Golden Tate's hit on Sean Lee

[iceberg]

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.

i've yet to meet ANYONE who says "yes i come in here lying" so the who's "don't hate me cause i'm honest" is just a guffaw in action. that more or less implies who you're talking to is lying, since it differs from YOUR opinion.

 

[Doomsday101]

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.

I agree. It was not hard to see that Tate set himself up to deliver the hit as he did. He saw the oppertunity to jack Lee up and he did. Being more or less old school I know that would have been considered within the rules now days it is not. Like the rule or dislike the rule it is what it is. I would expect Cowboy player to get a fine for making the same kind of hit and Tate getting fined in my view was to be expected.

 

[coogrfan]

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.

Wow.

The announcers doing the game were certain Tate's hit was going to draw a flag - you don't believe them.

Mike Pereira, the former vp of officiating for the league, tweets within minutes of the play happening that it should have drawn a flag - you don't believe him either.

Babe Laufenberg uses a video produced by the league to illustrate exactly why the hit was illegal - still not convinced.

The NFL essentially confirms all of the above by notifying Tate that he is going to be fined - you grudgingly admit that maybe the hit was technically illegal, but still maintain the league is in the wrong. Perhaps if you were to hear it from a burning bush...

As for the question of what should Tate have done, the answer is simple: get in Lee's way. We see that sort of thing from qb's on reverses all the time. If Tate had simply obstructed Lee's path to the qb, the outcome of the play is exactly the same: Wilson turns the corner and gets to the marker. The only difference is that Tate would not have risked drawing a penalty that should have had Seattle facing a 2nd and 20+ near their own 10 yard line.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

coog, I think it was illegal because he led with his helmet. And he did end up getting Lee in the chin, though I'm not convinced that was intentional.

What I'm saying is that if he just hit him the same way with his shoulder in the chest, I think that should be legal because I don't think Lee was "defenseless", not do I think that was a "blindside" hit.

As for saying Tate should just "get in his way"... Wow. I don't know what football is becoming when you're not even supposed to hit people anymore.

 

[coogrfan]

coog, I think it was illegal because he led with his helmet. And he did end up getting Lee in the chin, though I'm not convinced that was intentional.

What I'm saying is that if he just hit him the same way with his shoulder in the chest, I think that should be legal because I don't think Lee was "defenseless", not do I think that was a "blindside" hit.

Fair enough; all I can say in response is the NFL disagrees.

As for saying Tate should just "get in his way"... Wow. I don't know what football is becoming when you're not even supposed to hit people anymore.

The recent medical research on the long term effects of head injuries, combined with the litigious nature of the society we live in, make it clear that football "as it was" is non-sustainable. If the NFL is to survive longterm the game must be made safer. Changing the rules to effictively eliminate peel back blocks is one step in that direction.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

coog, I think it was illegal because he led with his helmet. And he did end up getting Lee in the chin, though I'm not convinced that was intentional.

What I'm saying is that if he just hit him the same way with his shoulder in the chest, I think that should be legal because I don't think Lee was "defenseless", not do I think that was a "blindside" hit.

As for saying Tate should just "get in his way"... Wow. I don't know what football is becoming when you're not even supposed to hit people anymore.

..and it would have been legal. So what are you arguing about, Lab?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

coog, I think it was illegal because he led with his helmet. And he did end up getting Lee in the chin, though I'm not convinced that was intentional.

What I'm saying is that if he just hit him the same way with his shoulder in the chest, I think that should be legal because I don't think Lee was "defenseless", not do I think that was a "blindside" hit.

As for saying Tate should just "get in his way"... Wow. I don't know what football is becoming when you're not even supposed to hit people anymore.

It has come to a game that is not the game I played or the game our Father's played. It is a game that needs to be more concerned with players and player unions filing law suits against the league for injuries that reoccur after players have left the game etc. This is a very real possibility and a huge fear the league has. They are afraid that this kind of thing will kill the game and if it does happen, the league is right. Those kinds of legal actions will eventually kill the game.

That's the kind of Football we will have going forward.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Fair enough; all I can say in response is the NFL disagrees.



The recent medical research on the long term effects of head injuries, combined with the litigious nature of the society we live in, make it clear that football "as it was" is non-sustainable. If the NFL is to survive longterm the game must be made safer. Changing the rules to effictively eliminate peel back blocks is one step in that direction.

Except they arn't in any way trying to eliminate peel back or crackback blocks at all. Just saying when you do so, do it in a conventional way.. not like this new breed of idiot who likes to slam their helmets into everybody.

James Harrison.. im looking at you.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

..and it would have been legal. So what are you arguing about, Lab?

No, apparently it wouldn't have been because it's considered a crackback or peelback block, and Sean Lee in this case is a "defenseless" player.

Ridiculous, isn't it?

 

[RoyTheHammer]

No, apparently it wouldn't have been because it's considered a crackback or peelback block, and Sean Lee in this case is a "defenseless" player.

Ridiculous, isn't it?

Blindside hits or crackback blocks against a defenseless player are legal, Lab. Just can't use your helmet or hit them in the head. Other than that, its fair game. I don't think some people here are quite understanding the rule.

 

[Doomsday101]

It has come to a game that is not the game I played or the game our Father's played. It is a game that needs to be more concerned with players and player unions filing law suits against the league for injuries that reoccur after players have left the game etc. This is a very real possibility and a huge fear the league has. They are afraid that this kind of thing will kill the game and if it does happen, the league is right. Those kinds of legal actions will eventually kill the game.

That's the kind of Football we will have going forward.

Makes you wonder how the hell Boxing and UFC can even survive. :laugh2:

Boxers go into the sport knowing full well that head injuries are part of the game but they are willing to do it because the money is so great. Not down on the NFL but players should know they run a risk playing this game

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Makes you wonder how the hell Boxing and UFC can even survive. :laugh2:

Boxers go into the sport knowing full well that head injuries are part of the game but they are willing to do it because the money is so great. Not down on the NFL but players should know they run a risk playing this game

Those sports are not big enough and they don't have unions. If they did, you would eventually see it in that as well. Also, you have multiple different sanctioned bodies who promote the sports. You sue one, it goes under and sets up a new lemonade stand under a different set of letters inside of a year. The NFL's success is it's own undoing in this case.

I don't believe in all this litigation against the NFL myself. I wished we didn't have it. My personal opinion is that it is a violent game and it's not for everybody. If you choose to play, you know the risks and understand the dangers. Don't come back in 10 years saying the game hurt you. You hurt you. You decided to participate in a game that you understand is violent. You hurt yourself and in exchange, you were compensated. That's just my personal opinion and of course it will not be the decided method going forward because the NFL is the golden goose. Everybody wants their cut.

I agree with you 100% Dooms.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Blindside hits or crackback blocks against a defenseless player are legal, Lab. Just can't use your helmet or hit them in the head. Other than that, its fair game. I don't think some people here are quite understanding the rule.

Okay, good.

I still think it's absurd that he's now considered a "defenseless" player.

 

[Doomsday101]

Those sports are not big enough and they don't have unions. If they did, you would eventually see it in that as well. Also, you have multiple different sanctioned bodies who promote the sports. You sue one, it goes under and sets up a new lemonade stand under a different set of letters inside of a year. The NFL's success is it's own undoing in this case.

I don't believe in all this litigation against the NFL myself. I wished we didn't have it. My personal opinion is that it is a violent game and it's not for everybody. If you choose to play, you know the risks and understand the dangers. Don't come back in 10 years saying the game hurt you. You hurt you. You decided to participate in a game that you understand is violent. You hurt yourself and in exchange, you were compensated. That's just my personal opinion and of course it will not be the decided method going forward because the NFL is the golden goose. Everybody wants their cut.

I agree with you 100% Dooms.

Well said.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Okay, good.

I still think it's absurd that he's now considered a "defenseless" player.

Me too, and by definition actually.. i'd argue he wasn't. He was simply a player not being aware enough of what was going on around him. Gotta keep your head on a swivel.

Like i said in another thread, if Tate had simply used a shoulder and made a clean play i'd be saying good on him right now and telling Lee to stop whining about it. But what Tate did is not a football play.

 

[coogrfan]

Blindside hits or crackback blocks against a defenseless player are legal, Lab. Just can't use your helmet or hit them in the head...

As I understand it, offensive players are also prohibited from hitting below the waist or from behind on crackback/peel back blocks. The legal target area is basically the numbers on the front of the jersey. It seems to me that the whole point of making the target area that small and forbiding the use of the helmet is to discourage offensive players from even attempting any such blocks.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

As I understand it, offensive players are also prohibited from hitting below the waist or from behind on crackback/peel back blocks. The legal target area is basically the numbers on the front of the jersey. It seems to me that the whole point of making the target area that small and forbiding the use of the helmet is to discourage offensive players from even attempting any such blocks.

Well you're NEVER allowed to block a player in the back in any situation, that's been a rule forever. I haven't heard of anything about below the waist on crackbacks though. Where did you see that?

 

[coogrfan]

Well you're NEVER allowed to block a player in the back in any situation, that's been a rule forever. I haven't heard of anything about below the waist on crackbacks though. Where did you see that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NFL_season


"Upon further review", I screwed that up.

I should have said "below the waist and from behind". Prior to 2005 such blocks in peel back situations were apparently ok. A rules change implemented that year made them a no-no.

 

[wittenacious]

Me too, and by definition actually.. i'd argue he wasn't. He was simply a player not being aware enough of what was going on around him. Gotta keep your head on a swivel.

Like i said in another thread, if Tate had simply used a shoulder and made a clean play i'd be saying good on him right now and telling Lee to stop whining about it. But what Tate did is not a football play.

Has Lee been whining about the hit? I missed seeing/reading/hearing about that. All I was aware of was that the following has been his viewpoint:

... But Lee says he didn’t have a problem with it.​

“It’s one of those deals. It’s part of the game,” Lee said. “It’s part of football. The NFL will judge whether that’s legal or not. Whatever it is, I’ll deal with it. I’m on to the next game. I’m not worried about it. I’m more worried about how we can be better on defense, how we can improve from the mistakes we made.”

source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/18/sean-lee-calls-golden-tate-block-part-of-football/
​

The one thing I read, where he expressed some criticism about crackback hits/blocks by Lee, but it didn't strike me as whining:

“Crackback hits, that’s not a definition of toughness,” Lee said. “A definition of toughness is hitting, squaring up, being able to do your job as hard as you can every single play. That’s at least what I believe. Anybody can crackback block.”

source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/19/nfl-fines-golden-tate-21000-for-block-on-sean-lee/
​

Unless you mean the part where he remarked he had "a little bit" of an issue with Tate's after-the-hit celebrating:

“Of course, he’s trying to extend the play,” Lee said. “I don’t blame him for blocking me. That’s part of football. The only issue I had a little bit was him celebrating like he did. But then again, that’s part of football, too. I’m ready to move on.”

source: http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/a...For-Hit-/0044335f-62e8-46cc-b8e2-852aede9e33c
​

Were there examples of whining I missed? I've been thinking that of all the whining about Tate's hit/block, it's been on the part of others and not Sean Lee.

 

[Noryb]

The recent medical research on the long term effects of head injuries, combined with the litigious nature of the society we live in, make it clear that football "as it was" is non-sustainable. If the NFL is to survive longterm the game must be made safer. Changing the rules to effictively eliminate peel back blocks is one step in that direction.

Eliminating "peel back blocks" or redefining how they can be administered isn't going to resolve the NFL's concussion problems. Unless they eliminate contact all together it will be a part of the game. It's a violent sport.

NFL Concussions in 2011

Despite claims of tighter safety regulations and several lawsuits, the NFL football concussion statistics continue to climb with another 162 number of head injuries reported last year. That roughly sums up to an average of 10.80 concussions occurring every week and that there is a 72% chance of a concussion injury occurring at every NFL game.

From the concussion rate in NFL for 2011, it should be note that 51.85% of the head injuries were born by the offensive players whereas defensive players experienced the other 48.15% of head injuries. Just like the year before, the NFL failed to guarantee the safety for any of the players on the field, as there still exists a 50-50 chance of you being injured on the head.