(12-05-2017, 04:16 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote:

Dry your tears, cupcake. Life is unfair sometimes. 

Bengals fans understand that.  

(12-05-2017, 04:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: He did.  Still got the H2H.

NFL figured they better CYA and give him the same treatment Gronk got for hitting a downed player in the back of the head with a flying elbow because...NFL.

If "he did", how did his helmet hit Burfict square in the jaw?

Magic?

IIRC JJSS's shoulder hit first then his helmet caught VBs chin. Momentum is a son of a *****. But regardless thats a penalty. And Im almost 100% certain that you are not allowed to hit a guy who is not looking at you, so the helmet to chin hit is a moot point. Maybe someone can peruse the rule book and clarify but the days of "keeping your head on a swivel" are over.

(12-05-2017, 10:15 AM)michaelsean Wrote: And just as an aside, shouldn't it have been 30 yds in penalties?  Like the Bengal-Steeler playoff game.  One was during the  play and one after.

I remember researching this after that game. From what I remember you cannot have 2 personal fouls on the same play....except if one is a foul against a referee. And that's what Pac Man did. I read that Boomer was questioning why it wasn't 30 yards, which is kind of funny because you would think that he would KNOW the rules being in his position. 

**edit, it's not two personal fouls, it's two fouls**

Yep, here it is....
Rule 14
Section 1
Article 3
Exception A

If you could, take this to the JN. Im forbidden and there's a large number of posters who think that the refs screwed that up and that its some kind of conspiracy against the Bengals and for the Steelers.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/17_2013_Penalty_Enforcement.pdf

(12-05-2017, 05:17 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Yep, here it is....
Rule 14
Section 1
Article 3
Exception A

If you could, take this to the JN. Im forbidden and there's a large number of posters who think that the refs screwed that up and that its some kind of conspiracy against the Bengals and for the Steelers.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/17_2013_Penalty_Enforcement.pdf

If that is the rule, it is dumb rule.

But, if the personal foul was committed during the play (illegal hit), then the officials should have give option of fouls being marked off from original LOS which I believe was around the 40 or after the dead ball at 49 of Bengals. Either way, Steelers should have been 2nd and 25 and not 2nd and 16. It was not a holding call during the play so no different than roughing the passer, penalty should be enforced back at original LOS

(12-05-2017, 05:42 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: But, if the personal foul was committed during the play (illegal hit), then the officials should have give option of fouls being marked off from original LOS which I believe was around the 40 or after the dead ball at 49 of Bengals. Either way, Steelers should have been 2nd and 25 and not 2nd and 16. It was not a holding call during the play so no different than roughing the passer, penalty should be enforced back at original LOS

No

Rule 14
Section 3
Article 6

Enforced from the spot of the foul

On the Rich Eisen show today they said the NFL said that juju's hit on Vontez was "Karma" what ever that means.
It was also reported that when juju was standing over vontez he was asking him if he was alright.
What do you stink was worse, juju's hit or Gronk's hit on that guy laying down out of bounds?

(12-05-2017, 06:53 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: On the Rich Eisen show today they said the NFL said that juju's hit on Vontez was "Karma" what ever that means.

You're kidding.
 

(12-05-2017, 06:53 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: On the Rich Eisen show today they said the NFL said that juju's hit on Vontez was "Karma" what ever that means.
It was also reported that when juju was standing over vontez he was asking him if he was alright.
What do you stink was worse, juju's hit or Gronk's hit on that guy laying down out of bounds?

Saying Karma is the most stupid thing. Karma doesn't materialize in the form of Mr. Tschutschu. It was him, he's no god of destiny in the avatar of a classless player. "Asking if he was alright", yeah sure, that's how they roll. While Brown hops around shouting Karma, Karma. Very believable.

Gronk's hit was even worse, doesn't mean anything though. The penalties are way too modest. Gronk won't care about one game, the Steelers don't care about one game for Mr. Tschutschu, and yep Burfict probably got away too easy at times as well, and even AJ for headlocking Ramsey. And so it goes on.
Steelers Bengals games are dirty, and that lack of being consequential is a part of that. Pulling shit like that is effective. Putting the taunting atop the dirty hit - it's a freebie anyway, and so no one could doubt that it was an intentional move - adds yet another dimension of crappy, yet surprisingly effective behaviour. Not that it means much, both teams sure are guilty of keeping the dynamics of dirty going, but the Steelers seem to manage to reach into the bottommost drawer more often than not, what makes them win that unworthy contest. And as long as the NFL kind of lets it slide, the games will keep dirty and unworthy of being called sportsmanlike.

(12-05-2017, 06:53 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: On the Rich Eisen show today they said the NFL said that juju's hit on Vontez was "Karma" what ever that means.
It was also reported that when juju was standing over vontez he was asking him if he was alright.
What do you stink was worse, juju's hit or Gronk's hit on that guy laying down out of bounds?

Weird... I listen to that show everyday and amazingly all they really said was Antonio Brown popped open his **** holster and called it karma. Rich Eisen said that hit has no place in the game, but whatever helps your blind homerism feel better kiddo. 

(12-06-2017, 03:50 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote:

I wonder how many dummies will believe that.

(12-06-2017, 04:08 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I wonder how many dummies will believe that.

Have someone post it in JN and just sit back and watch the frothing. 

(12-06-2017, 03:50 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote:

Add a stretcher bearers coming up in the background for effect.

(12-05-2017, 03:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well the NFL has a new precedent.

Block during play that is too high and goes H2H = attacking a player from behind on the ground with an elbow to the back of the head.

And now taunting can get you suspended.

Looks like the internet whine machine got its way.

Did you never look at the clip of Burfict and the KC player? He doesn’t even touch his helmet and drew a 3 game suspension. Same rule I believe. You have to make contact in the front.

People ***** and moan about Burfict and his antics. 

What the hell do you think is going to happen now that some WR cleaned his clock on national television? I can see Keith Rivers. That guy just goes about his business. There was ZERO chance of him going after someone at any point later in his career. 

Guess i'll just sit back and wait for my opportunity, which, if you believe the hype-machine about Burfict, is definitely coming--to shout "KARMA", like some dumbass, hypocritical Steelers fan. 

(12-06-2017, 10:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Did you never look at the clip of Burfict and the KC player?  He doesn’t even touch his helmet and drew a 3 game suspension.  Same rule I believe. You have to make contact in the front.

If anyone hasn't seen the hit pic.twitter.com/6s5DBLifPc

— Laces Or Faces (@LacesOrFaces) August 28, 2017

I'd explain that Bufict hits him from the side/behind vs JuJu and Burfict in a line going toward each other and Burfict getting hit in the chest...but really what could a Steelers fan say that and Bengals fan wouldn't think is tainted?

I mean not even the NFL could explain it to the Bengals.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/08/28/vontaze-burfict-says-his-hit-was-legal-the-nfl-strongly-believes-otherwise-whos-right/?utm_term=.d7f0d9be6a48

Quote:According to a person familiar with the NFL’s deliberations, the league believes that Burfict’s suspension is warranted under the new directive. It also believes that Burfict’s suspension would have been warranted even without the new measure given it was an illegal hit, in the NFL’s view, delivered by a player with a long history of on-field infractions. Discipline also might have been warranted based merely on the unnecessary roughness of the hit, in the league’s view. So, to the NFL, it was a straightforward decision and a relatively easy call.


...


Burfict also says the hit is legal.

“The rules say you can eliminate a receiver within five yards of the line of scrimmage as long as you don’t hit him in the head, and I don’t think I hit him in the head,” he told the Bengals’ website.
Burfict was not penalized during the game for the hit on Sherman, but that does not preclude the league from imposing discipline after reviewing the hit.
Sherman was cutting across the field while running a pass pattern. That makes him a defenseless player under NFL rules, and he cannot be hit in the head or neck area. Nor can the defender launch himself at a defenseless player or lower his head to deliver a blow with the crown of the helmet. Under the rules, a receiver running a pattern is a defenseless player “when the defender approaches from the side or behind” even when the football is thrown elsewhere and the receiver in question is not in the process of making a catch.

The ball was not thrown to Sherman. That does not affect his defenseless player status under the rules; Sherman still is protected by them. But given that Sherman was not involved in the play, it brings unnecessary roughness into the equation. The rules prohibit “unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who is out of the play or should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead.”
The replay appears to show Burfict using his shoulder to hit Sherman primarily in the chest. It is not clear from the video publicly available if there also is contact to Sherman’s head or neck area. But the NFL determined that such contact took place, according to those familiar with the league’s review.

So what difference would it make?

(12-07-2017, 12:23 AM)GMDino Wrote:

If anyone hasn't seen the hit pic.twitter.com/6s5DBLifPc

— Laces Or Faces (@LacesOrFaces) August 28, 2017

I'd explain that Bufict hits him from the side/behind vs JuJu and Burfict in a line going toward each other and Burfict getting hit in the chest...but really what could a Steelers fan say that and Bengals fan wouldn't think is tainted?

I mean not even the NFL could explain it to the Bengals.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/08/28/vontaze-burfict-says-his-hit-was-legal-the-nfl-strongly-believes-otherwise-whos-right/?utm_term=.d7f0d9be6a48



So what difference would it make?

You literally have no clue.

1. Burfict's hit was both stupid and unnecessary, but it wasn't dirty.

2. JJSS's hit was necessary but it, like Burfict's, was illegal, but it wasn't dirty either. Standing over top of a guy is both illegal and douchetastic. 

Both hits were nearly identical, yet here you are, trying to say Burfict's was somehow worse. 

You should attempt to extract your head from your ass once in a while, at least. 

(12-07-2017, 12:31 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: You literally have no clue.

1. Burfict's hit was both stupid and unnecessary, but it wasn't dirty.

2. JJSS's hit was necessary but it, like Burfict's, was illegal, but it wasn't dirty either. Standing over top of a guy is both illegal and douchetastic. 

Both hits were nearly identical, yet here you are, trying to say Burfict's was somehow worse. 

You should attempt to extract
your head from your ass once in a while, at least. 

One hit was from behind...one was dead on.  JuJu's hit the helmet, illegal.  The NFL said Burfict's hit the helmet, illegal.

One, as you say was necessary as he was blocking for the runner.  The other was away from the play and added on to Burfict's body of "work".

Even the NFL said the taunting was not the reason for the suspension:

https://247sports.com/nfl/pittsburgh-steelers/Bolt/NFL-Taunting-not-a-factor-in-Pittsburgh-Steelers-WR-JuJu-Smith-Schusters-one-game-suspension-111851273

Troy Vincent says taunting was NOT a factor in decision to suspend Smith-Schuster.
"It was the act of" the hit that drew penalty. Added he doesn't think league is sending mixed message by granting Iloka's appeal on suspension for helmet-to-helmet hit.

— Will Graves (@WillGravesAP) December 6, 2017

That's not even looking at the other hit that was they admit was retaliatory that was clearly a head shot that the suspension appeal was won.

Maybe fans are more upset about another come from behind loss to the Steelers than this one hit.