10-24-2012, 04:22 PM #111
I don't believe vicious means dirty. According to the rules it's a legal hit. We aren't even talking a gray area. Many top competitors play in a nebulous gray area but this isn't the case here. Still looks like a leg sweep/knee block tani-otoshi to me. I think it's excessive and I've got a feeling the league safety officials will look at this long and hard and perhaps re-write things differently next season.
Arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics, even if you win your still messed up.
Restore the roar!
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
10-24-2012, 05:02 PM #112
Well I'll just submit this. If you read that there was a vicious attack on some woman or elderly person how would that be looked at? How would that be understood? How would the public generally interpret that?
To me it would mean there was an intent to injure. An intent to do bodily harm and I believe that the way the law would interpret it and I believe that's way most of us have been socialized to define it as well. Vicious is defined as;
Use Vicious in a sentenceOrigin
[vish-uh s] Show IPA
adjective 1. addicted to or characterized by vice; grossly immoral; depraved; profligate: a vicious life.
2. given or readily disposed to evil: a vicious criminal.
3. reprehensible; blameworthy; wrong: a vicious deception.
4. spiteful; malicious: vicious gossip; a vicious attack.
5. unpleasantly severe: a vicious headache.
6. characterized or marred by faults or defects; faulty; unsound: vicious reasoning.
7. savage; ferocious: They all feared his vicious temper.
8. (of an animal) having bad habits or a cruel or fierce disposition: a vicious bull.
9. Archaic. morbid, foul, or noxious.
So if it's vicious there doesn't seem by it's very definition to be anything even vaguely resembling "clean" about it. With vicious intent and an attempt to do harm I think most of us wouldn't see that as being associated with the word "clean". Maybe the word "dirty" would enter into the picture for some of us but I don't think the word "clean" would typically be associated with the word "vicious". At least not where I'm from.
I think most of the words used to define make it at best a negative act. Since we already know that Suh has in the past been guilty of quite a few reprehensible, blameworthy and wrong acts both on an off the field it's really not too much of a stretch to say that this one may have stretched the bounds of what constitutes a legal hit just about to the limit. I'd say that's just about as fair as anyone could say.
So there you have it. If were gonna depend on the words and attitudes of others here then let's choose those used by almost everyone who saw it happen. They called it a "vicious hit". Out of the nine definitions listed only #7; savage, ferocious could be construed as being acceptable on a football field. The other eight wouldn't.
Come one. Let's get real here. This is Ndamukong Suh we're talking about not Prince Lancelot and the Knights of the Round Table. Valor and heroism are not used to describe Suh. Nowhere in life has he ever shown that he believes the rules other are entrusted to follow apply to him. He's a sociopath in real life and sociopath in a helmet on the field. That's pretty obvious. So if he's willing to ignore the law that govern us as citizens why would he choose to adhere to those that govern play in the NFL? It's simple. He doesn't, he never has in his entire career and his track record proves it.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has web feet, lays eggs and likes to swim in little ponds it's probably a duck. Simple logic? Deductive reasoning? Call it whatever but just how much of a stretch is it to suspect Ndamukong Suh of evil and malicious intent when he gets a chance to injure an opposing QB? It's not exactly like he's never done it before.
That said I rest my case. I'm done with this bullshit and any other conversations about Jay Cutler that aren't directly related to his performance and execution of plays as the QB for the Bears. The media can have the rest. I'm not interested period!
Last edited by soulman; 10-24-2012 at 05:06 PM.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
10-24-2012, 05:59 PM #113
The play wasn't dirty and there shouldn't be any fines. Was it a littloe of the top hell yes, but it was well within the rules. Had one of our Defenders done that to the Lions QB besides the fact he woul dbe out for few weeks we all would be saying what a hell of a play. No one wants to see their QB take a hit like that but this is the NFL and hits like that are going to happen.
Originally Posted by The Benjamin
High Fives / Like - 2 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
10-24-2012, 06:00 PM #114
I was hoping you would chime in.
Originally Posted by JJ-30
10-24-2012, 06:04 PM #115
I would submit that the context needs to be considered. A vicious attack on the street is interpreted differently than a vicious punch in a boxing match. I would also submit that a vicious punch in boxing would not be considered dirty. It would be considered as a compliment to the boxers abilities.
I would also say that the ability to deliver a devastating blow that does not leave permanent injury in football is considered by football fans to be in the same category. But as I've said before, this is going to vary fan to fan. For me, it is part of the draw. That is not to say I want to see someone hurt, but I do enjoy seeing a LB or lineman laying some wood on someone.
Originally Posted by soulman
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
10-24-2012, 07:15 PM #116
This will be the last I have to say about this as well.
Laying the wood on somebody is fine.
Grabbing somebody by the neck and ripping their head off is not acceptable.
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's clean. Rules get written to adapt to new situations. Chop blocks weren't always illegal, were they?
I'm done with this topic.
10-24-2012, 08:44 PM #117
And I guess if Julius Peppers, Dan Hampton, Lovie Smith, and Jay Cutler all said to jump off the Empire State Building, you would do it too, correct? What kind of zero logic is that you're trying to pull on us, Benji? It's horseshit, that's what it is. I don't care what these so-called experts think. Suh clearly tried to end Cutler's season. Okay, maybe he went and checked on him later, but that was only because he was afraid that one of our linemen might try to hurt him for his shenanigans.
Originally Posted by The Benjamin
Maybe soul is right about you and others who fall into your category. I had tried to reason with him that most people make their observations based on what they see and not on what they read, but after reading your last few posts, perhaps he's right and you and half the people on this site are ditto heads for anything a columnist, whether political, sports, entertainment, or social in scope, writes.
10-24-2012, 09:01 PM #118
Blah blah blah you are all the same as well.
Originally Posted by Dagan81
We all saw the same thing Dags. We just chose to see it differently. We see nothing wrong with the hit, while others did.
i said I SAW nothing wrong with the hit. I also said I sided with them and not Marshall. That is what I saw, and what I believe. You don't like it too damn bad.
10-24-2012, 09:35 PM #119
Its not what I want, I hate new rules that limit defenders. The problem is you have people like Suh, that cross the line, and afterwards... new player safety rules appear. As I have said, when new rules get created, they take away the "Dirty hits" but they also limit the "Clean hits". Suh intended to land his weight across Cutler's neck. But to limit that type of "Dirty Contact" other Incidental/accidental Contact will also have to be limited. Its not what I want to happen
Lets not pretend that Suh hasnt already done a ton of Dirty moves. Stomping a player(On thanksgiving), Unnecessarily ripping Cutler's helmet off, attempting to kick Cutlers face afterward, that forearm shiver, throwing QBs down by their facemask... etc. He deserved more punishment in the past,
a) If you dont like the subjective manner of the rules that I posted, perhaps you should complain to the people that wrote the rules.
Originally Posted by bearsinhouston
b) About when to enforce penalties, in case of accidental contact.
Usually, defensive players get unnecessary roughness penalties, even though the type of contact is not something the player can really change. Example, an WR lowers his head as a defensive player tries to knock the offensive player down. Helmet to Helmet = Unnecessary roughness. Its tough on the defender, because they cant really alter their path. A lot of helmet to helmet hits are accidental. But why did the rule get implemented? Because some players were launching intentionally to rattle their opponents.
Last edited by KenMasters; 10-24-2012 at 10:13 PM.
10-24-2012, 09:47 PM #120
Henry, I am growing really damn tired of you dogging players who played 80 or 90 years ago in another sport unrelated to football and saying that simply because black and Hispanic players were not integrated into the Major Leagues until 1947 when Branch Rickey signed Negro Leagues star Jackie Robinson to a Major League Baseball contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers that players prior to that time would look bad by today's standards, e.g. Babe Ruth. Yes, the Negro Leagues had Satchel Paige as its greatest pitcher, and it had the likes of players such as Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, Buck O'Neill, and several other players who would go on to have splendid careers in the Majors once the color barrier was broken, but I'll be damned if I stand aside and let someone play the race card and automatically assume that just because blacks didn't play in baseball prior to 1947 in the bigs say that those players couldn't have competed against the likes of a Willie Mays, a Hank Aaron, a Bob Gibson, an Ernie Banks, a Larry Doby, etc. The Negro Leagues were NOT as deep as the Major Leagues because the league was not as well organized as Major League Baseball -- franchises and leagues started and disappeared from year to year, and unlike Branch Rickey, who first was the owner/general manager of the St. Louis Cardinals and built the first minor league system in Major League history, no Negro League franchise had a system whereby they could develop talent, so unless you were just extraordinarily gifted, you probably weren't going to make it in the Majors.
Originally Posted by Henry Burris
Henry, did it bother to occur to you that the vast majority of Major Leaguers playing today and, for that matter, of all time, happen to be white? I guarantee you one thing: Babe Ruth could have hit Bob Gibson, and at 6'2" and 215 lbs, he was far from fat, but rather had a muscle tone about him as he was stocky and incredibly strong for his time. He could still hit in today's league, as most home run hitters today range in height from 6'2" to 6'4". What about Ted Williams? Yeah, the season he hit .406 came six years prior to integration, but he still average hitting over .340 for the rest of his career, even hitting .388 as late as 1957, and that came during the era where there were black ballplayers in the Major Leagues. What are you going to say about Mickey Mantle? That because he was only 6'0" he would be too small to be a slugger today? Well I've got news for you. Willie Mays was only about that height, and the only reason he had better stats than "The Mick" is because he didn't have to deal with recurring injuries to his shoulders and his legs, not because he was black and therefore, by your logic, athletically superior. In fact, no player in the history of Major League Baseball has ever been timed with a faster run down the first base line than Mickey Mantle, and that includes black athletes like Willie Mays, Rickey Henderson, Lou Brock, Maury Wills, etc.
Baseball has changed less than over a longer period of time than any other major sport in America, including football. While I do agree that integration was a necessary step in bridging the racial divide between the white and black communities, it DOES NOT mean that any professional baseball that was played from the time of the founding of the National League in 1876 to when the Major Leagues was integrated in 1947 was inferior in competitiveness to what we see today. If anything, there were more good players playing on fewer teams back before the era of expansion began since there were only eight teams per league. I don't think that integration played any role in driving up the competitive balance other than it gave the league a new crop of faces to take into consideration when developing players in the minor leagues. It would take baseball nearly 25 years (early 1970s) to really get the full scope of integration. By that time, there were more teams (the second installation of the Washington Senators in 1961, the Angels in either '61 or '62, the Mets in 1962, the Brewers and Expos in 1969, and later on in subsequent years, the Mariners and Blue Jays in 1977, the Marlins and Rockies in 1993, and the Diamondbacks and Devil Rays in 1998) and more players were drafted or signed from Latin America, thus watering down the talent level as time wore on. So no, your logic is nothing but one big fallacy. The more players that were introduced into the league, the weaker the talent pool got because some teams just had to settle for players who were/are banjo hitters, poor defenders, and bad pitchers. It's no wonder, then, that we have just expanded the postseason again for the third time in 43 years, because there are more teams wanting a piece of the pie.