Kam wasn't fined... Right?

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:53 pm
  • Navyhawkfan187 wrote:Image


    got it from this...


    So awesome!
    "Pete Carroll brings in great elves...and they make the best presents."
    User avatar
    SacHawk2.0
    .NOT a Moderator
     
    Posts: 10438
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:51 pm
    Location: With a white girl


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:38 pm
  • Jazzhawk wrote:I don't think any fines have been announced yet, due to the holiday. I expect them to start coming out today. We shall see. As much as we think it wasn't a foul, I am pretty sure he'll get fined.


    After ET getting fined, it would not surprise me if he was suspended for the playoffs. Amazing the ridiculous rules these days.
    User avatar
    falcongoggles
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3313
    Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:46 pm
    Location: Florence, Italy


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:50 pm
  • falcongoggles wrote:
    Jazzhawk wrote:I don't think any fines have been announced yet, due to the holiday. I expect them to start coming out today. We shall see. As much as we think it wasn't a foul, I am pretty sure he'll get fined.


    After ET getting fined, it would not surprise me if he was suspended for the playoffs. Amazing the ridiculous rules these days.

    Naw...no valid reason for a suspension.
    Last edited by Jazzhawk on Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Image
    User avatar
    Jazzhawk
    * NET News Scoop *
    * NET News Scoop *
     
    Posts: 9010
    Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:16 pm


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:30 pm
  • Sarlacc83 wrote:Considering ET got 15K for touching Tannehill, I'm guessing this one's going to come down in the 20K+ range.

    Vernon Davis is a man, I don't think they view that the same
    |~=[==~||~==]=~|
    ||Tfs LnD ] [ HAWKS||
    RIP BFS. He was kind of a douche, but he was our kind of a douche.
    User avatar
    ClumsyLurk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1702
    Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:57 pm
  • Sarlacc83 wrote:Considering ET got 15K for touching Tannehill, I'm guessing this one's going to come down in the 20K+ range.


    As unintentional as it was with Earl, it was contact to Tannehill's head and that rule is black and white.

    I believe Kam's hit was legit, but there's enough wiggle room in the rule to allow the decision to be shaded by the current hyper sensitive 'safety' angle.
    User avatar
    Osprey
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 212
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:06 pm
    Location: Portland Oregon


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:26 pm
  • sc85sis wrote:According to this article, Mike Pereira tweeted that it was a clean hit, but the flags were thrown basically because the role book says to call a penalty if in doubt.
    http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sportsli ... ing-feels/

    Perhaps calls like this should be challengeable if the rule book says to throw a flag when in doubt.
    Not sure if worth it in the long run though considering the amount of time already wasted reviewing plays, but had we lost by 6 or less, I'd be thinking otherwise.
    |~=[==~||~==]=~|
    ||Tfs LnD ] [ HAWKS||
    RIP BFS. He was kind of a douche, but he was our kind of a douche.
    User avatar
    ClumsyLurk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1702
    Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:32 pm
  • Looks like no fines as expected.
    seahawks08
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 639
    Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:15 pm


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:09 pm
  • No consistency in the rules or the fines...smh

    "Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy was fined $25,000 for roughing the passer for hitting Oakland quarterback Carson Palmer in the back with his helmet. Palmer left the game after the hit and was later diagnosed with a bruised lung and cracked ribs."

    25k for that kind of injury?

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000118299/article/cam-newton-fined-by-nfl-for-second-time-this-week
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8754
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:20 pm
  • tomahawk wrote:
    Navyhawkfan187 wrote:
    tomahawk wrote:I don't think the issue is helmet to helmet as it is a hit on a "defenseless" receiver. I don't agree with it but he'll probably get fined based off of history and reputation. How a 6'4" 250# man is defenseless is beyond me.


    The "defenseless receiver" still has to be a blow to the head.....you're allowed to hit a WR still but you just can't go high on them...I'd start aiming for dudes abdomen if I was Kamtrak....start knocking the vomit out of guys...drop a shoulder pad right into their stomach...



    I don't think it has to be to the head.

    "The relevant portion of the rule is:

    “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: [. . .]
    (2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
    [. . .]
    (b) 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, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and
    (2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.”


    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... yer-rules/

    They probably called it because he just caught the ball and had not come down all the way yet before Kam hit him. BS rule but there it is.



    "Unnecessary contact" is the pivitol point here. Kam's hit was necessary in order to prevent a pass completion. It wasn't unnecessary at all.
    Escamillo
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 260
    Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:54 pm




It is currently Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:27 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information