Adam Jones fined 35K

[Penn]

(09-17-2015, 02:09 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I thought it was illegal for a non-ballcarrier to use a stiff arm in the facemask/face/head?? I could be wrong, and that makes this even more interesting if it's not illegal.

I could be wrong too but I am relatively sure open field with both players moving the same general direction it is considered a stiff arm with all rights of a ball carrier.  Now if Cooper had squared himself to fully block (I think the wording is "directly engaging") it would be hands to the face.  But make no mistake, I do believe what Cooper did SHOULD be a penalty but as it currently is, no it isn't illegal unless I am missing something that clearly shows intent.

[djs7685]

(09-17-2015, 02:21 PM)type_stripe Wrote: Sounds like isolated punishment for one specific player. unless the league hands out other $35k fines for first time offenses with fighting in-game but not being ejected, then this is unfair.

It's not really unfair. A few of us have already brought up the reason many times. Taking someone's helmet off and then either striking them, grabbing their exposed head, pushing their head, or anything involving their exposed face/head is probably going to warrant the extra money.

I'd say there's a 98% chance that it had to do with that and a 2% chance that the extra money was because of incidents from 7-9 years ago.

Also, I'm pretty sure that it has been confirmed that he wasn't ejected because the officials didn't see every detail that happened until it was later reviewed. Don't quote me on that one though, but I thought I read that in one of the articles.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(09-17-2015, 01:30 PM)type_stripe Wrote: Yea but I'm talking about the fines. An ejection doesn't = $10,000. they were fined $10K less for an actual fight. Whit was ejected for doing less than them and fined $26250 for protecting Dalton vs. the raiders in 2012 (that years 1st offense minimum for a fight). This season's minimum for a first time offense is around $28,000. So do ejections reduce the fine to the minimum but if you keep playing the game you get slapped an extra charge? I'm just confused about how they evaluate it.

It's to compensate for the no ejection and no suspension.

The NFL doesn't want to have to put up with an arbitrator this close to the Brady ruling and have 2 suspensions overturned so easily 

[*Nately120*]

(09-17-2015, 02:24 PM)djs7685 Wrote: It's not really unfair. A few of us have already brought up the reason many times. Taking someone's helmet off and then either striking them, grabbing their exposed head, pushing their head, or anything involving their exposed face/head is probably going to warrant the extra money.

I'd say there's a 98% chance that it had to do with that and a 2% chance that the extra money was because of incidents from 7-9 years ago.

Also, I'm pretty sure that it has been confirmed that he wasn't ejected because the officials didn't see every detail that happened until it was later reviewed. Don't quote me on that one though, but I thought I read that in one of the articles.

That's the point I made when I first saw it.  The amount of deliberation in the retaliation is the most condemning of all the evidence in my mind.  Taking a guy's helmet off before you lay down a retaliation is some blatant stuff.  With that being said, how awesome was this?

[Penn]

(09-17-2015, 02:21 PM)type_stripe Wrote: They were fined the league minimum for fighting that season. This year's minimum for a first offense with fighting is just over $28000. Regardless if they are "stricter" what is the justification for the additional $7k? If it's just to lay down the law and scare other players from doing the same  (which won't work because emotions fly high in a physical sport), will everyone who gets into a scuffle and not get ejected have to pay $7k more than the league minimum which the league set itself? is $35k the new minimum even though ~$28000 is already set in the fine schedule?

And the fines for entering a fighting area have been in the league for a while. How heavily enforced? Not sure, but no other players are getting fined from being within the vacinity of this specific incident. So it sounds like the league says one thing but does another in terms of fighting. If they wanted to make a statement to the league to cut down fighting, they could have ejected him or suspended him.

Sounds like isolated punishment for one specific player. unless the league hands out other $35k fines for first time offenses with fighting in-game but not being ejected, then this is unfair.

If that is the case, why did Finnegan get $10,000 for his second offense $5,000 for his first offense that year? http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/fines-suspensions/2010/fines/  If I am right that it was Johnson's first offense what he did got more for severity and Finnegan got it for a third offense.

Edit: oops

[djs7685]

There is a lot of stuff open to interpretation and opinion here, but one thing needs to be cleared up.

Watch this vine that somebody posted.... https://vine.co/v/eF2FdO1P50m

Pause it the millisecond that Cooper's hand is on Jones.

If you tell me that he "punched/jabbed Jones in the throat", then you're just flat out lying. I didn't realize just how ridiculous everyone was being until I stopped it at various points, but there is 1. An open hand, and 2. A hand not on Jones' throat.

I like how myself and others were called into question for not being "truthful", yet it's the other side that's ignoring the blatant facts of video evidence here.

[type_stripe]

(09-17-2015, 02:24 PM)djs7685 Wrote: It's not really unfair. A few of us have already brought up the reason many times. Taking someone's helmet off and then either striking them, grabbing their exposed head, pushing their head, or anything involving their exposed face/head is probably going to warrant the extra money.

I'd say there's a 98% chance that it had to do with that and a 2% chance that the extra money was because of incidents from 7-9 years ago.

Also, I'm pretty sure that it has been confirmed that he wasn't ejected because the officials didn't see every detail that happened until it was later reviewed. Don't quote me on that one though, but I thought I read that in one of the articles.

Ok that is more understandable. Thanks.

Not saying those incidents make the ultimate decision, but the league probably wont dismiss aggressive/ violent history when determining how to deal with an individual for fighting. Especially one with as colorful of a history as jones.

And I will quote you on that. If you are incorrect, you will be stoned by the masses. :jk:

[type_stripe]

(09-17-2015, 02:39 PM)Penn Wrote: If that is the case, why did Finnegan get $10,000 for his second offense $5,000 for his first offense that year? http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/fines-suspensions/2010/fines/  If I am right that it was Johnson's first offense what he did got more for severity and Finnegan got it for a third offense.

Edit: oops

Positive rating for you.

Idk. I guess the league has had an inconsistency over the seasons with the punishments then. Whit was ejected for his first offense in 2012 and had the $26k fine for a lot less. Then you have jones this season doing more than whit but no ejection in the season they want to crack down. Oh well, the crap's done with. I'm just glad he wasn't suspended.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-17-2015, 02:42 PM)djs7685 Wrote: There is a lot of stuff open to interpretation and opinion here, but one thing needs to be cleared up.

Watch this vine that somebody posted....  https://vine.co/v/eF2FdO1P50m

Pause it the millisecond that Cooper's hand is on Jones.

If you tell me that he "punched/jabbed Jones in the throat", then you're just flat out lying. I didn't realize just how ridiculous everyone was being until I stopped it at various points, but there is 1. An open hand, and 2. A hand not on Jones' throat.

I like how myself and others were called into question for not being "truthful", yet it's the other side that's ignoring the blatant facts of video evidence here.

.....are you considering the VERY end of the vine....where Copper turns to confront Jones and it appears that he takes a swing at Jones?  Cause if you aren't, you're ignoring some potential evidence on your own.  Plus....from there, the conflict escalates off camera, and we don't see the end result.....Pacman is who he is....he says the man went for his throat.  Now, whether he is referring to the stiff arm, or what happens just as they go off camera, only he and Cooper know for sure.

[djs7685]

(09-17-2015, 04:09 PM)Wyche Wrote: .....are you considering the VERY end of the vine....where Copper turns to confront Jones and it appears that he takes a swing at Jones?  Cause if you aren't, you're ignoring some potential evidence on your own.  Plus....from there, the conflict escalates off camera, and we don't see the end result.....Pacman is who he is....he says the man went for his throat.  Now, whether he is referring to the stiff arm, or what happens just as they go off camera, only he and Cooper know for sure.

No I'm only talking about the clear stiff arm to the facemask that people are calling me "not truthful" for refusing to call it a "jab/punch to the throat".

Let's be honest, if you pause that vine, it's very clear what happened with that specific detail of the incident.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-17-2015, 04:10 PM)djs7685 Wrote: No I'm only talking about the clear stiff arm to the facemask that people are calling me "not truthful" for refusing to call it a "jab/punch to the throat".

Let's be honest, if you pause that vine, it's very clear what happened with that specific detail of the incident.

Yup....it looks to me like he has the heel of his hand on the bottom of Adam's facemask and is....figuratively speaking....trying to break his neck.  Where I see a potential punch is as they are going out of the frame at the tail end of the play.....and I wonder if that isn't what Jones was referring to.  I haven't seen any video that is a continuation from that precise point to the takedown and subsequent helmet removal, etc.  It's either this....or as FanBuzz likes to post.... ONLY the helmet incident.

EDIT:.....and it looks as though there is a punch thrown by Cooper just as they exit the frame about the head/shoulder area....

[BoomerFan]

(09-17-2015, 04:10 PM)djs7685 Wrote: No I'm only talking about the clear stiff arm to the facemask that people are calling me "not truthful" for refusing to call it a "jab/punch to the throat".

Let's be honest, if you pause that vine, it's very clear what happened with that specific detail of the incident.

Looks pretty blurry to me. This isn't exactly conclusive visual evidence of where the punch landed. Maybe you're just better at going frame by frame than me, but calling people liars because they're seeing something different in a pretty darned blurry video is kind of wrong headed I think.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-17-2015, 04:24 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: Looks pretty blurry to me. This isn't exactly conclusive visual evidence of where the punch landed. Maybe you're just better at going frame by frame than me, but calling people liars because they're seeing something different in a pretty darned blurry video is kind of wrong headed I think.

....I can agree that part is most likely a very overzealous stiff arm....but watch the tail end of the video, and keep your eyes on those two as the ball carrier goes out of bounds.

[jj22]

Still too many excuses being made for Cooper on this Bengals board.

[djs7685]

(09-17-2015, 04:24 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: Looks pretty blurry to me. This isn't exactly conclusive visual evidence of where the punch landed. Maybe you're just better at going frame by frame than me, but calling people liars because they're seeing something different in a pretty darned blurry video is kind of wrong headed I think.

Hey, tell that to the guy that originally claimed that I "wasn't being truthful".

(09-17-2015, 05:21 PM)jj22 Wrote: Still too many excuses being made for Cooper on this Bengals board.

Not excuses my friend. Just people living in reality. I know that's tough for some.

Some are casuals that look at broad spectrums and blindly defend. Others like to look at in depth details and have an objective eye.

What I can't believe is that anyone is dumb enough to say that the people siding with hard, video evidence are the people "making excuses". Trollolololol

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-17-2015, 05:39 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Hey, tell that to the guy that originally claimed that I "wasn't being truthful".


Not excuses my friend. Just people living in reality. I know that's tough for some.

Some are casuals that look at broad spectrums and blindly defend. Others like to look at in depth details and have an objective eye.

What I can't believe is that anyone is dumb enough to say that the people siding with hard, video evidence are the people "making excuses". Trollolololol

So....you've studied the in depth details....are you saying that it doesn't look like a punch may have been thrown by Cooper at the tail end of the video?  If so....that's not very objective....

[djs7685]

(09-17-2015, 05:54 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: So....you've studied the in depth details....are you saying that it doesn't look like a punch may have been thrown by Cooper at the tail end of the video?  If so....that's not very objective....

Again, that has never been my argument.

I've been solely arguing with the people that refuse to stop calling that stiff arm a "throat punch".

I don't even recall mentioning much else about the play in question recently other than pointing out that it wasn't a punch and it wasn't his throat. But hey, screw actually having video evidence, right?

[RoyleRedlegs]

(09-17-2015, 05:21 PM)jj22 Wrote: Still too many excuses being made for Cooper on this Bengals board.

What excuses?

That what people called a throat punch may have just been a stiff arm?
Did anyone say Cooper made a clean good football move?
No. He made an illegal football move and it should have been called. It wasn't.
Doesn't make what Pacman did any better or less shitty no matter what you call it. 

[BonnieBengal]

The thing that really concerns me is that afterwards he said he couldn't promise it wouldn't happen again. To me this means that everyone playing against him is going to be trying to provoke him into more personal foul penalties. He absolutely can't control his temper.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-17-2015, 06:25 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Again, that has never been my argument.

I've been solely arguing with the people that refuse to stop calling that stiff arm a "throat punch".

I don't even recall mentioning much else about the play in question recently other than pointing out that it wasn't a punch and it wasn't his throat. But hey, screw actually having video evidence, right?

I haven't read through the entirety of the responses....but I don't know that I've seen anyone specifically say THAT was the throat punch...maybe they have, I'm certainly not going against your word there...I'll take your word.

However, Jones himself said Cooper went after his throat...or something to that effect. Isn't it possible that it happens at the very end of the film and carries on during the brief moment between the start of that scuffle and the takedown, which is NOT on film? If that is indeed the case, would it be fair to say that maybe Adam is a little more justified in "going off" on the young man, and that maybe folks are right to take Jones' word for it? I mean, after all, Cooper himself said he didn't think Jones should be suspended. Wonder why that is, if Jones was totally unprovoked and out of line?

(09-17-2015, 06:38 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: The thing that really concerns me is that afterwards he said he couldn't promise it wouldn't happen again.  To me this means that everyone playing against him is going to be trying to provoke him into more personal foul penalties.  He absolutely can't control his temper.

Now THIS part of the equation IS concerning....