Cunning Runt Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Really? Who was that hanging on his ankles then? Interesting definition of "free and clear" you got there . . . PS - when someone grabs you mid-lunge, you tend to fall short of your intended target (e.g., if you're lunging at the torso of a guy and get tripped up, you might fall short and hit, say, a knee) PSS - I implore anyone who thinks differently to go watch the clip again and look at (i) Wilfork's feet when he gets tripped and (ii) his head when his elbow hits the knees. Look at it a few times - the clip in slo-mo earlier in this thread shows exactly what I'm talking about here clear as day. I have watched it. Repeatedly. Clearly your mind's made up. So is mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I have watched it. Repeatedly. Clearly your mind's made up. So is mine. Agree to disagree then. Just to be clear - you think that, while falling down and looking at the ground, Wilfork thought to himself ,"I should go for that knee now" and blindly threw his elbow with the specific intent of taking out the knee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Agree to disagree then. Just to be clear - you think that, while falling down and looking at the ground, Wilfork thought to himself ,"I should go for that knee now" and blindly threw his elbow with the specific intent of taking out the knee? You're putting words in my mouth to suit your purpose. I'm pretty sure that's not what I said. Just to be clear, I think that he definitely lunged forward at the knee. "Taking it out" is not what I said and I also have no clue what he was thinking, but he definitely did not "blindly" throw his elbow out. He made an aggressive move towards the player's knee. That much was not an accident. I doubt he meant to injure, but he extended his arm for the sole purpose of hitting Losman's knee. I make no assumptions as to intent beyond that which I've already stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 You're putting words in my mouth to suit your purpose. I'm pretty sure that's not what I said. just trying to get a sense of what you actually think here, as it wasn't exactly clear Just to be clear, I think that he definitely lunged forward at the knee. "Taking it out" is not what I said and I also have no clue what he was thinking, but he definitely did not "blindly" throw his elbow out. disagree on two points - (i) he lunged forward at Losman, not the knee - the knee is just what he happened to hit because he was tackled from behind and therefore missed his target and (ii) he was looking at the ground when he threw the elbow - if that isn't "blindly", I'm not sure what is He made an aggressive move towards the player's knee. That much was not an accident. I doubt he meant to injure, but he extended his arm for the sole purpose of hitting Losman's knee. I make no assumptions as to intent beyond that which I've already stated. check the bolded text - isn't that essentially what I asked you if you thought? not sure why you then said I put words in your mouth. if you believe the bolded text, then you think that he made a conscious decision to throw his elbow at the knee while falling down and not even looking at Losman - that's all I was asking. we disagree - oh well. now all we can do to settle our differences is get in the octagon . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 just trying to get a sense of what you actually think here, as it wasn't exactly clear disagree on two points - (i) he lunged forward at Losman, not the knee - the knee is just what he happened to hit because he was tackled from behind and therefore missed his target and (ii) he was looking at the ground when he threw the elbow - if that isn't "blindly", I'm not sure what is check the bolded text - isn't that essentially what I asked you if you thought? not sure why you then said I put words in your mouth. if you believe the bolded text, then you think that he made a conscious decision to throw his elbow at the knee while falling down and not even looking at Losman - that's all I was asking. we disagree - oh well. now all we can do to settle our differences is get in the octagon . . . There's a difference IMO between going for the knee to make a tackle and "taking a knee out". Semantics maybe, but yes, he was going for the knee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 (edited) As a point of reference, I was listening to an interview with Wilfork last night. When he was fined last year, he was told by the NFL that the fine was because he hit the QB below the waist. Never was it said anything about intent to injure. He was told point blank, you hit the QB below the waist, which is not allowed. This is also why he didn't fight the fine, because if that is what the league is fining him for, then that fact was undeniable. He was ok with that, he paid the fine and moved on. Now, Brady was obviously just hit below the waist and no fine was issued. That is his problem. It's not an intent issue at all with Wilfork, it's that the league is not being consistant. If i can find a vid or transcript of his locker room interview, I'll post it. Transcript of Interview Edited September 10, 2008 by Bring Back Pat!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 As a point of reference, I was listening to an interview with Wilfork last night. When he was fined last year, he was told by the NFL that the fine was because he hit the QB below the waist. Never was it said anything about intent to injure. He was told point blank, you hit the QB below the waist, which is not allowed. This is also why he didn't fight the fine, because if that is what the league is fining him for, then that fact was undeniable. He was ok with that, he paid the fine and moved on. Now, Brady was obviously just hit below the waist and no fine was issued. That is his problem. It's not an intent issue at all with Wilfork, it's that the league is not being consistant. If i can find a vid or transcript of his locker room interview, I'll post it. I think the NFL saw it the same way most did - that Wilfork made an aggressive move forward with the intent of going low, whereas Pollard much more clearly had no choice in the matter. That's my take anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Not sure about the hit last year,, but it is clear that the KC player is in contact with a NE player who is blocking him (practically riding his back). Just like being blocked into the kicker, could this be a part of how the determination was made? I would see this as a HUGH fine and suspension if there was a clear shot at Brady's leg. however, being engaged with a blocker changes the whole dynamic of the play. Just because he is being blocked, doesn't mean he has to stop trying to make a play! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 And to add to the above. IF it was even close to intentional, the League would surely punish anyone who dares mess with one of the biggest league stars. These guys are way too protected as it is. Brady is one of the untouchables, and if there was even a question, I would imagine that the sh!t would have already hit the fan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I think the NFL saw it the same way most did - that Wilfork made an aggressive move forward with the intent of going low, whereas Pollard much more clearly had no choice in the matter. That's my take anyway. But that's not what they told him he was being fined for. Also, he got flagged on the play for roughing the passer only, which is 99% of the time for hitting a QB after he releases the ball. So no where was there anything about intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Just because he is being blocked, doesn't mean he has to stop trying to make a play! That's my point with Wilfork as well - only difference is that he was being tripped up from behind and not conventionally "blocked" per se . . . he was still trying to make a play while he was going down by throwing his elbow out at the qb - it just happened to hit his knee, which I think was unintentional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 But that's not what they told him he was being fined for. Also, he got flagged on the play for roughing the passer only, which is 99% of the time for hitting a QB after he releases the ball. So no where was there anything about intent. Well, first - keep in mind you're telling us Wilfork's version of the story. Of course it's gonna spin his way. And again, you said he was being fined for going below the waist - intent or not. I'm saying that even given that, I still don't see where the issue is. Wilfork lunged forward below the waist when he could have not done so. Pollard was getting ridden down and just ended up below the waist. A HUGH difference IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Ok, Wilfork was fined for hitting below the waist, Pollard was not fined for hitting below the waist. He's not questioning anything to do with his fine. He just wants the same rules to apply, that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Ok, Wilfork was fined for hitting below the waist, Pollard was not fined for hitting below the waist. He's not questioning anything to do with his fine. He just wants the same rules to apply, that's all. Fine by me. I still think Wilfork's was a dirty hit and Pollard's wasn't though. So did the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Fine by me. I still think Wilfork's was a dirty hit and Pollard's wasn't though. So did the NFL. The NFL did not fine him because the hit was dirty. They fined him becasue it was below the waist. Never mind, moving on to the next subject... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 The NFL did not fine him because the hit was dirty. They fined him becasue it was below the waist. Never mind, moving on to the next subject... OMG Soooooo, would you be happier about losing Brady for the season if a fine was imposed and the Chiefs forfeited the game? Oh wait, they won anyway! I mean, it isn't like the Chiefs were using illegal equipment on the sidelines to gain an advantage by stealing signals or anything minor like that! If this had been the case, then the Chiefs would truly be a scumbag team that deserves an * next to their last few seasons. I'm glad that no NFL franchise has ever dared try to cheat like that. Then the integrity of the game would come into question! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 not the point of the discussion at all . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 OMG Soooooo, would you be happier about losing Brady for the season if a fine was imposed and the Chiefs forfeited the game? Oh wait, they won anyway! I mean, it isn't like the Chiefs were using illegal equipment on the sidelines to gain an advantage by stealing signals or anything minor like that! If this had been the case, then the Chiefs would truly be a scumbag team that deserves an * next to their last few seasons. I'm glad that no NFL franchise has ever dared try to cheat like that. Then the integrity of the game would come into question! This has nothing to do with what the discusion was about. It was being implied earlier that Wilfork was asking for a fine because of the severity of the hit. He wasn't. That was all I was pointing out. He wanted a fine because he was fined. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. I personally don't think any of the three hits (Brady, Losman, Palmer) should warrant a fine. They were all part of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Ok, Wilfork was fined for hitting below the waist, Pollard was not fined for hitting below the waist. He's not questioning anything to do with his fine. He just wants the same rules to apply, that's all. I think it's sort of implied when you get fined that the league viewed your hit as dirty, intentional and unnecessary -- in wilfork's case, a dirty, intentional, unnecessary swipe at an opponents legs. obviously they felt that way about wilfork, they didn't feel that way about pollard. 90% of people outside of new england agree. sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 are you inferring that my post was knee jerk? The subject of my sentence was I, meaning me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I think it's sort of implied when you get fined that the league viewed your hit as dirty, intentional and unnecessary -- in wilfork's case, a dirty, intentional, unnecessary swipe at an opponents legs. obviously they felt that way about wilfork, they didn't feel that way about pollard. 90% of people outside of new england agree. sorry I understand that. The point is the league didn't say to Wilfork, "Hey, that was a dirty hit, we're gonna have to fine you." The league only told him he was being fined for hitting below the waist. Period. They didn't say anything more than that, so his gripe, and his ONLY gripe, with the Pollard hit was just that the league didn't fine him since the hit was below the waist. This isn't a dificult concept. In Wilfork's view, the league used an excuse to him for the fine that they're not imposing on anyone else. Maybe he mis-remembers. Maybe he's lieing. Noone knows. I'm just telling you that Wilfork hasn't complained once that Pollard's hit was dirty. Not once. And that's the only point I've been trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I think Wilfork has a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Just because Wilfork says that's what the NFL told him, doesn't make it true . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I understand that. The point is the league didn't say to Wilfork, "Hey, that was a dirty hit, we're gonna have to fine you." The league only told him he was being fined for hitting below the waist. Period. They didn't say anything more than that, so his gripe, and his ONLY gripe, with the Pollard hit was just that the league didn't fine him since the hit was below the waist. This isn't a dificult concept. In Wilfork's view, the league used an excuse to him for the fine that they're not imposing on anyone else. Maybe he mis-remembers. Maybe he's lieing. Noone knows. I'm just telling you that Wilfork hasn't complained once that Pollard's hit was dirty. Not once. And that's the only point I've been trying to make. Thanks, hadn't thought of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.