Tate fined 21K for hit on Lowery

[Scottemojo]

I screwed up the link too many times.

Anyway, IDK about this one. Seems petty.

 

[Chukarhawk]

WTF? complete nonsense. The NFL really is trying to jump the shark on this stuff.

 

[RolandDeschain]

...Damnit. I'd need to watch this a few times closely, but is this legit or ticky-tacky?

 

[jdblack]

Here's a link for it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2FU0KyvsJE

 

[Canhawks]

Wow....the only reason it was a hard hit was because Lowery didn't see it coming,whats Tate supposed to do,back off in case he's not looking????

 

[Msfann]

What a weak fine, Tate squared him up. Lowery's head and face was facing Tate the whole time but you can tell he wasn't looking forward at Tate coming. bs fine i think.

 

[-The Glove-]

BS. Would it have been fine if he went low cuz I see that kinda block all the time

 

[HawkWow]

Legit or not, the league needs to come up with a different formula used for fines, IMO. Like a % of the players net pay. It's not apples to apples if you levy a fine against Tate for the same amount that you'd hit Fitzgerald with.

I understand the idea is to eliminate (LOL) "flagrant" fouls, but a fine imposed on Sherman, wouldn't be much of a deterrence if the same dollar amount was levied against Revis.

I suppose such a plan would present it's own unique challenges, but the penalty should be the same, regardless of player, and the only way to do that is to penalize each player based on their respective earnings. Or it's not the same.

 

[ImTheScientist]

It goes to charity and they treat it as a tax deduction anyways. Good hit tate.

 

[Scottemojo]

The claim is this is the enforcement of the new Cushing rule.

I speculated Sunday he might see a fedex for that one. He did.

 

[AbsolutNET]

I'd bet they're calling it helmet-to-helmet, because I can't see any other reason to fine him. Bunch of baloney one way or another

 

[The Radish]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=74087