Haven't seen anything in any of the news sources I check. He avoided the fine right? No way they could justify that fine

can understand the ref thinking helmet to helmet but no way they review it and follow up with a fine.

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.

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.

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...

Considering ET got 15K for touching Tannehill, I'm guessing this one's going to come down in the 20K+ range.

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

I don't know dude, video editing software has come a long way in the last couple of years.....

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

Kamtrak?! I like it! KAMTRACK TRAIN COMING THROUGH!

got it from this...

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.

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!!!

Navyhawkfan187 wrote:


got it from this...

So awesome!

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.

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.

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

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.

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/

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.

Looks like no fines as expected.

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

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.