Steelers Ryan Mundy fined $21,000 for hit on Darrius Heyward-Bey

[polamalubeast]

vicious hit he laid on Raiders receiver Darrius Heyward-Bey on Sunday.

Mundy has been fined $21,000 for the hit, ESPN’s Adam Schefter reports.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/26/ryan-mundy-fined-21000-for-hit-on-darrius-heyward-bey/

[st33lersguy]

It's a shame he got fined for the only thing he actually did during that game

[fansince'76]

*bites tongue*

[X-Terminator]

Another day, another bullshit fine...

[Chidi29]

Another day, another bullshit fine...

How do you figure?

God forbid someone gets fined for an illegal hit...

[X-Terminator]

How do you figure?

God forbid someone gets fined for an illegal hit...

Well, I'll change my tune if someone posts a video of the hit and it's a clear-cut illegal hit. Otherwise, it's a bullshit fine.

[polamalubeast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-ljJ6wVSws

[Chidi29]

Well, I'll change my tune if someone posts a video of the hit and it's a clear-cut illegal hit. Otherwise, it's a bullshit fine.

Two pictures for you. There's a reason why Heyward-Bey was knocked out cold...

http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg608/Chidi2929/Heyward_Bey.png

http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg608/Chidi2929/Heyward_Bey2.png

[steeldawg]

it was definetly an illegal hit he should have gotten fined.

[fansince'76]

Yep, Mundy should have definitely laid back and let him catch it. :rolleyes:

[X-Terminator]

Two pictures for you. There's a reason why Heyward-Bey was knocked out cold...

Like Gary said, I guess Mundy should have just let DHB catch the ball instead, right? This to me is another one of those "shit happens" plays that the league just loves fining players for. 3 years ago, nobody gives a rat's ass about that hit, now everyone gets their panties in a bunch. So I guess by today's pussy rules, it's an illegal hit that should have been fined, but I do not and will not agree with it.

[steeldawg]

If our beloved antonio brown took that hit we would be screaming for a fine and a suspension and possibly an execution.

[fansince'76]

Like Gary said, I guess Mundy should have just let DHB catch the ball instead, right? This to me is another one of those "shit happens" plays that the league just loves fining players for. 3 years ago, nobody gives a rat's ass about that hit, now everyone gets their panties in a bunch. So I guess by today's pussy rules, it's an illegal hit that should have been fined, but I do not and will not agree with it.

Since every injury = fine nowadays, I wonder what they're going to do when two teammates collide with each other when trying to make a play and both get hurt?

Quite the conundrum...

[X-Terminator]

If our beloved antonio brown took that hit we would be screaming for a fine and a suspension and possibly an execution.

Not me. That's the risk you take when you go over the middle. Players understand that, but the league and the fans don't, because both have become a bunch of pansies just like society in general. It's football, not ballet.

[fansince'76]

If our beloved antonio brown took that hit we would be screaming for a fine and a suspension and possibly an execution.

Depends.

If he got taken out on a legitimate cheapshot? Yes.

On a play like the one above where the safety is trying to make a play and Ben hung him out to dry the way Palmer did there? No.

[Chidi29]

Yep, Mundy should have definitely laid back and let him catch it. :rolleyes:

Intent doesn't matter. The hit happened and it was illegal. You start creating this big grey area and it becomes an even messier situation than it is right now.

[bayz101]

Once again, even though it was a helmet to helmet hit, it was unavoidable. Mundy himself said that things happen so fast. Can't avoid it. If you're knocking out cold, flying through the air, and you hit someone's helmet, by Goodell's logic, it's a fine-able hit, even though you couldn't prevent it because you're sleeping.

[fansince'76]

On a side note, I'm VERY glad DHB wasn't more seriously injured.

[silver & black]

Well....... I don't have a problem with the hit, at all, but I/we all knew the fine was coming.

I think it was a good hit. When you go over the middle, you can expect to get crushed. BUT.... I'm an old school guy that watched Tatum make a living delivering hits like that. We might as well except that it isn't going to be tolerated in the era of bazillion$$$ contracts being paid to the owners' prized players.

They can spin all they want that it's about player safety, everyone knows it's all about $$$.... the owners nor Goodell could care less about the players.

Oh well............... GO TEAM! :cheer2:

[X-Terminator]

Intent doesn't matter. The hit happened and it was illegal. You start creating this big grey area and it becomes an even messier situation than it is right now.

Here's an idea that apparently hasn't occurred to the brain trust in the NFL FO...stop fining for "shit happens" plays and start fining for legitimate, unnecessary, clear-cut cheap shots. There is no "gray area" involved - it's pretty damn easy for anyone with 2 eyes and a functioning neuron to figure out the difference between the 2 scenarios.


On a side note, I'm VERY glad DHB wasn't more seriously injured.

Ditto.

[bayz101]

Well, would you look at that. My buddy the Raider fan even thinks it was a good hit. :chuckle:

But he's right about one other thing as well: We all knew a fine was coming, even if it WAS a good hit. Welcome to Goodell's NFL. Defend that.

[Craic]

Here's an idea that apparently hasn't occurred to the brain trust in the NFL FO...stop fining for "shit happens" plays and start fining for legitimate, unnecessary, clear-cut cheap shots. There is no "gray area" involved - it's pretty damn easy for anyone with 2 eyes and a functioning neuron to figure out the difference between the 2 scenarios.



Ditto.

But honestly, that's not the point. The point of the fines is to get the players to avoid head shots at all costs. So why should the parameters change, when the goal is to stop headshots on "defenseless players" whether accidental or not?

Like it or not, it is a very logical position.

And I also ditto your feelings concerning DHB.

[bayz101]

But honestly, that's not the point. The point of the fines is to get the players to avoid head shots at all costs. So why should the parameters change, when the goal is to stop headshots on "defenseless players" whether accidental or not?

Like it or not, it is a very logical position.

And I also ditto your feelings concerning DHB.

And that's the biggest bullshit of it all. If you CAN'T avoid hitting someone in the helmet, you'll still get fined anyway. Palmer should be fined for leaving his receiver out to dry on several occasions Sunday by that logic.

As I said earlier, if a defender is unconscious, flying through the air and makes contact with an offensive players helmet, it should be a fine. Doesn't matter that he couldn't possibly control it, what matters is that it happened, and that's bullshit logic.

[ALLD]

What the NFL should do is get rid of the grounding penalty and add one man to the offense so he can sit back and protect the QB. But that may put into light exactly what the NFL is trying to do with other methods.

[steelreserve]

But honestly, that's not the point. The point of the fines is to get the players to avoid head shots at all costs. So why should the parameters change, when the goal is to stop headshots on "defenseless players" whether accidental or not?

Like it or not, it is a very logical position.

It's not logical at all. You might as well try to outlaw rain. Sticking with it doesn't make it any more logical, or make it work any better, for that matter.

[X-Terminator]

But honestly, that's not the point. The point of the fines is to get the players to avoid head shots at all costs. So why should the parameters change, when the goal is to stop headshots on "defenseless players" whether accidental or not?

Like it or not, it is a very logical position.

And I also ditto your feelings concerning DHB.

No, actually it's not logical at all. Basically, the league is telling players to stop playing football. Because if Mundy can't come over and make a play/hit like that on a receiver going over the middle, then it stops being football and turns into a game of catch in the back yard. Players do not always have time to think about how to hit a guy - they just go on instinct and play. It is ridiculous that the league fines players for that, and it's even more ridiculous that fans accept it, which gives them more incentive to do it.

[Craic]

And that's the biggest bullshit of it all. If you CAN'T avoid hitting someone in the helmet, you'll still get fined anyway. Palmer should be fined for leaving his receiver out to dry on several occasions Sunday by that logic.

As I said earlier, if a defender is unconscious, flying through the air and makes contact with an offensive players helmet, it should be a fine. Doesn't matter that he couldn't possibly control it, what matters is that it happened, and that's bullshit logic.

I just found this hilarious. Please explain to me how a defender can be flying through the air in a way that shows he is trying to make a hit or a tackle, but is completely unconscious. I mean seriously, we're going to these extremes now?


What the NFL should do is get rid of the grounding penalty and add one man to the offense so he can sit back and protect the QB. But that may put into light exactly what the NFL is trying to do with other methods.
What your missing here, is that the issue is "defenseless player." That also means a DB who has gone up and intercepted the ball, getting hit head on by a WR or a TE. So no, that scenario really has nothing to do with what the league is trying to prevent here.



It's not logical at all. You might as well try to outlaw rain. Sticking with it doesn't make it any more logical, or make it work any better, for that matter.

Rain? That's even better than Bayz attempt. So, what you're saying is that it is completely natural to hit players in the head, despite the fact that other like sports around the world have specific rules in place against those very types of hits. Really? Not buying it. There is nothing different between a tackle in rugby and a tackle in football, basics wise. Yet, you NEVER see head shots in Rugby. So don't tell me it's natural in football, because it's not. It's a learned behavior. One that our defense needs to unlearn.


No, actually it's not logical at all. Basically, the league is telling players to stop playing football. Because if Mundy can't come over and make a play/hit like that on a receiver going over the middle, then it stops being football and turns into a game of catch in the back yard. Players do not always have time to think about how to hit a guy - they just go on instinct and play. It is ridiculous that the league fines players for that, and it's even more ridiculous that fans accept it, which gives them more incentive to do it.

Come on X-term. The league is not telling the players to stop playing football. Seriously, they're saying, "Don't hike the ball. Don't throw the ball. Don't run with the ball. Don't tackle someone without hitting them in the head. Don't etc.?" I think we both know that's not what's going on here. The league is saying, "Stop hitting defenseless players in the head." I'm not sure why that's so controversial. And again, the league is not saying Mundy can't come over and make a play against a reciever going down the middle. The league is saying he can't come over and launch, hitting the guy in the head with his head. Mundy can hit him in the chest, in the stomach, heck, he can even hit him int the thighs or the balls. Matter of fact, I seem to remember coaches telling players to "Go Low." When did that stop? I once again submit, when "Going Low" began to equal "not making the ESPN highlights." ANd once again, I don't buy the "instinct" argument, because as I said above, similiar sports with tackling around the world rule out headshots, without a problem. So it isn't "instinct." It's sloppiness in tackling. Count the arm tackles, and compare it with twenty years ago, and I think you'll see my point.

__________

And in answer to all, yes, it is absolutely logical.

Issue: Headshots are being banned in the NFL against defenseless players.

Premise 1: Headshots happen in the NFL against defenseless players.
Premise 2: The NFL is trying to remove all headshots against said players.
Conclusion: Headshots against defenseless players are no longer welcome in the NFL

Premise 3: Headshots against defenseless players are no longer welcome in the NFL.
Premise 4: The incentive for a headshot must be reduced.
Premise 5: Fining players is one way to reduce the incentive.
Conclusion: All headshots against defenseless players are fined.

Yeah, that's pretty logical.

[zulater]

A couple thoughts. I honestly thought he was going to be suspended when it happened. So I'm ok with the fine. Don't get me wrong, I'm as old school as anyone. In the old days that was just good hard nosed football. In the old days if anyone was to blame for Heyward Bay's plight it would be Carson Palmer, who led him into traffic.

But it's not the old days. So you've got to deal with the rules as they are today. And like it or not by today's standard that's a fine-able hit at the very least.

[X-Terminator]

But again, what you do not understand Preach, is that SOMETIMES SHIT HAPPENS! Why on earth is it acceptable to fine players for things that they have absolutely ZERO intention of doing? If the league would simply fine when it is appropriate to do so instead of fining every damn hit that is even remotely questionable, there would be very little complaining!

You know what...nevermind. If you want to watch glorified flag football, then go ahead. There's a reason why I only watch Steelers games, and it's getting to the point where I may not even do that anymore. The NFL and the NHL are being ruined by people with this kind of mentality, and I'm sick and tired of it.

[steelreserve]

Rain? That's even better than Bayz attempt. So, what you're saying is that it is completely natural to hit players in the head, despite the fact that other like sports around the world have specific rules in place against those very types of hits. Really? Not buying it. There is nothing different between a tackle in rugby and a tackle in football, basics wise. Yet, you NEVER see head shots in Rugby. So don't tell me it's natural in football, because it's not. It's a learned behavior. One that our defense needs to unlearn.

Yes, it is completely natural to hit players in the head. Not intentionally, but it happens naturally as part of the game, and is pretty much unavoidable.

Everybody uses rugby as the go-to example for how to tackle correctly without headshots, but it's a completely bunk comparison. Think - what's the one thing missing from rugby that's a huge part of football? The forward pass. Where do most of the big violent collisions happen in football? The forward pass.

Rugby is a mostly lateral game about pursuit and containment, and you don't see big hits on those types of plays (in either game). You don't have any situations where you're going up to make a play on the ball. You also don't have guys just shooting off full-speed down the field without the ball. You don't have situations where the guy with the ball isn't paying attention to who's about to hit him, like a QB does. You don't have guys running at each other vertically from opposite directions. You don't have guys laying out to make diving catches - and again, concentrating on the ball instead of where they're going. So yes, of course all the tackles in rugby are going to be wrap-ups, just like on a sweep in American football.

In other words, it has nothing to do with teaching us stupid savage Americans how to tackle correctly like the rest of the more civilized world. It's that half the plays in our version of the game involve situations that you don't see in rugby, and yes, they're more dangerous plays. The forward pass creates virtually all of these big hits that draw penalties and fines, so comparing tackling between football and rugby is as apples-and-oranges as it gets.

[86WARD]

No surprises here.

[Chidi29]

But again, what you do not understand Preach, is that SOMETIMES SHIT HAPPENS! Why on earth is it acceptable to fine players for things that they have absolutely ZERO intention of doing? If the league would simply fine when it is appropriate to do so instead of fining every damn hit that is even remotely questionable, there would be very little complaining!

You know what...nevermind. If you want to watch glorified flag football, then go ahead. There's a reason why I only watch Steelers games, and it's getting to the point where I may not even do that anymore. The NFL and the NHL are being ruined by people with this kind of mentality, and I'm sick and tired of it.

Again, intent does not matter. If you try to say what is unavoidable or not, you're opening a new can of worms. You don't think it'll be an issue, but yes when the league says "You intended to hit him in the head" players will complain because they will look at it as a direct attack.

If you make it black and white and say "if a defenseless player is hit in the helmet" then you're making a difficult situation a little bit easier.

[steelreserve]

Again, intent does not matter. If you try to say what is unavoidable or not, you're opening a new can of worms. You don't think it'll be an issue, but yes when the league says "You intended to hit him in the head" players will complain because they will look at it as a direct attack.

If you make it black and white and say "if a defenseless player is hit in the helmet" then you're making a difficult situation a little bit easier.

But that's not a "new can of worms" at all. It's exactly what they used to do in the NFL. Fines and suspensions were for dirty plays. They were willing to make the distinction and go to the trouble of actually figuring out the intent, and if the players got all emo because it was a personal attack, then boo fucking hoo.

Instead of what they're doing now, which is making some one-size-fits-all rule that doesn't work 90% of the time. That's taking the easy way out so you can deflect blame and please the lawyers. They could've looked at thousands of examples elsewhere in society where that hasn't worked and has ruined things, but they did it anyway.

[Chidi29]

Not me. That's the risk you take when you go over the middle. Players understand that, but the league and the fans don't, because both have become a bunch of pansies just like society in general. It's football, not ballet.

So much for changing your tune. It is in illegal hit, I showed you that, and you still stay the course. I guess every hit has to fit into your definition of "illegal", not the league's, for it to be truly illegal. Just like how the judge should listen to my definition of "speeding", not the law's.

[Chidi29]

But that's not a "new can of worms" at all. It's exactly what they used to do in the NFL. Fines and suspensions were for dirty plays. They were willing to make the distinction and go to the trouble of actually figuring out the intent, and if the players got all emo because it was a personal attack, then boo fucking hoo.

Instead of what they're doing now, which is making some one-size-fits-all rule that doesn't work 90% of the time. That's taking the easy way out so you can deflect blame and please the lawyers. They could've looked at thousands of examples elsewhere in society where that hasn't worked and has ruined things, but they did it anyway.

Because they're trying to cut down on head injuries and people not recognizing who their wife is by the time they're 60. With this new "player safety" mantra, you guys would pick the league apart if they said that hits to the hit without intent weren't going to have any consequences, even if it's still a major blow to the head.

Another example of the lose-lose situation the league is in.

[X-Terminator]

So much for changing your tune. It is in illegal hit, I showed you that, and you still stay the course. I guess every hit has to fit into your definition of "illegal", not the league's, for it to be truly illegal. Just like how the judge should listen to my definition of "speeding", not the law's.

I just want them to leave the fucking game alone! Why that is so hard for people to grasp, I will never know. It's to the point where it's barely worth watching anymore, because you can't do SHIT without worrying about getting a fucking letter in the mail the next day. I'm tired of lawyerball. I want FOOTBALL, dammit!

[polamalubeast]

Mundy should feel lucky he only got fined

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/post/_/id/55409/mundy-should-feel-lucky-he-only-got-fined

[Chidi29]

I just want them to leave the fucking game alone! Why that is so hard for people to grasp, I will never know. It's to the point where it's barely worth watching anymore, because you can't do SHIT without worrying about getting a fucking letter in the mail the next day. I'm tired of lawyerball. I want FOOTBALL, dammit!

Well then don't say that you'll "change your tune" when I show you how it's an illegal hit.

Talk about inconsistency...

[HollywoodSteel]

If I were an NFL QB, every time I knew I was getting sacked I'd tap my head against the defender's helmet. Not violently or anything, just make sure the refs could see his helmet hit mine during the takedown. The defender's intention doesn't matter nor does it matter that the tackle would have been clean had I not lowered my head. Automatic 15. If you want to go even more strategic with it, anytime you see that no receiver is open, why throw it away? You get no yards from that. Wait until some stupid defender comes along, brace yourself for the sack and... Tap.

Yes, I'm being a bit facetious but my point is that perhaps the rules could be massaged to a certain extent. Perhaps it's hard to judge intent in real time, but for fines I think the fining committee should at least discuss it and use some judgement. Trajectory should matter. For example, Harrison's knockout of the Browns' re receiver on Black Sunday should not ave been fined because James's head would not have hit his had the receiver not lowered his head. On the other hand, on the same day Merriweather's launch upward into the receiver's helmet should absolutely been fined.

And my personal opinion is that a player should never be suspended for anything that isn't crazy flagrant, and usually after the whistle has blown... Like stomping on a guy's face or something.

[86WARD]

Mundy should feel lucky he only got fined

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/post/_/id/55409/mundy-should-feel-lucky-he-only-got-fined

This writer is a moron...a total moron. Did Mundy throw an illegal hit? Yes. SHould he have been fined? Yes. THe going rate is $21,000. Which he was fined. Did DHB go to the hospital? Yeah. Does it matter? No. The result of the hit should have absolutely NOTHING to do with the fine. NOTHING at all and it didn't. He was fined exactly what anyone else that throws a helmet-to-helmet hit was fined. Should he feel lucky it wasn't more? No. No he shouldn't. Mays got fined $50,000 and a game suspension because he's a repeat offender. That's why. Not because he hit Schaub in the head, resulting in the QBs helmet flying off with part of his ear. It is because he's a repeat offender.

[tube517]

This writer is a moron...a total moron. Did Mundy throw an illegal hit? Yes. SHould he have been fined? Yes. THe going rate is $21,000. Which he was fined. Did DHB go to the hospital? Yeah. Does it matter? No. The result of the hit should have absolutely NOTHING to do with the fine. NOTHING at all and it didn't. He was fined exactly what anyone else that throws a helmet-to-helmet hit was fined. Should he feel lucky it wasn't more? No. No he shouldn't. Mays got fined $50,000 and a game suspension because he's a repeat offender. That's why. Not because he hit Schaub in the head, resulting in the QBs helmet flying off with part of his ear. It is because he's a repeat offender.

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash4/274797_100002947071330_650594721_n.jpg = http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/files/2012/07/douche.jpg

[Craic]

But again, what you do not understand Preach, is that SOMETIMES SHIT HAPPENS! Why on earth is it acceptable to fine players for things that they have absolutely ZERO intention of doing? If the league would simply fine when it is appropriate to do so instead of fining every damn hit that is even remotely questionable, there would be very little complaining!

You know what...nevermind. If you want to watch glorified flag football, then go ahead. There's a reason why I only watch Steelers games, and it's getting to the point where I may not even do that anymore. The NFL and the NHL are being ruined by people with this kind of mentality, and I'm sick and tired of it.

Because once again, the issue is not intent, it is result. You work, X-term. If you present a product you've been working on, and it crashes in the presentation, do to an accidental oversight or mistake on your part, does that in anyway lessen the fall out? No. You're still completely and totally held responsible.

And as for the "glorified flag football," go back and watch the old guys - don't depend on memory, go back and watch teh videos, and see how they tackled in the 50s 60's and 70's. There were very few head shots when they were tackling. (I'm not talking about a Raiders player trying to purposefully rip Swan's head off).

So I'm with you, I'd LOVE for the game to go back to the way it was - back when people actually tackled instead of acting like flying missiles and circus acrobats to get their face on ESPN and thus, boost their next contract a few hundred thousand more.

[Craic]

This writer is a moron...a total moron. Did Mundy throw an illegal hit? Yes. SHould he have been fined? Yes. THe going rate is $21,000. Which he was fined. Did DHB go to the hospital? Yeah. Does it matter? No. The result of the hit should have absolutely NOTHING to do with the fine. NOTHING at all and it didn't. He was fined exactly what anyone else that throws a helmet-to-helmet hit was fined. Should he feel lucky it wasn't more? No. No he shouldn't. Mays got fined $50,000 and a game suspension because he's a repeat offender. That's why. Not because he hit Schaub in the head, resulting in the QBs helmet flying off with part of his ear. It is because he's a repeat offender.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Not a thing here I disagree with.

[Craic]

Yes, it is completely natural to hit players in the head. Not intentionally, but it happens naturally as part of the game, and is pretty much unavoidable.

Everybody uses rugby as the go-to example for how to tackle correctly without headshots, but it's a completely bunk comparison. Think - what's the one thing missing from rugby that's a huge part of football? The forward pass. Where do most of the big violent collisions happen in football? The forward pass.

Rugby is a mostly lateral game about pursuit and containment, and you don't see big hits on those types of plays (in either game). You don't have any situations where you're going up to make a play on the ball. You also don't have guys just shooting off full-speed down the field without the ball. You don't have situations where the guy with the ball isn't paying attention to who's about to hit him, like a QB does. You don't have guys running at each other vertically from opposite directions. You don't have guys laying out to make diving catches - and again, concentrating on the ball instead of where they're going. So yes, of course all the tackles in rugby are going to be wrap-ups, just like on a sweep in American football.

In other words, it has nothing to do with teaching us stupid savage Americans how to tackle correctly like the rest of the more civilized world. It's that half the plays in our version of the game involve situations that you don't see in rugby, and yes, they're more dangerous plays. The forward pass creates virtually all of these big hits that draw penalties and fines, so comparing tackling between football and rugby is as apples-and-oranges as it gets.

Wrong.

1. Ever see what is the equivalent of a punt in rugby? There's no "safety zone" for catching the ball. When I played in college, it was explained to me that the rule book literally said, "If the player is able to continue the game. . . " Why? Because of the brutal hits players take from going up for the ball.

2. It is NOTHING like a sweep. Every player is matched on the other side of the line, and they pretty much run straight at each other. The ball gets tossed laterally, but the players almost NEVER run laterally. To do so, is to run away from your support. IN other words, there are multiple violent, head on collisions in EVERY PLAY - and sometimes, it's when the ball is in the air coming to the player. If the ball was overthrown, he has to go up to retrieve it, and the back that is opposite him, gets a free shot at him. Guess what, almost never a head shot.

3. You ALWAYS have guys shooting off full speed down the field without the ball, because they're running after their own guy to support him when he gets hit. Now, add that to the fact that often times, the ball is taken, and the play starts coming back up field. That means you have 10-15 guys on each side all converging on each other and hitting every person that touches the ball. I've personally seen guys cranked so hard that they literally fold in half in the air and flail about until the hit the ground. Interesting however, it was a football player that hit him, and was penalized for not wrapping.

Also, I found a video showing both football and Rugby hits. Fact of the matter is, they're both pretty brutal. Remove yourself from this argument, and enjoy the video like a Steelers fan enjoying good running, and you'll see some great "Bus" type runs from the rugby players as well. Oh, and why, in the name of all that is holy, would ANY team that is not female, wear pink?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O__pg9AV2wY

[suitanim]

I'm through commenting on these hits and fines. But I will say this. It WAS NOT a "dirty" hit or a "cheap shot". It was hard hit and Mundy was trying to jar the ball out with the hit.

[GBMelBlount]

vicious hit he laid on Raiders receiver Darrius Heyward-Bey on Sunday.

Mundy has been fined $21,000 for the hit, ESPN’s Adam Schefter reports.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/26/ryan-mundy-fined-21000-for-hit-on-darrius-heyward-bey/

It is sad that to see what is a natural byproduct of playing an inherently violent sport labeled as "vicious."

[86WARD]

I'm through commenting on these hits and fines. But I will say this. It WAS NOT a "dirty" hit or a "cheap shot". It was hard hit and Mundy was trying to jar the ball out with the hit.

It wasn't "dirty." But it was illegal according to the rules of the game in 2012.

[SteelerFanInStl]

More of the same BS. I'm just waiting to hear if Ed Reed was fined for the TWO hits to the head he laid on the Pats.

[Butch]

Preach the work example that you gave to X-Terminator was not a good one. The flaw in your example seems that you have time to work on the project and it fails as opposed to a split second decision.

Kinda piggy backing on Hollywood here but I would like to know why it should be a penalty on the defender if the hittie ducks his head. When I looked at the Mundy hit it looked to me as if he put his face mask where DHB's chest would be.

Once again to those who say what if it was one of our own how would you feel. I don't have a problem with our guys taking hits, what I do have a problem with is when our defensive guys get flagged and fined for hits and then when our offensive guys get the same hits the NFL looks the other way. In the past I have seen Hines, Heath and Ben all take those hits and not so much as a flag on the play.

[suitanim]

It wasn't "dirty." But it was illegal according to the rules of the game in 2012.

That's fine. But in this case semantics are important. This hit is being portrayed as Mundy "taking out" Heyward-Bey, as if he was targeting the head in an attempt to knock him out or something. That clearly was not the case. He was attempting to deliver a hard hit in order to jar the ball loose. That's football. He should continue to do so. Problem is, if he does it another time or two, he could get suspended. THAT'S the thing I have a problem with. Ed Reed had TWO of these hits, and the first looked like an exact duplicate of what Mundy did. There wasn't even a flag on that one. This is all so subjective, it's really unfair. Reed has done this before. If you count the TWO hits last week, shouldn't HE be suspended for being a repeat offender? I GUARANTEE you he won't.

[Craic]

Preach the work example that you gave to X-Terminator was not a good one. The flaw in your example seems that you have time to work on the project and it fails as opposed to a split second decision.

Kinda piggy backing on Hollywood here but I would like to know why it should be a penalty on the defender if the hittie ducks his head. When I looked at the Mundy hit it looked to me as if he put his face mask where DHB's chest would be.

Once again to those who say what if it was one of our own how would you feel. I don't have a problem with our guys taking hits, what I do have a problem with is when our defensive guys get flagged and fined for hits and then when our offensive guys get the same hits the NFL looks the other way. In the past I have seen Hines, Heath and Ben all take those hits and not so much as a flag on the play.

I think you're overanalyzing my example, in that I was pointing out regardless of whether something happens by accident or by fault, the result is still the same at work.

As for your second line - I'm all in favor of calling penalties and even fining RB's and WR's who duck their head and hit DB's and LBs.

[Craic]

It wasn't "dirty." But it was illegal according to the rules of the game in 2012.

Bingo. In no way was it a dirty hit. It was a result of good, hard football. But just as Antonio Brown's fumble was a result of good, hard football, so this play had negative consequences as well.

[fansince'76]

And as for the "glorified flag football," go back and watch the old guys - don't depend on memory, go back and watch teh videos, and see how they tackled in the 50s 60's and 70's. There were very few head shots when they were tackling. (I'm not talking about a Raiders player trying to purposefully rip Swan's head off).

Mmmm...OK...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gARi1MIyPRc

Plenty of headshots in this one:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvubQ0pKp4Y

Plenty of fineable stuff (by today's standards, anyway) here too...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryNj7c4Z8Yg

But, like Suit, I'm done arguing about this. "Lawyerball" is here to stay. Some are OK with it. Some aren't.

[HollywoodSteel]

Because once again, the issue is not intent, it is result. You work, X-term. If you present a product you've been working on, and it crashes in the presentation, do to an accidental oversight or mistake on your part, does that in anyway lessen the fall out? No. You're still completely and totally held responsible.

I think we might be having two different debates here. Let's start from the premise that we all understand the rules, and that Mundy should have been flagged and fined exactly as he was according to those rules. What most of us are discussing is what the optimal rules should be, acknowledging that reasonable people can certainly come to different conclusions. None of us want to see players hurt, but the best version of the game for most of us requires a certain degree of violence and risk to the players. So the question becomes, where, between flag football and playing to the death, are the rules the yield the best version of the sport. I can't say for absolute certain what those rules should be, but I can say that when it comes to fines and suspensions my personal opinion is that intent should play a role in that determination. Doesn't intent, or perhaps the word "flagrant", play a part in this when it comes to every other sport?

You say that intent is not the issue as a matter of fact, and that seems to be the NFL's take as well, but it clearly is an issue for some of us who disagree with the NFL's take. You use a real world analogy to make your point but there are plenty of counter analogies out there as well. Say you're driving down the road and a pedestrian darts in front of your car, you then plow into him and he dies. Isn't that different than if you purposefully mow down a pedestrian? Either way the result is the same -- dead guy. Thankfully our judicial system absolutely takes intent into account when charging and sentencing someone. Even if you were speeding at the time, but it was a total accident it is a very different charge than murder one.

Now don't get me wrong, Preacher, I find some of your arguments persuasive. I certainly don't like the way the NFL initially handled the whole thing but perhaps I can be convinced that some kind of rule change was in order. But I do think how the helmet to helmet contact happened should enter into it. I often I feel that the NFL is more interested in giving the perception that they're doing something rather than figuring how to do the best thing.

While I get what you're saying about form tackling and all that, it certainly doesn't apply in the Mundy case. A tackle, or nailing him in the balls, would have been pointless given that the receiver was in the endzone. Mundy's only goal was to separate the receiver from the ball through contact at maximum speed. When that is the case, unintentional, violent helmet to helmet contact is often going to be the result no matter high the fine is. So if player safety is really the issue then the NFL would change the rules about dislodging the ball from a receiver. It's like having a sport where you're supposed to shoot an apple off the top of someone's head and then when the inevitable deaths occur the league says, "not our fault, we have a rule against killing the guy."

[HollywoodSteel]

As for your second line - I'm all in favor of calling penalties and even fining RB's and WR's who duck their head and hit DB's and LBs.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Are you in favor of calling penalties and fines for offensive players when they duck their heads at the last second which causes the defender to make contact with their helmet? Regardless of intent, of course. That's different than the offensive player doing the actual hitting on a defenseless defender. That kind of thing is very unlikely to occur unless we're talking about a receiver trying to dislodge the ball from a defender making an interception, or the Hines Ward rule.

[steelreserve]

Wrong.

1. Ever see what is the equivalent of a punt in rugby?

...

Oh, and why, in the name of all that is holy, would ANY team that is not female, wear pink?

Listen, I totally get where you're coming from, and I'll concede the sweep play was not the best analogy. What I was trying to say by "lateral" was that you do not see many plays similar to a QB standing still and getting blindsided, or (with the exception of the forward kick) a deep pass with a safety sitting back ready to tee off. Of course I can't say "never," but there are a lot fewer of those. By no means do I think rugby is a less violent game than football. It's just more of the type of violence you see on NFL running plays and fumble/interception returns.

One thing I do remember from my limited experience playing rugby - really just a few games at the novice level - is that you're very aware that if you threw yourself around the way you do with pads, you can hurt yourself. So of course you're not stupid about it. Just like when you have pads, you're well aware that if you lower your shoulder for a big hit, it'll just be your pads hitting their pads. I don't think the little things you do differently without pads, like body position and getting your arms in there, are even deliberate decisions or the result of "knowing how to tackle better," just what you do subconsciously when you know you're exposed.

Anyway, back to the point, and something that others have brought up: Is the wrap-up better form tackling, and safer? Sure. That works OK on running plays; just like in rugby, a yard or two of field position is usually not the end of the world. But passing plays in football are all-or-nothing. There's a huge incentive to make a big hit and be a bit bolder about it.

If Mundy did a fundamentally sound wrap-up on DHB, the result? Touchdown EHHHHRRRRRRRRRRRAIDERS! Any passing play can be a game-changing play, so of course DBs are going to be constantly pushing the limits. I really do think the forward pass is just something that fundamentally leads to (and encourages) big collisions, and you're not going to prevent that unless you make it horribly unfair for the defense in the process.

[steelreserve]

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Are you in favor of calling penalties and fines for offensive players when they duck their heads at the last second which causes the defender to make contact with their helmet? Regardless of intent, of course. That's different than the offensive player doing the actual hitting on a defenseless defender. That kind of thing is very unlikely to occur unless we're talking about a receiver trying to dislodge the ball from a defender making an interception, or the Hines Ward rule.

What I would be in favor of would be if the offensive player lowers his head or otherwise turns into the defender - anything after that point is at his own risk. No penalties or fines for anyone. I agree, the situation you described above would be pretty rare, maybe a few times a season on turnovers.

[SteelerFanInStl]

Is it now safe to assume that Ed Reed didn't receive a fine for his TWO head shots against the Pats? If so, that's what really pisses me off about these fines. They're not handed out evenly. Reed's hits were both more to the head than Mundy's was.

[steelerdude15]

We all knew that this was coming.

[Craic]

Mmmm...OK...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gARi1MIyPRc

Plenty of headshots in this one:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvubQ0pKp4Y

Plenty of fineable stuff (by today's standards, anyway) here too...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryNj7c4Z8Yg

But, like Suit, I'm done arguing about this. "Lawyerball" is here to stay. Some are OK with it. Some aren't.

ON the first, sure, but that's one play. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but that the frequency was not what is today, not by a long shot. So, going to the Butkus video, very few of those are "finable" today, because they were against runners. Most if not all of the hits against the QB, weren't helmet shots. (At least, if I remember right, I'm writing this after watching them, and then doing something else).

What stood out to me more than anything however, was the fact that they tackled properly back then. As I keep saying, if they had kept to that, there wouldn't have been this problem today, IMO.

[Craic]

What I would be in favor of would be if the offensive player lowers his head or otherwise turns into the defender - anything after that point is at his own risk. No penalties or fines for anyone. I agree, the situation you described above would be pretty rare, maybe a few times a season on turnovers.

Take away the "otherwise turns into a defender," and I am actually in agreement with this. It's the one place that I can't see the NFL's reason. If a player CLEARLY, and I don't mean just dipping his head, I mean, LOWERS his head when a hit is coming, I think he forfeits any penalty that may have been called (or subsequent fine for the other player). I think that would be a consistent stand, since I've argued that player must be responsible for his own body position - and lowering your head into a hit does exactly that.

And this discussion aside, how would you like to see some of those runs from those rugby players from our RB's. Gotta laugh when their just mowing people over. Last, you bring up another point I've argued before about pads. I'd be all for removing helmets and shoulder pads from football. I think it would lessen injuries tremendously.

[SteelerFanInStl]

Is it now safe to assume that Ed Reed didn't receive a fine for his TWO head shots against the Pats? If so, that's what really pisses me off about these fines. They're not handed out evenly. Reed's hits were both more to the head than Mundy's was.

Am I the only one that's pissed because Ed Reed didn't even receive a fine for his two hits against the Pats?

I wouldn't have a big problem with the fines if they were handed out evenly.

[Count Steeler]

Am I the only one that's pissed because Ed Reed didn't even receive a fine for his two hits against the Pats?

I wouldn't have a big problem with the fines if they were handed out evenly.

Perhaps Chidi can chime in and defend the league, I certainly won't. Consistently inconsistent remains my mantra.

[Chidi29]

Perhaps Chidi can chime in and defend the league, I certainly won't. Consistently inconsistent remains my mantra.

To the Internet!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-reed-fined-by-nfl-20120928,0,2930676.story

"Safety Ed Reed was fined $21,000 for his hit on New England Patriots wide receiver Deion Branch in the third quarter of the Ravens' 31-30 victory last Sunday night at M&T Bank Stadium.

Reed was ruled to have "struck a defenseless player in the head and neck area." Branch dropped the ball, but Reed was given a 15-yard personal foul on the play"

[Chidi29]

Am I the only one that's pissed because Ed Reed didn't even receive a fine for his two hits against the Pats?

I wouldn't have a big problem with the fines if they were handed out evenly.

Happy?

Safety Ed Reed was fined $21,000 for his hit on New England Patriots wide receiver Deion Branch in the third quarter of the Ravens' 31-30 victory last Sunday night at M&T Bank Stadium.

Reed was ruled to have "struck a defenseless player in the head and neck area." Branch dropped the ball, but Reed was given a 15-yard personal foul on the play

------------

Probably not.

[SteelerFanInStl]

To the Internet!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-reed-fined-by-nfl-20120928,0,2930676.story

"Safety Ed Reed was fined $21,000 for his hit on New England Patriots wide receiver Deion Branch in the third quarter of the Ravens' 31-30 victory last Sunday night at M&T Bank Stadium.

Reed was ruled to have "struck a defenseless player in the head and neck area." Branch dropped the ball, but Reed was given a 15-yard personal foul on the play"

Thanks for the pointer. I've been looking for any mention of him getting a fine and didn't see anything. Yes, that's fair except for the fact that they ignored the other helmet to helmet hit that he laid on Edelman in the end zone that didn't even get a flag.

I don't like the fines any more than anyone else but as long as they're given out evenly, I don't have a huge problem with them.

[suitanim]

Reed should have been fined twice. The play in the endzone which was NOT flagged was basically an exact duplicate of Mundy's hit on Heyward-Bey, the only difference being that the WR wasn't knocked out.

This is STILL duplicity, or, at best, shows the flaws of subjective "judgment calls" being the formation on which these penalties and/or fines are determined.

[cold-hard-steel]

We need replacement komishes.