanlike Conduct flag on Burfict at the start of every game at the first hint of anything, even if it is BS, to subject him to an ejection if it happens again in the game. They throw one flag on him, and he would have to tone it down. Can't have him playing aggressive because..................... wait for it.................. "You don't play in Pittsburgh, you play in Cincinnati....."

Quote of the year rep

(11-27-2017, 11:29 AM)740Bengal Wrote: Un-needed and away from the play, the WR he hit was not a factor.  He has to be smarter than that.

The ball was in the QBs hands when the hit occurred, yes?  The call was, "Hit on a Defenseless Receiver".  He couldn't have been a receiver if the ball had already been thrown elsewhere.  What's more, I believe the defenseless receiver rule requires a hit at or near the head/neck.  That did not happen here.

Eliminating potential receivers before the pass is thrown seems like sound strategy.  Not unneeded.  At least it has been sound strategy for nearly a century of football.  The skill is the ability to eliminate the receiver while keeping yourself in the play.  Pretty sure everything about yesterday's "personal foul" was textbook perfect.

Balanced out yesterday by the terrible call against Peppers.  

(11-27-2017, 02:45 PM)Wilikn Wrote: The ball was in the QBs hands when the hit occurred, yes?  The call was, "Hit on a Defenseless Receiver".  He couldn't have been a receiver if the ball had already been thrown elsewhere.  What's more, I believe the defenseless receiver rule requires a hit at or near the head/neck.  That did not happen here.

Eliminating potential receivers before the pass is thrown seems like sound strategy.  Not unneeded.  At least it has been sound strategy for nearly a century of football.  The skill is the ability to eliminate the receiver while keeping yourself in the play.  Pretty sure everything about yesterday's "personal foul" was textbook perfect.

Balanced out yesterday by the terrible call against Peppers.  

Yep.

(11-27-2017, 02:45 PM)Wilikn Wrote: The ball was in the QBs hands when the hit occurred, yes?  The call was, "Hit on a Defenseless Receiver".  He couldn't have been a receiver if the ball had already been thrown elsewhere.  What's more, I believe the defenseless receiver rule requires a hit at or near the head/neck.  That did not happen here.

Eliminating potential receivers before the pass is thrown seems like sound strategy.  Not unneeded.  At least it has been sound strategy for nearly a century of football.  The skill is the ability to eliminate the receiver while keeping yourself in the play.  Pretty sure everything about yesterday's "personal foul" was textbook perfect.

Balanced out yesterday by the terrible call against Peppers.  

There's some new and really ridiculous rule about the angle you can approach a guy from when you hit him within 5 yards.  You like have to run around in front of him so he can see you.

(11-27-2017, 01:47 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Exactly. Tez could have just ran by the guy on his way to the guy with the ball, like 95% other players do. 

You do that and you allow that receiver to then become a downfield blocker for the guy. There's a reason you are allowed to hit him within 5 yds., it is to take him out of the play.

no suspension for the hit..we'll find out later on this week if he's fined

(11-27-2017, 07:02 PM)pally Wrote: no suspension for the hit..we'll find out later on this week if he's fined

Thanks Pally.

All of the semantics are fine and good, but the league in it's infinite wisdom is trying to remove this from the game. In their minds, if it's "away from the play", it's a penalty. He dropped Max Williams, and that dude in preseason within 5 yards.

(11-27-2017, 07:02 PM)pally Wrote: no suspension for the hit..we'll find out later on this week if he's fined

Link?

(11-27-2017, 08:09 PM)jason Wrote: All of the semantics are fine and good, but the league in it's infinite wisdom is trying to remove this from the game. In their minds, if it's "away from the play", it's a penalty. He dropped Max Williams, and that dude in preseason within 5 yards.

If it’s like the KC penalty it has nothing to do with away from the ball and more to do with blindside. If it’s true that the NFL isn’t suspending him, then he probably didn’t even do that. I only saw it live and the one replay so I’m not sure exactly what it looked like, but that was most likely what the ref thought he saw.

Also would anybody be saying anything if instead of Burfict hitting him, the guy had thrown a block on Vontaze? Of course not.

(11-27-2017, 08:43 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Link?

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2017/11/27/cincinnati-bengals-linebacker-vontaze-burfict-not-suspended-hit-against-browns/898281001/

(11-27-2017, 10:21 PM)pally Wrote: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2017/11/27/cincinnati-bengals-linebacker-vontaze-burfict-not-suspended-hit-against-browns/898281001/

Outstanding news!

Gonna need him this week!

It was the right call imo.

I have a feeling he will probably be fined though.

(11-28-2017, 01:54 AM)The Caped Crusader Wrote: I have a feeling he will probably be fined though.

I’m surprised he didn’t get a 1 game suspension, just in time for the Pittsburgh game. Can’t have Vontaze out there giving the Steelers a taste of their own medicine. The Bengals would’ve ended up in starting Hardy Nickerson Jr in week 13.

(11-27-2017, 03:12 PM)Sled21 Wrote: You do that and you allow that receiver to then become a downfield blocker for the guy. There's a reason you are allowed to hit him within 5 yds., it is to take him out of the play.

Football 101.......