Kam wasn't fined... Right?

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:21 am
  • Haven't seen anything in any of the news sources I check. He avoided the fine right? No way they could justify that fine
    Image

    Anyone want to make me a new signature? I've held out hope long enough.
    95% of the time I'm viewing here and/or posting is being done on a mobile device. Pardon any spelling, punctuation, or grammar mistakes.
    User avatar
    The Yugoslavian
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 879
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:45 am
    Location: Bellevue, WA


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:44 am
  • can understand the ref thinking helmet to helmet but no way they review it and follow up with a fine.
    |~=[==~||~==]=~|
    ||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: 1689
    Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:33 am
  • 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.
    Image
    User avatar
    Jazzhawk
    * NET News Scoop *
    * NET News Scoop *
     
    Posts: 8999
    Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:16 pm


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:52 am
  • 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.
    ______________________
    User avatar
    tomahawk
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 2465
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am
    Location: Skagit, WA


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:55 am
  • 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...
    User avatar
    Navyhawkfan187
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 605
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:48 am


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:03 am
  • Considering ET got 15K for touching Tannehill, I'm guessing this one's going to come down in the 20K+ range.
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15232
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:03 am
  • Navyhawkfan187 wrote: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...


    Or just play it safe and take out their MCL's like what happened to Manningham Sunday night. Ask him today if he would have rather been hit high.

    I get that the league is trying to protect from concussions and serious head/neck, but the downside is players are now going low and causing season ending knee and leg injuries. But the league will never get class action sued for that now will they?
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3217
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:04 am
  • 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.
    ______________________
    User avatar
    tomahawk
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 2465
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am
    Location: Skagit, WA


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:08 am
  • As there was clearly no contact to to receivers helmet, and Kam did not make initial contact on the receiver using the crown or hairline portion of his helmet, the only way it can be a fine is if they determine that he "launched" (both feet left the ground prior to contact).

    It is a very close call but the tips of his right toes maintained contact with the ground through the initial contact with the receiver and he brought his left foot back down before the toes of the right foot came off the ground.

    There should be no way he can receive a fine for this infraction.

    For the 49er fans who claim equivalence with the prior week's Goldson/Hernandez hit, take off your homer glasses and you will see clearly that Goldson both made initial contact with the crown of his helmet, AND made contact with the receiver's face mask (part of the helmet).

    For the Seahawk fans who were upset with the earlier fine on the Tate/Lee hit, although Tate neither led with his helmet nor made a direct hit to Lee's helmet, the whiplash did cause Lee's helmet (face make is considered a portion of the receiver's helmet for the rule) to be immediately impacted by Tate's shoulder/back - thus, the hit WAS a hit to the helmet and the fine was appropriate.

    Defenseless Player Rule

    Unnecessary Roughness Rule

    The rules aren't very hard to understand for anyone of moderate intelligence who takes the time to read them.

    It amazes me that almost every sportswriter/announcer/analyst/player/coach that you hear has such a hard time grasping this rule. Isn't it their job to know the rules of the game they are paid to comment upon? Do they lack the intelligence or the will to understand the rules?
    User avatar
    renofox
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 341
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 1:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:11 am
  • That also states its a foul if "a player initiates unnecessary contact" and you can easily say with only half a brain, that Kams contact was 110% necessary. If he doesn't hit him hard, the ball never comes loose. Kam once stated on twitter last year that Goodell was a "confused man". Rules like this just prove it
    ----
    ensett
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1522
    Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:26 am


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:14 am
  • tomahawk - putting a and b together doesn't make me see where the fine comes in

    (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.”


    Based on the above you can't hit a defenseless player in head / neck area or lower your head and make contact with the top/crown of the helmet

    Check check didn't happen - no fine
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3389
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:11 am
  • I expect a suspension since Sherm got off and this is Kams third "bad one".

    If Earl and Tate can get fined for there's, I'm sure Kam can. Even if it was clean.
    User avatar
    JKent82
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3009
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:13 pm


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:15 am
  • JKent82 wrote:I expect a suspension since Sherm got off and this is Kams third "bad one".

    If Earl and Tate can get fined for there's, I'm sure Kam can. Even if it was clean.

    I don't know about a suspension but I wouldn't be surprised either as payback for Sherm winning. Rog and the boys in NY are losing a lot these days and likely need to feel like big men in control again. A suspension for Kam would soothe their bruised egos nicely.
    From the white sands
    To the canyon lands
    To the redwood stands
    To the barren lands

    Image

    Proud member of the 38 club
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11398
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:22 am
  • yeah but whats his face from baltimore had a game suspension overturned by appeal. The NFL really wants to get out of the "appeal overturning their decision business"....... if they suspend Kam there is some very very convincing argument in the video.

    So first they have to photoshop it - may take another week :D
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3389
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:36 am
  • mikeak wrote:yeah but whats his face from baltimore had a game suspension overturned by appeal. The NFL really wants to get out of the "appeal overturning their decision business"....... if they suspend Kam there is some very very convincing argument in the video.

    So first they have to photoshop it - may take another week :D

    I don't know dude, video editing software has come a long way in the last couple of years..... :evil: :roll: :D
    From the white sands
    To the canyon lands
    To the redwood stands
    To the barren lands

    Image

    Proud member of the 38 club
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11398
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:46 am
  • 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 like that "KamTrak", that has a ring to it.

    the only way VD was defenseless was the fact that he jumped for a ball he didn't need to... he saw Kam coming, but couldn't do anything about it because his feet were off the ground... great hit, keep um coming Kam
    World Champs - Sounds good don't it
    User avatar
    hawker84
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4005
    Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
    Location: Tri Cities, WA


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:55 am
  • Kamtrak?! I like it! KAMTRACK TRAIN COMING THROUGH!
    User avatar
    JKent82
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3009
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:13 pm


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:05 am
  • Image


    got it from this...
    User avatar
    Navyhawkfan187
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 605
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:48 am


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:17 am
  • 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.

    Defenders are allowed to knock the receiver out of bounds before they come down. Thus the whole still airborne argument is flawed. The key here is the unnecessary wording. In order to drive the receiver out of bounds before he comes down, the hit was necessary, thus no foul.
    Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

    R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."
    User avatar
    SalishHawkFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4682
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm


Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:29 pm
  • I can't stand some of these calls. It makes me want more, like Kam running into a ref by mistake. Or Earl, Sherm, BB, lol Red. I want old school back!!!
    User avatar
    garydrake425
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 903
    Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:28 am
    Location: Seattle , Wa


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: 10160
    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: 3218
    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: 8999
    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: 1689
    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: 209
    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: 1689
    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: 632
    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: 8478
    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: 253
    Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:54 pm




It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:35 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information