Steelers Depot: Steelers LB Larry Foote Might Face Fine For Hit On Austin Collie

[fansince'76]

All right everyone, put down the pitchforks. Nothing has happened yet.

Just the fact that we're seriously discussing the possibility of Foote being fined in this case indicates to me that something is very, very wrong.

[suitanim]

I'm being 100% serious when I say this. IF this happens. IF he is fined, we need to start a petition. We need to forward it around to other boards, even Steelersfever and Steel Nation...it's bigger than the disputes between ourselves. We need 10,000 signatures, legitimate signatures. This MUST BE ADDRESSED.

This asshat Goodell is killing our game, and it needs addressed.

[Austin87]

This asshat Goodell is killing our game, and it needs addressed.

QFT

[ALLD]

Not a fine able hit.

[Craic]

In the game day thread, I said that it was not a hit that he could be fined on, because it was a head to thigh hit as the guy was falling and Foote was pulling away.

When I watched it on the replay however, I saw that I was wrong. It was a forearm to the head. Those have been fined pretty much every time it happens. So I'm snot sure why anyone here would think it shouldn't happen this time. As for it being "too fast" or "banning hard hits, etc., sorry, but your all wrong here. All he has to do is come in with his arms open to help wrap the guy up, instead of his arms in front of him to deliver an ESPN hit instead of a football tackle.

The day players start tackling rather than trying to get on ESPN, is the day 90% of the fines go away.

EDIT: I recognize he was pulling up from the hit as the other guy was falling. If that's taken into account, then there shouldn't be a fine. However, it seems that the league isgoing with the "You are responsible for your body at all times" mentality of hitting.

[GBMelBlount]

I would imagine Goodell's panties are a bit moist over this...

[X-Terminator]

EDIT: I recognize he was pulling up from the hit as the other guy was falling. If that's taken into account, then there shouldn't be a fine. However, it seems that the league isgoing with the "You are responsible for your body at all times" mentality of hitting.

This part of your post is the only one that is relevant here. There is no way in hell that was either intentional or even reckless. If Collie isn't going down, he gets hit in the shoulder or chest. It does not deserve a fine in any way, shape or form. The "responsibility for your own body" excuse is complete BS anyway. There are MANY instances where shit just happens.

[Count Steeler]

When I saw the hit, it reminded me of Harrison's hit on Massaquoi, about 1 1/2 seasons ago. I think that was the weekend that spiraled into the NFL starting to fine and suspend players to the degree we find ourselves today.

In football, neither hit should be a fine. In today's NFL, I'm afraid Foote is going to pay $7500 + 5% so $7875 at least.

[SMR]

That hit is does not deserve a fine in the least bit. Oh wait...Goodell is in power. Never mind.

[bayz101]

If this goes down, someone needs to start a petition.

[Craic]

This part of your post is the only one that is relevant here. There is no way in hell that was either intentional or even reckless. If Collie isn't going down, he gets hit in the shoulder or chest. It does not deserve a fine in any way, shape or form. The "responsibility for your own body" excuse is complete BS anyway. There are MANY instances where shit just happens.

No, I'm pretty sure this is pretty relevant here as well.

The day players start tackling rather than trying to get on ESPN, is the day 90% of the fines go away.

(well, actually the whole post, but this in particular).

As for being responsible for your own body, it's actually more common that you'd think in sports. 99% of the time, penalties are called on what actually happened, rather than intent, regardless of it being an instance when "shit just happens." So it seems that the league has gone that way with fines as well. Personally, I disagree with that method, but that isn't going to change much. I also think that a player who puts his head down before he gets hit should become fair game, because he has now become an aggressor as well, leading with a helmet.

But even with saying that, I stick by my quote above. The day NFL defenses get back to tackling instead of making ESPN highlights is the day fines are no longer an issue - or am I the only one who has read the repeated kvetching on this board and others about the lack of tackling?

[BigNastyDefense]

I agree with Preacher that the day players start tackling instead of trying to make ESPN highlights is the day that 90% of the fines go away.

The problem is, the players are coached to dislodge the football from the receiver if possible. And I think that was Foote's intent coming into the hit.

It SHOULDN'T be a fine, but knowing the way the league is going and the fact that Collie got another concussion from the hit, he'll get at least the league minimum. It doesn't help that Collie is a walking concussion just waiting to happen.

[Chidi29]

The problem is, the players are coached to dislodge the football from the receiver if possible. And I think that was Foote's intent coming into the hit.

Intent is not judged. It's supposed to be treated as a "black and white" situation. Either you hit his helmet or you didn't. And Foote did.

[BigNastyDefense]

Intent is not judged. It's supposed to be treated as a "black and white" situation. Either you hit his helmet or you didn't. And Foote did.

I know that, I was talking about if players would just wrap up and tackle instead of going for the blowup hit, however they are coached to do that so they dislodge the ball.

[Craic]

Intent is not judged. It's supposed to be treated as a "black and white" situation. Either you hit his helmet or you didn't. And Foote did.

Exactly. I completely agree with you and agree that under that method, it probably should be a fine. I do however, think that if there's an obvious attempt to pull up, or the player presents his helmet like he Collie did, then it should be voided.

In short, it's like skating with your head down in hockey. If you're willing to put your head down like that, then it's your own fault when you get your lights knocked out. At some point, the players getting hit have to take the responsibility to not (purposefully) put their heads in such a dangerous positions as well.

[smokin3000gt]

Guys maybe I'm missing something but we are getting all revved up over here about nothing. From what I understand, coach was asked if it was a clean hit or how he felt about it blah blah blah and he basically said it was up to the league. Then SD has to turn that into a headline to get everyone all fired up and a ton of clicks/ad revenue because "Coach says rule enforcement for completely legitimate hits is up to the league" doesn't stir the pot like "Foot may face fine for text book tackle". Let's all relax a little and wait to see fire before we run for the water hose.

[suitanim]

Guys maybe I'm missing something but we are getting all revved up over here about nothing. From what I understand, coach was asked if it was a clean hit or how he felt about it blah blah blah and he basically said it was up to the league. Then SD has to turn that into a headline to get everyone all fired up and a ton of clicks/ad revenue because "Coach says rule enforcement for completely legitimate hits is up to the league" doesn't stir the pot like "Foot may face fine for text book tackle". Let's all relax a little and wait to see fire before we run for the water hose.

I disagree, but only because what obviously should NOT be an action open to being fined clearly IS open to the possibility of being fined under the Goodell regime. I take it seriously because I honestly believe there is a risk that he could very well be fined for something that should NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ever even be considered for a fine.

At this point, an action that should be shocking in it's capricious and arbitrary nature (a fine to Foote for a completely clean, legal hit) would actually NOT shock me at all, even though it's 100% wrong and illegitimate. That means I'm actually starting to become acclimatized to the new "Bradyfication" (read; destruction and ruination) of the sport I love.

The very fact that we can even be having a discussion about its possibility makes this a huge issue.

[Craic]

I disagree, but only because what obviously should NOT be an action open to being fined clearly IS open to the possibility of being fined under the Goodell regime. I take it seriously because I honestly believe there is a risk that he could very well be fined for something that should NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ever even be considered for a fine.

At this point, an action that should be shocking in it's capricious and arbitrary nature (a fine to Foote for a completely clean, legal hit) would actually NOT shock me at all, even though it's 100% wrong and illegitimate. That means I'm actually starting to become acclimatized to the new "Bradyfication" (read; destruction and ruination) of the sport I love.

The very fact that we can even be having a discussion about its possibility makes this a huge issue.

But the thing is, Suit, Goodell is following a well established pattern set by football authorities since the turn of the last century. When there are specific plays or instances that end in player injury/death, then that play or element of the game is changed. Goodell isn't the only one who's done it, nor is he the one who has changed the game the most. So like it or not, this is just another evolution of the game.

Does this mean then . . . that you don't believe in evolution?


(sorry, couldn't resist the last line).

[suitanim]

Here's what I would do then. On that play, where Collie DROPPED HIS OWN HEAD AND RAN IT INTO FOOTE'S FOREARM, I would fine and penalize Collie!

He created a danger for himself. Intent doesn't matter.

[smokin3000gt]

Suit I was thinking the same thing. Collie needs a fine. He intentionally tried to take Foote out of the game via forearm injury. It was intentional head dropping which victimized Foote and is obviously against rules.

[Craic]

Here's what I would do then. On that play, where Collie DROPPED HIS OWN HEAD AND RAN IT INTO FOOTE'S FOREARM, I would fine and penalize Collie!

He created a danger for himself. Intent doesn't matter.

Oh, come on! You completely ignored my poke at you!

I do think something has to be done about WRs and RBs that drop their head and run into people. At this point though, I don't remember if Collie was being taken to the ground or not - though I do remember him dropping his head. I'm not sure I'd fine him for that. However, I do think that someone who drops their head and hits someone else with the crown of helmet should be fined.

It's quite strange how these things keep coming back to rugby rules/ways to play the game. 1. Must make an attempt to wrap. 2. Never drop your head.

[suitanim]

Oh, come on! You completely ignored my poke at you!

I do think something has to be done about WRs and RBs that drop their head and run into people. At this point though, I don't remember if Collie was being taken to the ground or not - though I do remember him dropping his head. I'm not sure I'd fine him for that. However, I do think that someone who drops their head and hits someone else with the crown of helmet should be fined.

It's quite strange how these things keep coming back to rugby rules/ways to play the game. 1. Must make an attempt to wrap. 2. Never drop your head.

What can I say?

The game is really only 40 years old, and all those old tapes of stuff before that are fakes?