Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:21 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 879
Location: Bellevue, WA
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:44 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 1627
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:33 am 
* NET News Scoop *
* NET News Scoop *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:16 pm
Posts: 8922
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:52 am 
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am
Posts: 2465
Location: Skagit, WA
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.

_________________
______________________


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:55 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:48 am
Posts: 605
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...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:03 am 
* NET Philistine *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 14120
Location: Portland, OR
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:03 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am
Posts: 2435
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:04 am 
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am
Posts: 2465
Location: Skagit, WA
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.

_________________
______________________


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:08 am 
*PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
*PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Online

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 1:20 pm
Posts: 330
Location: Reno, NV
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?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:11 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:26 am
Posts: 1522
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

_________________
----


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:14 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
Posts: 3075
Location: Anchorage, AK
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:11 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:13 pm
Posts: 2987
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:15 am 
NET Pro Bowler
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
Posts: 10141
Location: Vancouver, WA
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:22 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
Posts: 3075
Location: Anchorage, AK
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:36 am 
NET Pro Bowler
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
Posts: 10141
Location: Vancouver, WA
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:46 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
Posts: 3870
Location: Tri Cities, WA
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:55 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:13 pm
Posts: 2987
Kamtrak?! I like it! KAMTRACK TRAIN COMING THROUGH!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:05 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:48 am
Posts: 605
Image


got it from this...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:17 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 4250
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."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:29 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:28 am
Posts: 902
Location: Everett, Wa
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!!!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:53 pm 
*Host of .NET Awards*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:51 pm
Posts: 8853
Location: With a white girl
Navyhawkfan187 wrote:
Image


got it from this...


So awesome!

_________________
Legal Notice: Only a very small percentage of the things I do and say can be taken seriously. If ever.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:38 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:46 pm
Posts: 3067
Location: Florence, Italy
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:50 pm 
* NET News Scoop *
* NET News Scoop *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:16 pm
Posts: 8922
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.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Jazzhawk on Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:30 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 1627
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:57 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:06 pm
Posts: 201
Location: Portland Oregon
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:06 pm 
*SILVER SUPPORTER*
*SILVER SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:40 am
Posts: 4362
Location: Southern CA
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/

_________________
Help bring peace to the South LA / Puget Sound communities. Are you in?
http://www.abetterla.org | http://www.abetterseattle.com


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:26 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 1627
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:32 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:15 pm
Posts: 607
Looks like no fines as expected.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:09 pm 
* NET Nobody *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
Posts: 7597
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

_________________
RELEASE THE KRAKEN! (FREE BROWNER!)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?
 Post Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:20 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:54 pm
Posts: 184
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brimsalabim, FlyingGreg, Google [Bot], Highlordb, HoustonHawk82, Lanakila, onanygivensunday, Seanhawk, seedhawk, Sonichellboy, theascension, themunn, UK_Seahawk, Yahoo [Bot] and 94 guests

 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.