 |
| Author |
Message |
|
SacHawk2.0
|
Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right?  Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:53 pm |
|
| *Host of .NET Awards* |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:51 pm
Posts: 4949
|
Navyhawkfan187 wrote:  got it from this... So awesome!
_________________
Legal Notice: Any references made by the online entity know as SacHawk 2.0 or "Sac" in regards to "Currystopstheruns" being a pre-op tranny with an anal tampon fetish are entirely accurate.
|
|
  |
|
|
|
falcongoggles
|
Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right? Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:38 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:46 pm
Posts: 1805
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jazzhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right? Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:50 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:16 pm
Posts: 7702
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ClumsyLurk
|
Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right? Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:30 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 290
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Osprey
|
Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right? Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:57 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:06 pm
Posts: 132
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sc85sis
|
Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right? Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:06 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:40 am
Posts: 3192
Location: Southern CA
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ClumsyLurk
|
Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right? Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:26 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
|
|
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 290
|
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/ 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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
seahawks08
|
Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right? Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:32 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:15 pm
Posts: 266
|
|
Looks like no fines as expected.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ivotuk
|
Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right? Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:09 pm |
|
| * NET Nobody * |
 |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
Posts: 4861
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Escamillo
|
Post subject: Re: Kam wasn't fined... Right? Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:20 pm |
|
| NET Practice Squad |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:54 pm
Posts: 59
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Users browsing this forum: 12thMode, @cro, A London Hawk, AbsolutNET, Ad Hawk, AvengerRam, Basis4day, bestfightstory, Bigpumpkin, Bill Assumpcao, bloodkingg, BlueTalon, BoatsAndHose, bryantology79, CaptBennett, Cartire, Chrome_Seahawk, dbmack, Digsbone, drdiags, FidelisHawk, Floridahawk79, FlyingGreg, Fuzzman55, Getup anddance, GoldenIsThyTate, Google [Bot], ihawk, jammerhawk, KitsapHawk, Landhawk1, Largent80, MidwestHawker, Missing_Clink, mrdaija, nIdahoSeahawk, PlinytheCenter, polarbill1999, Pstark3, RolandDeschain, RynoHawk, SDHawk, Seabean, SeahawksFanForever, seahawksflow, Shazor4, Shock2k, Spleenhawk2.0, tacomahawk, thaima1shu, therealjohncarlson, TriCHawk, YaktownHawK, Yoonhawk and 195 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
|
|
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.
|
