Good example of how much the league really cares about player safety

[bostonsoxandy]

What's Del Rio's salary? He got docked $25,000. Can't imagine the D Coordinator gets paid nearly as much as some of these players and his fine was still more.

 

BTW, it's not about the money. The money probably doesn't make much difference to any of them in relative terms. it's about the message the league is trying to send. They are more worried about protecting their authority and their pocketbooks than their sudden, so-called crusade to protect the players.

 

 

[louis armstrong]

Oh when the saints

start to suck

oh when the saints sta-art to suck

rajncajn gets pretty damn angry

and takes it out on the NFL

[/louisarmstrong]

 

Good thing they don't have me in charge of songwriting...on a more serious note Del Rio reels in $5 mill/year which is ludicrous but somehow true. That is 0.5% annual salary, again Mundy got fined more than 3x as severely as Del Rio. I don't see the issue once again.

[Grits and Shins]

50K is just silly. He was essentially trying to get the refs attention. Really the only reason he is getting slapped so hard is because the league specifically told the coaches to back off and they are making an example of him.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If some scowling faced thug in a hoddie chases me down and grabs me it is on.

[Grits and Shins]

If some scowling faced thug in a hoddie chases me down and grabs me it is on.

 

 

Give me a sec ... I'm sure I have a hoodie laying around here somewhere ...

[rajncajn]

As you said yourself, it was appealed down to $25,000, Belichick can do the same if he feels it's unwarranted, but cmon man, you know that these plays happen so fast that you cannot determine intent.... And the NFL did in fact directly warn Dunta the same as they directly warned all 32 coaches after the first confrontations:

 

Hell, the Redskins WR got fined $15,000 just for throwing a football at Cortland Finnegan, and players incur fines and suspensions for off-the-field stuff, so yes, no matter whether it's conduct unbecoming of the league or dangerous hits (even if incidental like I believe at least 1 of Dunta's was), they will not tolerate it.

 

But to suggest that the NFL isn't serious about player safety is just laughable. However, that doesn't preclude them from penalizing other clear black eyes to the league as well. This was clearly something that they had to say "enough is enough" as coaches continue to ignore the multiple direct warnings. It greatly escalated tensions to where at times I thought a melee was about to break out on the field.

 

 

And you're still missing the point completely...

 

Robinson, infraction 1, penalty included, Highly dangerous & intentional hit that put a players life at risk. $25,000.

Del Rio, infraction 1, no penalty, just a bunch of yelling and probably a curse word or two, $25,000

 

Robinson, infraction 2, penalty included. Highly dangerous & intentional hit that put a players life at risk, $40,000.

Belichick, infraction ? (was there ever a first infraction?) no penalty, just a bunch of yelling and the grabbing of an arm, $50,000.

 

Now you tell me, based on that information, what is a more egregious offense to the NFL. Intentionally putting a player's quality of life at risk or threatening the leagues authority?

 

Dude, I like you. I do. I never once chimed in ( I don't think I did anyway) on the whole bountygate thing.

 

And I didn't equate one to the other until you called us douchebags and hypocrites, which frankly, was uncalled for, just because people didn't agree with you.

 

And my disagreement is based on nothing more than the example you raised. I don't agree with your premise. I think things that happen in a game are just different than how coaches treat officials and that coaches must be held to a higher standard so the bigger fine, to me, is more than justified.

 

That wasn't really directed at you CR. You just kind of got caught in the crossfire & for that I do apologize. I've put up with a lot of ridicule and misrepresentation of my position over the past several months which I also think has been uncalled for. I do find it highly hypocritical though that in one thread I'm chided for believing that the Saints players never really had intent to injure because it did not show on the field, yet in this thread one of those very same people are defending a player who so obviously was. It also bothers me quite a bit that my opinion is so easily dismissed seemingly based on the misrepresentation of my opinions on the Saints situation. Differences in opinion, as you are displaying now, are what makes discussion & debate enjoyable.

 

On topic... I see your point, but I would argue that the coaches are just as involved in the game emotionally as the players. Maybe they should be held to a higher standard, but I still disagree that the message the league is sending is the right one.

 

FWIW, I know most of you won't believe me, but the Saints bounty scandal has very little to do with that opinion. Sure the league is trying to do more to protect the players. But you can't tell me that it's because they are really concerned about their health. It wasn't very long ago when the league was flat out denying the long term affects of concussions and you can't tell me that the league would still be on this "player safety" crusade if it weren't for the major lawsuits looming over their heads. All while they still push for a longer schedule, more short weeks for teams with the additional Thursday games & the debacle they have now with the referee's. I just don't buy it.

[rajncajn]

Good thing they don't have me in charge of songwriting...on a more serious note Del Rio reels in $5 mill/year which is ludicrous but somehow true. That is 0.5% annual salary, again Mundy got fined more than 3x as severely as Del Rio. I don't see the issue once again.

 

I guess you just completely ignore the second paragraph.

 

50K is just silly. He was essentially trying to get the refs attention. Really the only reason he is getting slapped so hard is because the league specifically told the coaches to back off and they are making an example of him.

 

And the league has specifically told the players that those kind of hits will no longer be tolerated. Flag or not, as DoG argued, makes no difference when it's something that obviously could have been avoided. That says to me that the league wants to make a much bigger example of the coaches for undermining their authority than the players doing something that has a high possibility of causing severe and irreparable physical damage.

[delusions of grandeur]

First off, not hypocritical at all, as many of us also said in the Bounty threads that it wasn't just the bounty, pay for performance, whatever you want to call it, it's the fact that the NFl told them to knock it off, and they didn't listen, and it turned into a chitstorm.

 

Same deal with the injuries, that they can't tolerate them or it will be a chitstorm. Same deal with Belichick that they won't allow insubordination of something they warned him about that's about to turn into a chitstorm if they do nothing about it. There is nothing hypocritical in the least about any of this.

 

Hell, players get suspended and lose gamechecks, which can be a lot more cash, just for getting in trouble with law, so i don't see anything inconsistent here. You make the NFL look bad, and you're going to get fined, and they're gonna nail you to the wall if you ignore their warnings (here too, first time offenders tend to get off, but not after you've had a warning)

 

Hits are a bit different if they can't tell that they're completely intentional (and there are analysts who've agreed that Dunta's hit shouldn't have drawn a fine), but nonetheless helmet-to-helmet get automatically fined regardless of intention (not to mention egregious hits and repeat offenders get fined bigger and/or suspended), so that is actually more strict that it won't be tolerated, than insubordination where it's clear that the NFL is being actively ignored in what they're telling their employees they can't do.

 

So yes, I do think you're letting your bias against Goodell cloud your judgement about other matters, because they take anything that gives the NFL a black-eye seriously. That really doesn't have much of anything to do with them having to take a tough stance against big hits that were at one point an accepted part of the game, but can't be anymore. It has to do entirely with insoburdination when your boss tells you to stop.

 

People could have just as easily gotten hurt if the NFL allowed the coaches to keep on confronting officials and escalating the situation. There have been a few times I thought the refs were going to completely lose control of the games, and that just cannot happen. Understand?

Edited September 27, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[rajncajn]

First off, not hypocritical at all, as many of us also said in the Bounty threads that it wasn't just the bounty, pay for performance, whatever you want to call it, it's the fact that the NFl told them to knock it off, and they didn't listen, and it turned into a chitstorm.

 

Same deal with the injuries, that they can't tolerate them or it will be a chitstorm. Same deal with Belichick that they won't allow insubordination of something they warned him about that's about to turn into a chitstorm if they do nothing about it. There is nothing hypocritical in the least about any of this.

 

Hell, players get suspended and lose gamechecks, which can be a lot more cash, just for getting in trouble with law, so i don't see anything inconsistent here. You make the NFL look bad, and you're going to get fined, and they're gonna nail you to the wall if you ignore their warnings (here too, first time offenders tend to get off, but not after you've had a warning)

 

Hits are a bit different if they can't tell that they're completely intentional (and there are analysts who've agreed that Dunta's hit shouldn't have drawn a fine), but nonetheless helmet-to-helmet get automatically fined regardless of intention, so that is actually more strict that it won't be tolerated, than insubordination where it's clear that the NFL is being actively ignored in what they're telling their employees they can't do.

 

So yes, I do think you're letting your bias against Goodell cloud your judgement about other matters, because they take anything that gives the NFL a black-eye seriously.

 

That really doesn't have much of anything to do with them having to take a tough stance against big hits that were at one point an accepted part of the game, but can't be anymore. It has to do entirely with insoburdination when your boss tells you to stop.

 

People could have just as easily gotten hurt if the NFL allowed the coaches to keep on confronting officials and escalating the situation. There have been a few times I thought the refs were going to completely lose control of the games, and that just cannot happen. Understand?

 

 

You didn't answer my question,

 

I understand what you are saying. I am saying your logic is flawed. People ARE getting hurt from the illegal helmet-to-helmet hits... not maybe, not possibly and very seriously. Do you not think that gives the NFL a black eye? Yet they don't take it as seriously as undermining their authority? You think they do, well show me what makes you think that, Because the monetary fines certainly don't support that line of thought.

[delusions of grandeur]

You didn't answer my question,

 

I understand what you are saying. I am saying your logic is flawed. People ARE getting hurt from the illegal helmet-to-helmet hits... not maybe, not possibly and very seriously. Do you not think that gives the NFL a black eye? Yet they don't take it as seriously as undermining their authority? You think they do, well show me what makes you think that, Because the monetary fines certainly don't support that line of thought.

 

What was your question?

 

Suh and Harrison both got suspended for particularly egregious hits and actions, and it cost them big bucks. So no, I don't get how anyone can argu the NFL isn't as concerned about illegal hits. They're concerned about everything that's a black eye to their business, just like your employer would be... If you want me to say it's only about player safety in what is an inherently violent game, I'm just not gonna say that. Of course that's a component, they don't want players to be vegetables and want to protect their investments, but it has just as much to with them having to take a stance against it.

 

However, football players are paid to hit one another, and with most plays happening within less than a second, you can't just suspend and nail to the wall every player who happens to make helmet-to-helmet contact. It can absolutely be incidental (but even that is fined $21,000 however)... So they have a baseline for fines that can be higher for more egregious hits and repeat offenders. If Dunta has another illegal hit, he will likely be suspended. He's now been personally warned like the coaches were about the consequences.

 

It is absolutely laughable to say that the NFL doesn't take illegal hits seriously... However just the same as insubordination and law-breaking, it has to be egregious and/or repeated like Suh or Harrison before they just start dropping the hammer and making an example out of them.

[rajncajn]

What was your question?

 

Suh and Harrison both got suspended for particularly egregious hits and actions, and it cost them big bucks. So no, I don't get how anyone can argu the NFL isn't as concerned about illegal hits. They're concerned about everything that's a black eye to their business, just like your employer would be... If you want me to say it's only about player safety in what is an inherently violent game, I'm just not gonna say that. Of course that's a component, they don't want players to be vegetables and want to protect their investments, but it has just as much to with them having to take a stance against it.

 

However, football players are paid to hit one another, and with most plays happening within less than a second, you can't just suspend and nail to the wall every player who happens to make helmet-to-helmet contact. It can absolutely be incidental (but even that is fined $21,000 however)... So they have a baseline for fines that can be higher for more egregious hits and repeat offenders. If Dunta has another illegal hit, he will likely be suspended. He's now been personally warned like the coaches were about the consequences.

 

It is absolutely laughable to say that the NFL doesn't take illegal hits seriously... However just the same as insubordination and law-breaking, it has to be egregious and/or repeated like Suh or Harrison before they just start dropping the hammer and making an example out of them.

 

 

Robinson, infraction 1, penalty included, Highly dangerous & intentional hit that put a players life at risk. $25,000.

Del Rio, infraction 1, no penalty, just a bunch of yelling and probably a curse word or two, $25,000

 

Robinson, infraction 2, penalty included. Highly dangerous & intentional hit that put a players life at risk, $40,000.

Belichick, infraction ? (was there ever a first infraction?) no penalty, just a bunch of yelling and the grabbing of an arm, $50,000.

 

Now you tell me, based on that information, what is a more egregious offense to the NFL. Intentionally putting a player's quality of life at risk or threatening the leagues authority?

 

James Harrison was fined six times for a total of $125,000 with no suspensions over a two year period for illegal hits before finally being suspended for one game for his hit on McCoy. Before that last hit he averaged just under $21,000 per infraction. I don't want you to say it's more about player safety, I want you to recognize that the leagues actions suggest that they are more concerned with protecting their authority, their credibility & lining/protecting their pockets than they are with player safety.

 

I point to the disparity in fines, to the additional Thursday games, the push for an 18 game schedule, the allowing of replacement refs who shouldn't even be reffing the lingerie bowl much less an NFL game as evidence, all which support my position but you call it laughable. Why? Not because what I'm saying isn't true, differences in opinion can be had and can be debated. But because I'm a Saints fan and you think I am biased and laughable.

 

Does the NFL take illegal hits seriously? Yeah, of course they do, they have to. Otherwise they may as well write a check now to every single player out there with a law suit. But you better bet that if there were no law suits the league would not be nearly as concerned.

Edited September 27, 2012 by rajncajn

[delusions of grandeur]

Does the NFL take illegal hits seriously? Yeah, of course they do, they have to. Otherwise they may as well write a check now to every single player out there with a law suit. But you better bet that if there were no law suits the league would not be nearly as concerned.

I agree. Sorry to have wasted our time here.

[Square]

James Harrison was fined six times for a total of $125,000 with no suspensions over a two year period for illegal hits before finally being suspended for one game for his hit on McCoy. Before that last hit he averaged just under $21,000 per infraction. I don't want you to say it's more about player safety, I want you to recognize that the leagues actions suggest that they are more concerned with protecting their authority, their credibility & lining/protecting their pockets than they are with player safety.

To add, the NFL still allows chop blocks (intentionally diving at another players knee). I'd think knee problems have ended far more careers than concussion issues, but since there is little threat of a law suit, nothing changes.

[Azazello1313]

so, I am confused, is the league supposedly doing too much or too little with respect to head injuries, dirty hits, etc? because there appears to my eyes to be a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation going on here. people whine about how the league didn't/doesn't adequately warn players about the dangers, and they face lawsuits as a result that could conceivably jeopardize the future of the sport. then many of the very same people whine about whatever steps the league takes to try and alleviate the situation. their penalties are too harsh, they're overreacting to everyday stuff, making it a girl's game, and unfairly punishing MY team! their penalties aren't harsh enough, they don't give a chit about player safety! the only consistency is the whiny, antagonistic tone of victimhood.

 

putting hands on an official is another matter entirely, I have no idea why someone would think it's rational to somehow try and conflate the two in any meaningful way.

[acbvegas]

Gotta say one problem is that the commish and other officials HAVE NEVER PLAYED FOOTBALL in their lives!!!! You know how hard it is to not hit helmet to helmet when going 20 MPH towards another human being???? I think these huge fines are a bit excessive etc. I'm not opposed to blatant hits " out of bounds/roughing the passer etc but it's kinda getting out of control now. FOOTBALL IS A VOILENT SPORT!. Just get over it. They dont have to play it for a living same as you dont have to watch it. Dont like the direction the league is heading. My buddies that played Pro Ball dont even watch the NFL anymore

[Azazello1313]

Gotta say one problem is that the commish and other officials HAVE NEVER PLAYED FOOTBALL in their lives!!!! You know how hard it is to not hit helmet to helmet when going 20 MPH towards another human being???? I think these huge fines are a bit excessive etc. I'm not opposed to blatant hits " out of bounds/roughing the passer etc but it's kinda getting out of control now. FOOTBALL IS A VOILENT SPORT!. Just get over it. They dont have to play it for a living same as you dont have to watch it. Dont like the direction the league is heading. My buddies that played Pro Ball dont even watch the NFL anymore

 

 

I will say....you see WAY less leading with the crown of the helmet now than you did only a few years ago. so I do think these guys are able to adjust their play. the ones that frustrate me now, is when you see a severe but clean hit where a DB tries to separate the ball a WR in the act of catching and they throw a flag. saw one on ed reed either this week or last where he led with his shoulder into the guy's chest as the ball came in and he knocked him on his ass they flagged him. "defenseless receiver". everyone knew it was a penalty too, it wasn't like some lame out of the blue call by the replacement ref. what are they supposed to do, let the guy fair catch it and then try to tackle them?

[acbvegas]

I agree ya leading with the helmet is stupid not only for the guy getting hit but for the defender. Ya that one on Ed Reed was BOGUS. Oh so you are supposed tom let them catch itn them softly put them down! Ya right. Ya the defenseless receiver is crap. I agree with leading with the helmet but some stuff has gone to far IMO.

[rajncajn]

I will say....you see WAY less leading with the crown of the helmet now than you did only a few years ago. so I do think these guys are able to adjust their play. the ones that frustrate me now, is when you see a severe but clean hit where a DB tries to separate the ball a WR in the act of catching and they throw a flag. saw one on ed reed either this week or last where he led with his shoulder into the guy's chest as the ball came in and he knocked him on his ass they flagged him. "defenseless receiver". everyone knew it was a penalty too, it wasn't like some lame out of the blue call by the replacement ref. what are they supposed to do, let the guy fair catch it and then try to tackle them?

 

 

Actually, I don't think that should be a penalty. If I am correct, the NFL put out a video last year with examples of clean, legal hits and many of them were similar to the one that you are describing. I can't verify the video because I can't watch it from work, but I think this is it.

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d81b80962/Player-safety

[bostonsoxandy]

LOL way too much discussion over it. As far as ''the message" the league sends you were talking about and claiming I ignored, I believe the fine is the message they are sending, hence the whole idea of fining someone is that is is ALL about the money. Just because they aren't being crippled financially doesn't mean it's a legit punishment, and it hurts Mundy's wallet a heckuva lot more than Belichick or Del Rio even though he was fined somewhat less...stahp.

[flemingd]

No use speculating on Reed's hits, he's had a couple of blatantly illegal hits recently (Patriots game for sure), some called, some not, and I am recalling a few perfectly executed hits as well. Unless there's a link to a hit it's all conjecture.

[rajncajn]

LOL way too much discussion over it. As far as ''the message" the league sends you were talking about and claiming I ignored, I believe the fine is the message they are sending, hence the whole idea of fining someone is that is is ALL about the money. Just because they aren't being crippled financially doesn't mean it's a legit punishment, and it hurts Mundy's wallet a heckuva lot more than Belichick or Del Rio even though he was fined somewhat less...stahp.

 

It makes no difference how much the person makes. The fine should be equivalent to the infraction, not their pay. A cop doesn't give a rats ass if you're a millionaire or a pauper when he gives you a speeding ticket. The point of the matter is that the league doles out heftier fines for yelling at an official than they do for putting another player at risk. Ergo, in their eyes, it's a more serious offense.

 

If you get a speeding ticket, it's not going to cost more if you are only going 10 mph over the speed limit vs 50. If the league considers player safety a more important issue than sheltering their referees from the wrath of coaches, then the fines should be more for illegal hits or less for yelling at a ref.

 

Why do I have to explain this concept?

[Croe]

Just to chime in, 2 cents, and then let you all have at it again. I have an analogy for the situation that helps me with these difference in fines. Before that, the game is fast and you can not tell intent on some of these plays no matter what their body possitions are, where their hands are, and where their helmets end up fractions of seconds later. That being said I compare it as such, unintentional helmet to helmet = getting into a fight - charged with assault, fined, night in the slammer, slap on the wrist; grabbing a ref = laying hands on a police officer - charged with assault on a police officer, larger fine, jail time, felony.

[stevegrab]

It makes no difference how much the person makes. The fine should be equivalent to the infraction, not their pay. A cop doesn't give a rats ass if you're a millionaire or a pauper when he gives you a speeding ticket.

 

If you get a speeding ticket, it's not going to cost more if you are only going 10 mph over the speed limit vs 50.

 

 

What does it matter what the cop does with the ticket, he doesn't decide what fine you pay. When a judge or jury decides a case with fines, or damages being paid, the defendants ability to pay certainly plays a role. Some countries even levy fines based on what you make, a percentage of your salary. I think that is actually a good idea, becuase $100 means a lot the average person, not so much to people making 6-7 figure salaries.

 

And of course the fine isn't more for a lower infraction (the bolded above), but it is higher for a higher infraction ,or the charge can be more serious.

 

Just to chime in, 2 cents, and then let you all have at it again. I have an analogy for the situation that helps me with these difference in fines. Before that, the game is fast and you can not tell intent on some of these plays no matter what their body possitions are, where their hands are, and where their helmets end up fractions of seconds later. That being said I compare it as such, unintentional helmet to helmet = getting into a fight - charged with assault, fined, night in the slammer, slap on the wrist; grabbing a ref = laying hands on a police officer - charged with assault on a police officer, larger fine, jail time, felony.

 

 

That is a great analogy. The refs are the authority figure in the game. You mess with them and that is a serious infraction, whether you're a player coach, or whatever. Things that happen during the game (a hti that may be illegal, dangerous, etc.) are more a part of the game and not a snub to the authority of the game.

 

I wouldn't say the NFL cares more about their control than safety, but they are not going to let the refs be pushed around. And it was getting ridiculous during weeks 2-3 with the replacement refs.

[rajncajn]

Just to chime in, 2 cents, and then let you all have at it again. I have an analogy for the situation that helps me with these difference in fines. Before that, the game is fast and you can not tell intent on some of these plays no matter what their body possitions are, where their hands are, and where their helmets end up fractions of seconds later. That being said I compare it as such, unintentional helmet to helmet = getting into a fight - charged with assault, fined, night in the slammer, slap on the wrist; grabbing a ref = laying hands on a police officer - charged with assault on a police officer, larger fine, jail time, felony.

 

 

Finally, an actual decent debate... That's actually a very good analogy & may be what the league is thinking in terms of the fines themselves. I do know though, judging by some of the reaction in media circles, I don't think that is the impression it gives. Especially not to the players and also when it's combined with the additional factors I presented before.

[Croe]

I agree that the media blows things out of proportion, and the NFL definitely makes the wrong move when it comes to punishments and fines sometimes, but I don't think that's the case with OP's original example. Disregard the media bitchin about it, throw out what each individual's salaries are, and I think it boils down to authority vs part of the game. Belichik went above and beyond out of his way to chase an official down and grab him, because of a call he thought was wrong? Regardless of him being wrong or right, if we had every coach undermining the refs authority whenever they felt like the call was wrong then we'd have the most disorganized sport in the history of sports. Mundy, on the other hand, the more I watch the video, the more I see that the intent was not there, its part of the game. Mundy took a calculated risk to go after Heward-Bey in the endzone to try and knock the ball loose, he misaligned him self and ended up hitting his head - he didn't leave his feet and he clearly put his hands in front of him on Bey's chest first and then his helmet hit Bey's chin. It's not like he was head hunting and t-ed off to his face mask or side of his helmet. If his helmet was half an inch lower, he would have nailed Bey straight in his chest-plate. But yes, he deserves the fine, he hit him in the head.

[delusions of grandeur]

Finally, an actual decent debate.

 

We humor you for 2 pages of you screaming double standard after you call us hypocritical Dbags, and now you're going to act like you want objective debate?

 

Rajn, I like and respect you as an opposing fan, I really do, but I'm just gonna have to ignore you until you get over this Goodell/Saints thing. You can't even be reasoned with anymore when you get set on some perceived unfairness. There's no double standard here. Listen to Croe if you don't want to listen to me or Az's hypocritcal Dbag asses.

 

Peace.