UNFRIGGIN REAL NFL Fines Bostic

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by Nakoma1, Aug 21, 2013.

  1. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    1,504
    Ratings:
    +1,912 / 7 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,760ß
    Thank you shark because that is exactly what happened. In fact it should have been called a fumble because the receiver had possession, tucked the ball under his left shoulder and took at least one step upfield before he was hit. So the fine for hitting a defenseless player is bogus because a player in possession of the ball after a catch can't also be defenseless and a ball carrier subject to being tackled.

    YOU CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES LEGISLATE WITH ANY RULE HOW HARD A PLAYER CAN BE TACKLED AND THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE! THE HIT WAS WITH THE SHOULDER, THE HELMET CONTACT WAS INCIDENTAL AND PHYSICALLY UNAVOIDABLE UNLESS BOSTIC WAS THE HEADLESS HORSEMAN OF SLEEPY HOLLOW.

    The whole thing is political and all they did was victimize a rookie to make an example out of something. It wasn't against the rules but it was close enough for them to USE it as such. God dammit but I hate Roger Goodell and all he stands for. Christ no one from San Diego was bitching about it, the refs never called it and even Chargers fans are posting they thought it was a good hit. So despite the feelings of those who buy there product the NFL will still choose to snub it's nose at it's supporters and do as it damn well pleases.

    And now I'm outta this discussion because anyone who can't see the reality of this isn't gonna agree with me and tonight I'd rather watch football than argue about it.
  2. A-11

    A-11 Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +74 / 1 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    I've mentioned this before, but why are many posters saying that once a receiver has gained possession they can no longer be considered defenseless? I'm not the best at this, so please correct me if I am wrong. I've already posted the rule definitions for a defenseless posture under Rule 12, Sec. 2, Article 7, in this case specifically:

    "A.(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;"

    I think they should be considered two different issues. So could it be possible that it could have been a fumble and flagged for unnecessary roughness? I don't have a dog in the debate over whether Bostic could of altered contact. My only beef is that you can be fined for a hit because it broke the rules of the game when it isn't called during the game.

    Edit: I guess I'm double checking myself here, and I know this rule is very very subjective. But receivers toe tap the out of bounds line all the time. Yes, if you have control of the ball and get both feet in, it is a catch. However, you can't convince me that the receiver has enough body control to protect themselves as they are physically falling to the ground. Now, when the catch is made in stride this is where the subjective comes into play... How do you gauge a players momentum? Is the act of trying to tuck in the ball into your body considered a part of ball control, or a signal that they have become a runner? I would have liked to have seen one more step or a change in direction before I'd consider the receiver a runner in this particular case.
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2013
  3. Warlock

    Warlock Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2013
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    91
    Ratings:
    +104 / 1 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    38ß
    That's the point... you shouldn't be tackling with a shoulder and/or crown of your helmet... it's not proper technique and it's dangerous for both players. Now if you're trying to say that you cannot tackle with your head up in-general, you don't know what you're talking about. The primary reason players tackle like Bostic did (i.e. with their shoulder/helmet), is to inflict maximum bodily harm against an opponent. You can dress it up in whatever macho trappings you want (such as seperating the man from the ball or making receivers fear going over the middle), but it's excessive/unnecessary and hurting the sport's future. Head-hunting in football needs to go away before it ends up chasing away future generations of potential players, which is already happening.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page