Burfict facing suspension

[Bengalboy]

Do we know roughly what time we expect a verdict?

[Bengalfan4life27c]

james thrash former WR is going to handle guilt or innocence. Thrash is generally player friendly in these circumstances. nfl arbritrator is handling appeal on punishment. I would have much rather having former LB Derrick Brooks to give the verdict

[McC]

(08-29-2017, 09:26 AM)Earendil Wrote: I think the evidence is actually black and piss yellow.

Right on.  LOL.

[Millhouse]

Welp the verdict is in. Guilty, and punishment has been bumped up to the guillotine. Bye Taz.




*jk*

[sandwedge]

Does it hurt us that they have to listen to the Elliot appeal the same day? I've heard and read that could get pretty ugly....

[Marlon23]

(08-29-2017, 12:05 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Welp the verdict is in. Guilty, and punishment has been bumped up to the guillotine. Bye Taz.




*jk*

[THE PISTONS]

You know that Burfict had 17 personal fouls in 35 games in college.

I also read a scouting report that says he leads with his head constantly when tackling. This is from college. This is why he gets so many concussions. His technique hasn't been cleaned up.

[Joelist]

(08-29-2017, 11:34 AM)BMK Wrote: Everyone keeps looking at the video and saying that it's a legal hit, when what they really need to be looking at is the exact rules in question that  were (supposedly) violated. Where VB's  helmet hit the receiver is not the issue.  According to the rules regarding hitting a receiver that's not being thrown to, there appears that the league MAY have a case (although even that is a little murky).  

The way I understand the new rule is that if a receiver is in the process of running a route, not blocking, they're considered defenseless and cannot be laid out. Period.  Doesn't matter where on the field it is, or if it was helmet to helmet or not, it's still an unsportsmanlike penalty.  So if this fits that criteria, which it kinda seems to,  VB is not being singled out or being picked on or discriminated against.  Where he IS being singled out is in the punishment. The 5 games, in my opinion, is definitely due to his history.  

Actually there are multiple posts in this thread that take the video and the exact rule and demonstrate point by point that the play is not illegal.

[BMK]

(08-29-2017, 01:43 PM)Joelist Wrote: Actually there are multiple posts in this thread that take the video and the exact rule and demonstrate point by point that the play is not illegal.

I'm not going to go back and read every post. The ones that I did read seem to focus on where VB hit the receiver, how far from the line of scrimmage it was, etc, none of which is relevant to the new rule. Based on the videos I've seen, it appears the hit was legal under the old rules, illegal under the new rules.  Since the actions on the video are pretty much indisputable, if everyone else is right and it's just me that's wrong, the league will have no choice but to reverse the penalty, and I will happily stand corrected.

[Au165]

(08-29-2017, 02:58 PM)BMK Wrote: I'm not going to go back and read every post. The ones that I did read seem to focus on where VB hit the receiver, how far from the line of scrimmage it was, etc, none of which is relevant to the new rule. Based on the videos I've seen, the hit was legal under the old rules, illegal under the new rules.  Since the actions on the video are pretty much indisputable, if I'm wrong, the league will have no choice but to reverse the penalty, and I will happily stand corrected.

Sherman set up as a blocker first before entering his route. Based on that he loses ALL defenseless receiver protections similar to if Burfict ran up and clocked a LT with the same hit. Now the VP of officiating is saying it is unnecessary roughness because he is away from the play that is a tougher argument to make for the league of what he should have known when. I think they settle on it being unnecessary roughness in a Gray area and go with 2/3 games.

[*Synric*]

(08-29-2017, 02:58 PM)BMK Wrote: I'm not going to go back and read every post. The ones that I did read seem to focus on where VB hit the receiver, how far from the line of scrimmage it was, etc, none of which is relevant to the new rule. Based on the videos I've seen, it appears the hit was legal under the old rules, illegal under the new rules.  Since the actions on the video are pretty much indisputable, if everyone else is right and it's just me that's wrong,  the league will have no choice but to reverse the penalty, and I will happily stand corrected.

See what your not understanding is that Burfict isn't being suspended for hitting a defenseless receiver which would constitue a flag and probably a fine. 

The letter he received and the suspension for Unnecessary Roughness going to the head or neck of a defensless receiver. Which is clearly not the case.

[Hoofhearted]

(08-29-2017, 11:41 AM)Bengalboy Wrote: Do we know roughly what time we expect a verdict?

Looks like the appeal is Tuesday, and is being handled by Thrash.

Yeah, not something I wanted to hear. Didn't Thrash play WR for the Skins? Not a good sign of things to come.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/08/29/james-thrash-to-handle-burfict-appeal/

[Gamma Ray Tan]

Rugby players are laughing at these stupid "hit" rules.

[Joelist]

The hearing outcome will be interesting. When you look around the opinion almost everywhere (except for one goofball on CBS) is it is a legal play. Even Mike "Steeler homer" Florio said it was legal. Even the Chiefs RB has said it is legal. And looking at the video and the rule shows it was legal.

People may think the next CBA negotiation will be contentious because of money. I think the union is also going to dig in its heels on reducing the authority of the league office and the Commissioner in particular. They will likely demand all discipline be handled by some type of panel where both players and owners have a vote.

[BMK]

(08-29-2017, 03:08 PM)Synric Wrote: See what your not understanding is that Burfict isn't being suspended for hitting a defenseless receiver which would constitue a flag and probably a fine. 

The letter he received and the suspension for Unnecessary Roughness going to the head or neck of a defensless receiver. Which is clearly not the case.

I guess we'll see. The video shows he didn't go helmet to helmet with a defenseless receiver. So if you're right,  they will have to reverse the penalty, and as I said I will stand corrected. 

But, if he does incur any type of suspension, then I was correct, there is obviously more to it than just where he hit the receiver.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/vontaze-burfict-suspension-heres-the-hit-and-why-its-illegal-under-new-nfl-rule/

[*Synric*]

(08-29-2017, 03:48 PM)BMK Wrote: I guess we'll see. The video shows he didn't go helmet to helmet with a defenseless receiver. So if you're right,  they will have to reverse the penalty, and as I said I will stand corrected. 

But, if he does incur any type of suspension, then I was correct, there is obviously more to it than just where he hit the receiver.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/vontaze-burfict-suspension-heres-the-hit-and-why-its-illegal-under-new-nfl-rule/

Lol I wouldn't go that far...They will likely suspend him for just being Burfict which is what is being discussed on ESPN lol.

[Millhouse]

(08-29-2017, 03:08 PM)Synric Wrote: See what your not understanding is that Burfict isn't being suspended for hitting a defenseless receiver which would constitue a flag and probably a fine. 

The letter he received and the suspension for Unnecessary Roughness going to the head or neck of a defensless receiver. Which is clearly not the case.

Yet they still gave him a suspension of 5 games regardless, which is quite concerning until the decision is finally made. One would think they would have had every camera angle available, from the network and from the two teams' cameras as well, to make that decision in the first place. 

Something tells me Burfict is going to get screwed by getting a 2 game suspension instead, hope I am wrong though. Shouldnt be any based on the new rules.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-29-2017, 03:46 PM)Joelist Wrote: The hearing outcome will be interesting. When you look around the opinion almost everywhere (except for one goofball on CBS) is it is a legal play. Even Mike "Steeler homer" Florio said it was legal. Even the Chiefs RB has said it is legal. And looking at the video and the rule shows it was legal.

People may think the next CBA negotiation will be contentious because of money. I think the union is also going to dig in its heels on reducing the authority of the league office and the Commissioner in particular. They will likely demand all discipline be handled by some type of panel where both players and owners have a vote.

There should definitely be a set standard for punishments that is structered (i.e. first offense is $10,00 fine, etc.). Shouldn't matter who you are. All that should matter is the number of offenses in this particular area. It shouldn't matter if you've had 4 offenses in other areas, just the number of offenses in that area. For example, let's say you've had 2 offenses in the league's drug policy, but this is your first time getting penalized for unnecessary roughness; the penalty should be the same as the rookie who's committing his first unnecessary roughness.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-29-2017, 03:57 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Yet they still gave him a suspension of 5 games regardless, which is quite concerning until the decision is finally made. One would think they would have had every camera angle available, from the network and from the two teams' cameras as well, to make that decision in the first place. 

Something tells me Burfict is going to get screwed by getting a 2 game suspension instead, hope I am wrong though. Shouldnt be any based on the new rules.

You're talking about the same league that went out of their way to DEFEND Shazier's hit on Gio in the playoff game.

[Joelist]

(08-29-2017, 04:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You're talking about the same league that went out of their way to DEFEND Shazier's hit on Gio in the playoff game.

What made their "defense" sillier - and pretty much no one outside of Steeler fans bought it - was they constantly tried to misdirect which rule should be in play. Shazier was guilty of spearing (a.k.a targeting with the crown of the helmet) pretty flagrantly. He launched himself leading with his helmet right at Gio's head.