Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Gronk down... again.


darin3
 Share

Recommended Posts

I tend to regard injury-prone players as guys who are always out with some sort of pull or strain, or have a body part (knee, shoulder, ankle, hammy) that just is always bothering them.

 

 

This, a current player that comes to mind is Miles Austin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, this is true. Defensive players (former and active) have been warning of this all year

 

While it sucks to have your knee taken out it is the lesser of two evils...it's absolutely sad the shape that many former players are in due to concussions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it sucks to have your knee taken out it is the lesser of two evils...it's absolutely sad the shape that many former players are in due to concussions.

 

I just think there is a clear line between a guy launching himself and leading with the crown of his helmet and this bullshit they are calling now where any contact to the helmet is a penalty. Even when players duck, are shorter than the defender, or it might've been somewhere in the vicinity of the helmet it's still called. It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

At some point, it's football, and you knew the risk that you might get contact to the head . . . that's why you're wearing a fucking helmet. If you don't want to take the risk that you might get some contact to the head, do something else with your life.

Edited by CaptainHook
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think there is a clear line between a guy launching himself and leading with the crown of his helmet and this bullshit they are calling now where any contact to the helmet is a penalty. Even when players duck, are shorter than the defender, or it might've been somewhere in the vicinity of the helmet it's still called. It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

At some point, it's football, and you knew the risk that you might get contact to the head . . . that's why you're wearing a fucking helmet. If you don't want to take the risk that you might get some contact to the head, do something else with your life.

 

OR if you don't want to play under the rules as they are now go do something else or watch another sport...it's really that easy, we all have choices....but it is what it is with the rules and the reason$ for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But some of these penalties are completely unavoidable or even worse, they LOOK like there might have been helmet contact, but replays show there was NONE. Yet they can impose a 15 yard penalty with no review? These are game changing penalties.

 

The NBA reviews if fouls are flagrant or not . . . but the NFL can't look at these game altering plays and get them right?

 

Then again, if you saw what that ass hat Jeff Triplett did today on a review, you'd realize they'll still fuck it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But some of these penalties are completely unavoidable or even worse, they LOOK like there might have been helmet contact, but replays show there was NONE. Yet they can impose a 15 yard penalty with no review? These are game changing penalties.

 

The NBA reviews if fouls are flagrant or not . . . but the NFL can't look at these game altering plays and get them right?

 

Then again, if you saw what that ass hat Jeff Triplett did today on a review, you'd realize they'll still fuck it up.

 

Officials F stuff up all the time...hate to say it but it's part of the game...would I like to see some that aren't reviewable be so? Sure, but as long as officials are human there will be errors in officiating...just like there always has been Edited by keggerz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see why it can't be fixed, i.e. reviewed, when the technology is readily available. Why have review at all according to your logic?

 

They've continually adapted and implemented things, and I see that continuing. Especially as technology advances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But some of these penalties are completely unavoidable or even worse, they LOOK like there might have been helmet contact, but replays show there was NONE. Yet they can impose a 15 yard penalty with no review? These are game changing penalties.

 

The NBA reviews if fouls are flagrant or not . . . but the NFL can't look at these game altering plays and get them right?

 

Then again, if you saw what that ass hat Jeff Triplett did today on a review, you'd realize they'll still fuck it up.

 

Didnt he screw up hugh previously, too? Was he the one with the coin flip snafu?

 

ETA: nevermind. That was someone else. Luckett?

Edited by Delicious_bass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's just semantics. But for non-fantasy purposes, I hate so see a guy who just has buzzard's luck get tarred with the "injury prone" brush.

 

I'm not familiar with their injury issues but both Bradford and Locker were being described in that way by Mike Mayock on a reacent TNF game. He was saying they cannot stay healthy and their teams need to find a starting QB that can. He didn't use the injury prone term, but made it sound like recent injuries and games missed mean is it likely in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But some of these penalties are completely unavoidable or even worse, they LOOK like there might have been helmet contact, but replays show there was NONE. Yet they can impose a 15 yard penalty with no review? These are game changing penalties.

 

The NBA reviews if fouls are flagrant or not . . . but the NFL can't look at these game altering plays and get them right?

 

Then again, if you saw what that ass hat Jeff Triplett did today on a review, you'd realize they'll still fuck it up.

 

15 yard penalties, spot foul for PI are called all the time in games, with just as severe or worse circumstances, and could be argued as being just as inconsistent. Should they be reviewable as well?

 

There was a blow the head called in NE-HOU last week that seemed ridiculous as the player had no intent to hit Brady, but made contact as another defender drove Brady backwards. Total BS call in many ways, but do we have review and overturn based on intent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information