Danny Trevathan hit on Davante Adams - what if it were Burfict?

[bengals67]

GODell is only concerned about PR as seen through the eyes of media elites.

There is absolutely zero consistency in officiating in a game or when comparing crews against each other.

Given the gross inconsistency in officiating during games or when comparing crews, why would anyone think that GODell would be governed by a consistent rule of law or apply due process to all players without regard to the player or whether they played for a favored team.


Burfict would have been banned because he is Burfict ( the media's whipping boy) and a Bengal  ( the New York Generals of the NFL).

[*PhilHos*]

(09-29-2017, 03:37 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: The whole thing with illegal hits in the NFL is confusing as hell.

Shazier's hit was ok because of the following rule

RULE 12, SECTION 2, ARTICLE 8. INITIATING CONTACT WITH THE CROWN OF THE HELMET. It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players are clearly outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle to tackle and from three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or tackler against an opponent shall not be a foul.

But when I go back to the play, Gio was wayyyy outside of the tackle box. Am I confused about the tackle box?

It seems that both plays the guys were way out of the tackle box so it constitutes as an illegal hit... Still not sure how Shazier gets away with things... remember when Dupree murdered Matt Moore as well?

NFL is so wishy washy with this stuff

Shazier's hit was NOT ok because of that rule. Shazier's hit was illegal according to that rule, but it was declared legal by the NFL because somewhere in between those letters in really small type is some kind of nonsense about lining up a receiver (which, IMO, Shazier STILL did, but whatevs).

[BMK]

(09-29-2017, 12:26 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: There is a schedule for personal foul penalties. Hobson has referred to it when explaining Burfict fines/suspensions.

On Trevathon, he should be penalized according to the schedule. If it’s a first or second offense, a fine, if it’s more then suspension. Burfict was fined the first 3 times, suspended 1 game, suspended 4 games and then 5 games (reduced to 3 on appeal)

Yet when Trevathon gets a one game suspension, half the people on this board will be crying that if it were Burfict, he would have been suspended for a lot more games, because (insert obligatory league hates us excuse here). 

The reality is that it's true, and according to the schedule, rightly so. In fact, Burfict may have gotten off easier in the past  than Trevathan will, comparing 1st offense to 1st offense. If anyone is going to compare punishments between Trevathon and Burfict, they need to either compare 1st offenses, or wait until  Travathon is a 6 time offender, like Burfict.

But comparing Trevathon's punishment as a first time offender to Burfict's punishment as a multipule offender is comparing apples to monkey wrenches.

[*bengalfan74*]

(09-29-2017, 12:14 PM)Wyche Wrote: Yes

1 game

Probably banned for life.

Agree,

I doubt Vontaze would take another NFL snap after that.

[cinci4life]

Trevathan given a 2 game suspension. He got off easy imo.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20873262/danny-trevathan-chicago-bears-suspended-two-games-nfl

[*SHRacerX*]

(09-29-2017, 04:47 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Shazier's hit was NOT ok because of that rule. Shazier's hit was illegal according to that rule, but it was declared legal by the NFL because somewhere in between those letters in really small type is some kind of nonsense about lining up a receiver (which, IMO, Shazier STILL did, but whatevs).

IF it had been Burfict

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-30-2017, 05:58 PM)cinci4life Wrote: Trevathan given a 2 game suspension. He got off easy imo.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20873262/danny-trevathan-chicago-bears-suspended-two-games-nfl

I dunno....for a first offense, I thought it was 1 game too much 

[grampahol]

If it had been a Squeeler it would be on the highlight reel played every day for a month of how to play football. 
VB it would be automatic suspension before the game was over and probably for the season. 
There really is no way to justify this as merely a first offense as EVERY player in the league is aware of the rules. 
My feelings about it..they have to stop applying the rules differently for different teams and players and stop pretending every hit by VB is malicious with intent to harm while others much more severe are just sound football plays.. 

[CanadianBengal]

(09-29-2017, 12:03 PM)bengalhoel Wrote: M

1) Yes!  That was the definition of a dirty hit NFL.
2) At least 3
) He would have at least gotten a 1 year suspension and we would be talking about him never playing again.

The reason they pick on Burfict is that nobody gives a crap about this team and they can make an example out of him without causing an uproar. I know it gets old hearing this over and over, but if he played for the Steelers, I dont think he gets suspended.


 

I love Burfict but in fairness he has earned his "dirty player" rep. Twisting guys ankles, stepping on them, celebrating when he heard Leveon Bells ACL pop, the hit that cost us the play off game etc. 

He is a great player and the whole D is tougher when he is on the field but he is dirty. He is the guy you love on your team and hate on any other team. Shakier is same type of player. Loved him at Ohio State. Now I hate him and see all his cheap shots. 

We just need to get use to him missing some games for suspensions. That's kind of who he is on the field.