Burfict facing suspension

[Whatever]

(08-28-2017, 12:29 PM)ShowMeUrTDs Wrote: If he loses the appeal they should, and he will need the backing of the NFLPA plus they will have to get a Federal judge to grant an injunction while the case is pending to stop the suspension in lieu of pending litigation.

If you file a lawsuit the suspension does not automatically stop a judge has to order them to stop it, which is what happened with Brady, and I don't know if a judge would grant Burict an injunction.

He won't go to court because the looming suspension hurts his stock in FA.  He's better off serving it this year.

[ShowMeUrTDs]

(08-28-2017, 12:32 PM)Whatever Wrote: He won't go to court because the looming suspension hurts his stock in FA.  He's better off serving it this year.

Yeah it is hard to say, but this is a pretty radical disciplinary action. I am not sure it is a precedent the NFLPA, Burfict, or the Bengals would want to stand.

I agree if he is gonna serve a suspension it is better now because he is a free agent next year, but also the shorter leash that comes with the elevated discipline from this infraction to the next also hurts his free agency stock, so it may be worth fighting.

[Joelist]

The text of the rule is right in this thread.

And since the film shows that Tez did not use his helmet and did not hit the head or the neck the hit is 100% legal.

[Whatever]

(08-28-2017, 12:37 PM)ShowMeUrTDs Wrote: Yeah it is hard to say, but this is a pretty radical disciplinary action. I am not sure it is a precedent the NFLPA, Burfict, or the Bengals would want to stand.

I agree if he is gonna serve a suspension it is better now because he is a free agent next year, but also the shorter leash that comes with the elevated discipline from this infraction to the next also hurts his free agency stock, so it may be worth fighting.

Burfict doesn't have even a fraction of Brady's money to throw at a drawn out legal battle.  It just doesn't make financial sense for him to take it to that level just to likely lose.

[Bengalfan4life27c]

Max Kellerman who is not a Bengals fan said the hit was legal.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(08-28-2017, 09:52 AM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Proceeds with saying I told you so...

lol I only said that because I meant no ill will back in 2013, just that he would be targeted.

And I hate being right sometimes...

(08-28-2017, 10:33 AM)bengals67 Wrote: Give me a break.

Hit on Gio's face was completely legal  but hitting someone straight ( not in face or with helmet)   is worth 5 games???

Tez needs to sign with the Pats or Steelers and he will be fine with no more suspensions.

NFL is a complete joke.

If the Browns do not declare total war because of this suspension they are fools and possibly cowards.

And I reiterate what I wrote above; you do realise that it would be an absolutely stupid thing to do?

If the league fabricates their own rules and punishments, what do you think they'll do to a bottom-5 revenue franchise?

You fight this legally and try to use (abuse as well) the system as much as possible; I don't want to lose my team or have them sanctioned to death.

[THE PISTONS]

(08-28-2017, 11:30 AM)ShowMeUrTDs Wrote: We need to flood the NFL's social media with these plays from the Stoolers and Patriots to show how hypocritical they are, and I mean flood.

I am going to get about 10 gif's together of such plays by the Stoolers and Patriots, and hit their Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram all week!

Who will join me?

It won't matter.

The NFL doesn't allow players to appear at events in casino's and is moving a team to Las Vegas.

The NFL doesn't care.

Quite frankly Burfict is hated by a lot around the league and an easy target. As a franchise we are too.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(08-28-2017, 11:52 AM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: There is definately a blatant bias.

Look at the game last year against the Steelers when they just held all game long and nothing was called...

There are tons of these game for everyone to view and if you don't see it your head is in the sand and you don't know the rules.

IIRC, it was 13 of them, not called. 13.

I can see 5 even 6 be let go in this day and age, but 13? Still laugh at the, "perfect pocket for Ben," comments, while MJ LITERALLY has both of Villaneuava's arms around his neck/chest and MJ is flailing his arms wildly.

Or, the 90,000 times Nelson or Shawn Williams his receivers in the chest with their shoulder, then get flagged for helmet to helmet.

Absolutely insane.

[Ricky Spanish]

This is a joke. 5 games for leading with a shoulder? Really?

[*Synric*]

After my initial anger subsided about this suspension I feel I can see the situation more clearly.

There is a new 2017 NFL rule about the exact play that is in question. Burfict is a perfect candidate to send a message to the rest of the league about how that rule is going to be enforced. Why is Burfict a perfect target? First his Stigma he's accrued in college and the Pros. Secondly it's the Bengals a small market team that doesn't put out the revenue to off set a losing season. I predict Burfict will be suspended 4 games and Ezekiel Elliot will be suspended 2.

[bengalguy71]

(08-28-2017, 01:19 PM)Synric Wrote: After my initial anger subsided about this suspension I feel I can see the situation more clearly.

There is a new 2017 NFL rule about the exact play that is in question. Burfict is a perfect candidate to send a message to the rest of the league about how that rule is going to be enforced. Why is Burfict a perfect target? First his Stigma he's accrued in college and the Pros. Secondly it's the Bengals a small market team that doesn't put out the revenue to off set a losing season.  I predict Burfict will be suspended 4 games and Ezekiel Elliot will be suspended 2.

Even if Elliot gets as many or more than Burfict, I'm done with the NFL.

I'm tired of all the NFL preferential treatment and shenanigans.

I will only watch the Bengal and Eagle games, my wife and son's team.

I will not ANY games that these 2 teams are not playing in.

No more SNF, MNF, TNF or checking to see if Steelers or Ravens won.

It is what it is and I've accepted the idea that nothing changes, and it will only get worse.

So WHO DEY!!

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-28-2017, 12:40 AM)Bengalholic Wrote: Here's the hit...

Because of this hit the #NFL is suspending Vontaze Burfict (55 in black) for 5 games. #Bengals (? @MySportsUpdate) pic.twitter.com/chv0JCbbpL

— RealClearSports (@RealClearSports) August 28, 2017

You gotta be ***** kidding me.  That is so friggin' weak.  If dude had seen him, he probably doesn't even go to the turf.  There wasn't even a flag.  This is ridiculous.

[Hammerstripes]

He's going to lose this appeal. That is clearly a hit on a defenseless receiver.

The problem is that he sees the ball being thrown and then he levels the guy anyway.

[Tiger Teeth]

Well, we almost made it through the preseason without a major loss. Too bad the League took out one of our best players.

[Millhouse]

So here is what the official rule now states in the 2017 rule book itself.

ARTICLE 7. PLAYERS IN A DEFENSELESS POSTURE
It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.

a. Players in a defenseless posture are:
A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass (passing posture)
A receiver running a pass route when the defender approaches from the side or behind. If the receiver becomes a blocker or assumes a blocking posture, he is no longer a defenseless player." - rule 12.2.7

then a bit further down in the rules:

b. Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him


http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/#article-7.-players-in-a-defenseless-posture

[cinci4life]

(08-28-2017, 11:54 AM)Millhouse Wrote: Yeah the 5 yard rule doesn't apply anymore if the receiver is hit from the side to back and was deemed defenseless, as was this case since the ball wasn't even thrown at him.

Imo, at the most it should just be a fine, because there is no clear evidence the hit was to the neck let alone the head. If he was head hunting, then that is different.

But even though I think it should just be a fine, it was still an unnecessary cheapshot, especially for a preseason game. 

It wasn't an unnecessary cheapshot or fineable. It was shoulder to chest and the pass even though downfield was also a low pass so it was hard to tell if it was going to the RB or downfield as it did. Clean legal hit. Period!

[WeezyBengal]

(08-28-2017, 10:33 AM)bengals67 Wrote: Give me a break.

Hit on Gio's face was completely legal  but hitting someone straight ( not in face or with helmet)   is worth 5 games???

Tez needs to sign with the Pats or Steelers and he will be fine with no more suspensions.

NFL is a complete joke.

If the Browns do not declare total war because of this suspension they are fools and possibly cowards.

Im not saying the hit on Gio was OK. I am saying the hit that Burfict had was against NFL rules. He went after a defenseless receiver. He got 5 games because he has a prior record. 

At some point you people are going to have to stop whining about the NFL having it out for our players and start to hold dirty players like Burfict accountable for their actions. 

[sandwedge]

(08-28-2017, 01:53 PM)Millhouse Wrote: So here is what the official rule now states in the 2017 rule book itself.

ARTICLE 7. PLAYERS IN A DEFENSELESS POSTURE
It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.

a. Players in a defenseless posture are:
A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass (passing posture)
A receiver running a pass route when the defender approaches from the side or behind. If the receiver becomes a blocker or assumes a blocking posture, he is no longer a defenseless player." - rule 12.2.7

then a bit further down in the rules:

b. Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him


http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/#article-7.-players-in-a-defenseless-posture

No wonder our LBs allow so many players to run free over the middle, according to this rule you can't breath on them??? 

[Millhouse]

(08-28-2017, 01:36 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: He's going to lose this appeal.  That is clearly a hit on a defenseless receiver.  

The problem is that he sees the ball being thrown and then he levels the guy anyway.

Based on the new rule, it will be hard to win the appeal. He did come in from the side and the receiver was technically defenseless. 

However a suspension for 5 games for a hit that wasnt to the head is wrong. If anything for breaking this new rule, it should just be a warning with a fine, even with his dirty history. 

[WeezyBengal]

(08-28-2017, 12:58 PM)Joelist Wrote: The text of the rule is right in this thread.

And since the film shows that Tez did not use his helmet and did not hit the head or the neck the hit is 100% legal.

And you are 100% wrong. The hit doesnt have to be to the head or neck. Here is the rule: 

Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:

1. forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him
2. lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or ”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body
3. illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body. (This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered to be a defenseless player, as defined in Article 7.)