Golden Tate's hit on Sean Lee

[Dallas]

Yay, more machismo posturing!

Agreed. That cat's post was hilarious though. The macho in here is reeking of 9th grade gym lockers.


I remember when men were men..blah blah...yeah yeah.....surrrreeeeee.


Guess what? It's 2012 and 1912. Time they are a changing and these old farts just want to cry over everything.

Stop following the game it's so bad. Pretty simple stuff...but nope...gotta COMPLAIN and wring thy hands.


Not you Fuzz...the ones making a stink about it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You mean if he had hit him in the stomach?

I showed you the stills. Do I nned to a description of every frame to make my point?

The contact was made with Tate's ducked helmet in Lee's chest. That is illegal by itself but what he does after that is what the problem is in my view. If Tate wants to jeopardize his own health then so be it.

He instead raises his head, uncoils his body and straightens his legs UP. It's clear as day in the stills:

He starts here:

and ends here:

It was an uppercut with a helmet in place of a fist.

Finally, the game is macho but the people that watch that need to live vicariously to feel macho are not.

I think both Lee and Tate can say they are macho but that's not what we are talking about.

 

[spolcyc]

Nothing illegal about the hit. What I didn't like about it was that he did lead a little with the helmet, but nothing worth being flagged over. I was at this game and what really irked me was the fact that nobody did anything about his celebration. That riled the crowd up to the point of no return, at least have someone go over and get in his face after he did it. The defense showed a major lack of balls on that play. Rather disappointing. You're supposed to have your teammates backs, but instead they let Tate make him look like a fool.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nothing illegal about the hit. What I didn't like about it was that he did lead a little with the helmet, but nothing worth being flagged over.

The rules are the rules as they are and not how you want them to be. There were three personal fouls.

1) the peelback block
2) leading with the helmet, there was no 'little' about it
3) a blow to the head

 

[kristie]

[youtube]-aj9qeCZGFQ[/youtube]

 

[Noryb]

The rules are the rules as they are and not how you want them to be. There were three personal fouls.

1) the peelback block
2) leading with the helmet, there was no 'little' about it
3) a blow to the head

Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anything posted that says a peelback block is actually illegal.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anything posted that says a peelback block is actually illegal.

They have been illegal since 2005 after Sapp hurt some Packer.

Watch kristie's video and Laughenburg will show footage of the NFL film diagramming what is illegal.

 

[Noryb]

They have been illegal since 2005 after Sapp hurt some Packer.

Watch kristie's video and Laughenburg will show footage of the NFL film diagramming what is illegal.

Yes I did and it says "the recipient of a blindside block is protected from blows to the head or neck area as well as forcible contact with the crown or forehead area of the helmet to the body."

In other words blindside blocks are legal but must be delivered under the above guidelines. At least that's my interpretation.

 

[fgoodwin]

The fine settles it for me. It was an illegal hit.

 

[Hoofbite]

Yes I did and it says "the recipient of a blindside block is protected from blows to the head or neck area as well as forcible contact with the crown or forehead area of the helmet to the body."

In other words blindside blocks are legal but must be delivered under the above guidelines. At least that's my interpretation.

That's the way I'm reading it as well. I posted in the other thread and it's not getting as much action so I might as well post it here too.

Here's the rule from the 2011 rulebook.

http://i5.***BLOCKED***/albums/y188/thehoofbite/ScreenShot2012-09-19at65657PMcopy_zpsb9cfdd59.jpg

It's classified just the same as a QB who is throwing under "defenseless player" and I'm not sure that anyone would interpret the rule as not being able to hit a QB at all when he is in the process of throwing.

 

[Noryb]

That's the way I'm reading it as well. I posted in the other thread and it's not getting as much action so I might as well post it here too.

Here's the rule from the 2011 rulebook.

http://i5.***BLOCKED***/albums/y188/thehoofbite/ScreenShot2012-09-19at65657PMcopy_zpsb9cfdd59.jpghttp://i5.***BLOCKED***/albums/y188/thehoofbite/ScreenShot2012-09-19at65657PMcopy_zpsb9cfdd59.jpg

It's classified just the same as a QB who is throwing under "defenseless player" and I'm not sure that anyone would interpret the rule as not being able to hit a QB at all when he is in the process of throwing.

Ahh, thanks! That pretty much clears it up.

I'm glad because I just couldn't wrap my head around the idea of blindside blocks being illegal.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes I did and it says "the recipient of a blindside block is protected from blows to the head or neck area as well as forcible contact with the crown or forehead area of the helmet to the body."

In other words blindside blocks are legal but must be delivered under the above guidelines. At least that's my interpretation.

You're right. the defender at that point is only considered a defenseless player.

 

[jobberone]

Rule 8 is applicable. He turned and headed back towards the goal line and hit a defenseless player from the side. IOWs if you are moving towards your end zone and hit a player esp one who does not see you then you have committed an illegal action.

The rule is in place to keep players from cracking back and hitting a player anywhere when he can't see you. Whether you agree or not the league put that in there to keep players from being blindsided. It is the Sapp rule and it was primarily put in place to protect QBs and kickers but includes everyone.

 

[Jarv]

Did the NFL review the hit and fine the player?

 

[MapleLeaf]

All he thought was that he doesn't see me and I'm going to explode and try to blow him up, just the way he's been taught his whole life.

...game for better part of 3/4s of a decade and I have never seen anyone teach that kind of a hit. Line up and leverage yourself from a lower position and explode up and off your feet on a player's blindside.

Played football into university and I have seen hits like that in the 70's and 80's, but I am glad they are deemed illegal.

Those are plays of advantage and circumstance and have nothing to do with athletic skill or football knowledge.

Purely unecessary for the game in my opinion.

 

[coogrfan]

Did the NFL review the hit and fine the player?

Yes. Tate was notified yesterday that he will be fined; the official announcement from the league will come today or tomorrow.

Here's the video Kristie referred to earlier, with Babe Laughenberg using the league's 2012 officiating points of emphasis video to illustrate exactly why the hit was illegal.

http://youtu.be/bC7YWOu2P4o

 

[DFWJC]

So you think every bit of what he did was intentional... That he thought to himself, I'm going to put my helmet right under his chin, an illegal hit, and just hope it doesn't get called? No way. This stuff happens in a fraction of a second. I don't think he meant it to happen exactly the way it did any more than most facemasks, which are accidental.

All he thought was that he doesn't see me and I'm going to explode and try to blow him up, just the way he's been taught his whole life.

As I said the first time, hit him a few inches lower and move his head a few inches so his shoulder hits first (which was very close to happening anyway), and it's legal.

You can call it machismo, but football is a macho game. And you can say people don't dream of those hits, but they do. Didn't you ever play? Those are the best hits you'll ever get in your life.

And again, I don't think this is anywhere close to what I mentioned before as truly dirty, like going for a guy's knees, or chopping him when he's engaged, or twisting knees in a pile or several other things.

Choc
Where he hit hiim is not the main reason it was illegal and he was fined.

He did a couple of other things that would have gotten him anyway. The rules changed this past May.

You can read the rule in total in a few posts before this one.

 

[Hook'em#11]

Yay, more machismo posturing!

Yeah, when they were brutal and intentionally hurting one another resulting in career ending injuries at times. At the least you had people missing time and occasionally losing their jobs. Many also have severe problems even disabilities some leading to dementia and death as well as a few paralyzed players. Then we had teams losing critical players resulting in a watered down product and entire teams losing out on SB dreams because people took out a QBs legs or such.

The sport is brutal enough with frequent injuries leading to chronic problems now and later. No need to make it more brutal. Just time travel back to the Roman Coliseum and watch some people get eaten by lions or hack themselves in combat. Also, they say the French Revolution was a blast. People got a big kick out of the occasional talking head.

Agreed. That cat's post was hilarious though. The macho in here is reeking of 9th grade gym lockers.


I remember when men were men..blah blah...yeah yeah.....surrrreeeeee.


Guess what? It's 2012 and 1912. Time they are a changing and these old farts just want to cry over everything.

Stop following the game it's so bad. Pretty simple stuff...but nope...gotta COMPLAIN and wring thy hands.


Not you Fuzz...the ones making a stink about it.

Oh good god, get over yourselves...

Waaa, Waaa, he got hit.. Waaa, waaa,,


I am "macho posturing"? How so?

Because I am honest and speak my mind? And since it differs from your opinion? I am net worthy macho?

Whatever.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Well just to respond, I don't see why that is a "blindside" hit. Watch the Sapp-Clifton hit -- Sapp hits him from the side, almost 90* to where Clifton is running, where Clifton can't see him. This is very different. Look at the first pic Fuzzy posted -- their shoulders are almost squared up! How is that "blindsiding"?

And Lee is literally two steps from the ballcarrier. What is the WR supposed to do, ole him and let him tackle his teammate? Are we saying he can't block him at all in this case? If so, that is totally absurd.

Yes, it was fined so it was illegal, I get that. But I don't have to agree that the NFL is right about everything they do. They get calls wrong all the time.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well just to respond, I don't see why that is a "blindside" hit. Watch the Sapp-Clifton hit -- Sapp hits him from the side, almost 90* to where Clifton is running, where Clifton can't see him. This is very different. Look at the first pic Fuzzy posted -- their shoulders are almost squared up! How is that "blindsiding"?

And Lee is literally two steps from the ballcarrier. What is the WR supposed to do, ole him and let him tackle his teammate? Are we saying he can't block him at all in this case? If so, that is totally absurd.

Yes, it was fined so it was illegal, I get that. But I don't have to agree that the NFL is right about everything they do. They get calls wrong all the time.

He just as easily could have hit him in the shoulder and bumped him off balance. Would have been easy to do as well. could have body blocked him, cut blocked, lots of stuff. Could have just put his hands out and engaged him in a proper form block. He could have blocked him without using the technique he did and accomplished his objective IMO. I mean, it's a physical game and it's going to happen again because part of the game is establishing a certain tone. When it does happen again, the player will be fined and the same kind of discussions will go on. It's part of the game.