Jump to content

Dunta deserved his fine


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As should every player in the league who attempts to make a "tackle" like he did Sunday. I can't begin to tell you how sick and tired I am of hearing "this is a man's game" or "let's just put flags on them" or "let's get this over with and put them in dresses".

Apparently I'm in the vast minority in the sense that I don't need to make up for my own masculine insecurities by supporting the needless violence for which so many of you seem to be a fan, which is really unfortunate.

and you deserve the stupid award!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with TTU but I sure don't get all the venom directed towards him.

He presented his side of the argument in a clear and rational manner.

Dayum, Some of you are acting like he's JiggaDonkey'sAzz running up your stolen credit card.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you TTU. Lets leave your opinion to the experts. Everyone and I mean everyone thats a professional said that the hit is legal. L E G A L. Here are 2 links that you should probably look at before you make asinine and ridiculously long blog comments. please be real. I don't know what football you are viewing but the hit was legal my dude.

Let's see what the experts have to say:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/09000d5d81b75bc6/Playbook-Were-some-hits-legal?module=HP_video

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d81b76571/Are-illegal-hits-handled-correctly

I would love to hear your opinion after you view these videos,

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with TTU but I sure don't get all the venom directed towards him.

He presented his side of the argument in a clear and rational manner.

Dayum, Some of you are acting like he's JiggaDonkey'sAzz running up your stolen credit card.

Dude, he said Dunta deserved a fine. He did not. The poster could have posted all the rest without mentioning dunta deserving a fine. Dunta did the best job possible in his position according to the rules of the game. He did exactly what he was trained to do. That's my beef anyway.

Other than that, my wife is in a mood and i'm just choosing to vent here rather than escalate crap within the home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely believe that Robinson's hit violated the 2010 NFL rule on defenseless receivers.

The ball was in his hands, he had possession until the hit knocked the ball out. That's fundamental football. I don't know what else he could've done. Maybe...

Obviously Dunta was in the wrong. He should have stopped, let DJax catch the ball, then politely asked DJax if he may gently tackle him at that time. If DJax agreed, Dunta should have fluffed up a nice pillow and gently layed DJax on it. Then afterwards put a cozy blanket on DJax and give him his favorite Teddy Bear. Then he would have only been fined $1k for not fluffing the pillow properly

...because it might as well be. If you can't hit the guy with the ball you're no longer playing tackle football. You should just put on the flags and call it a day.

Or go back to leather helmets, or no helmets at all! I bet head injuries would actually go down, nobody would be near as brave!

If you think about the physics of it, the main contributor to the violent nature of the hits is the velocity of the players. So how about a new rule where the players just aren't allowed to run so fast. You could eliminate all of this if they were only allowed to walk!

I would actually respect the NFL more if they had chosen one of these absurdities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or fining coaches for sending their fast little girls across the middle in the first place. The middle of the field is where the men play.

A man should be defined by the content of his character and the effort he puts forth in taking care of his family, NOT by his willingness to hit or be hit on a football field. If your definition of a man is simply "is he willing to make crossing routes?", then you most likely have a father that did a pretty poor job raising you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A man should be defined by the content of his character and the effort he puts forth in taking care of his family, NOT by his willingness to hit or be hit on a football field. If your definition of a man is simply "is he willing to make crossing routes?", then you most likely have a father that did a pretty poor job raising you.

While I can't find a reason to agree with your opinions, I think we can all agree that any post with a rear shot of Inez has to get some points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the mentality of protecting players. However, for those who have ever actually played football, you've been there, and further, realized shortly after the first couple of sentences of the original poster that he has not. Sure, as a youth, you are taught how to tackle properly, but first and foremost, you are taught that speed, guts, and power are the most important things in being good at the game. Never, does a youth coach preach about the importance of formations and gap control. Right or wrong, it is the sport of football that we all grew up with.

Besides, why change the rules now? Wouldn't that be unfair to all those that gave up on football early on because of the insanity required to pursue the game as a career?

I wonder if any of the players in the NFL would give up a portion of their paycheck in order to insure safety to their fellow players. I'm guessing not one.

You're wrong; I played a year of Varsity football at Riverwood High School in Atlanta before moving to Dallas and playing two years of Varsity football at Plano West Senior High School before enrolling at the University of Alabama on a tennis scholarship. For the former, I have a titanium rod through my right femur, a still broken nose, a broken arm, and a facial degloving (google that). I assure you, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest solution to all of this is so obvious; it's amazing no one brings it up.

The dimensions of the field need to be changed; football players are bigger, faster, stronger, more agile, jump higher, etc than they ever have, yet they're playing on a field whose dimensions were determined when the players were half the size they are now.

What most of you don't seem to get is that if things don't change, Congress/government will step in and make things change; it doesn't matter if people are willing to do it or not, if it becomes too dangerous, the game will be legislated.

There's nothing written anywhere that says football has to be around forever; if the incentive for becoming as big and fast as players are now, injuries are going to continue like this and the league will be forced to change.

The easiest solution to all of this is so obvious; it's amazing no one brings it up.

The dimensions of the field need to be changed; football players are bigger, faster, stronger, more agile, jump higher, etc than they ever have, yet they're playing on a field whose dimensions were determined when the players were half the size they are now.

What most of you don't seem to get is that if things don't change, Congress/government will step in and make things change; it doesn't matter if people are willing to do it or not, if it becomes too dangerous, the game will be legislated.

There's nothing written anywhere that says football has to be around forever; if the incentive for becoming as big and fast as players are now, injuries are going to continue like this and the league will be forced to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you serious? You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, not to mention you contradicted yourself in your little speech. Dunta Robinson did what he was supposed to do, he tackled Desean Jackson. In the process they BOTH got hurt but in no way intentionally. I'm pretty sure that if Robinson was purposely trying to hurt Jackson he wouldn't have gotten himself a concussion. If you watch the footage over again which I think you should do because you obviously aren't watching what everyone else is, Dunta let with his shoulders into Jackson's shoulders, which the last time I checked was legal.

And as for your "definition" of a tackle, if you refer back to the film , please tell me when Robinson "jumped on" Jackson, because what I saw was Robinson lower/lead with his shoulder into his opponent. So before you want to make an argument on something you should review all the facts.

The fact that the players got hurt is unfortunate, but it happens, it is a sport and as much as people don't want it to happen, players do get hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he was trying to be dirty and I don't necessarily agree with the rule but it does state...

"Although initial helmet-to-helmet contact with a defenseless receiver was already prohibited, the re-written rule passed today expands prohibited initial contact to include the forearm or shoulder in the head or neck area in addition to the helmet."

...he definitely was in the shoulder neck area

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robinson's tackle/hit was clean. It was a vicious collision because there were 2 very fast atheletes at full speed running toward each other when the hit occured. At the speeds these players were moving at the point of impact it would not require helmet to helmet contact to knock someone out. Has no one ever been in a car wreck while wearing a seat belt and end up unconcious, if only for a few minutes. Even though no contact was made to the head. The sudden stop literally causes the brain to bounce off the inside of your skull knocking you unconcious. If this rule stands and players begin to be suspended for playing full speed and making clean but powerful hits like Dunta, then this will be remembered as the moment the NFL "jumped the shark".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he was trying to be dirty and I don't necessarily agree with the rule but it does state...

"Although initial helmet-to-helmet contact with a defenseless receiver was already prohibited, the re-written rule passed today expands prohibited initial contact to include the forearm or shoulder in the head or neck area in addition to the helmet."

...he definitely was in the shoulder neck area

Nope.

led with shoulder to the stomach/chest

No fine or anything is needed. goodell needs to DIAF quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from another forum

Nope.

led with shoulder to the stomach/chest

No fine or anything is needed. goodell needs to DIAF quickly.

Here's a bit more from the league' date=' in an unofficial statement:

[i']Ray Anderson, the NFL’s vice president of football operations, was just on ESPN Radio’s "Mike & Mike" show and said that Falcons cornerback Dunta Robinson’s hit on Eagles wide receiver DeSean Jackson definitely was illegal under the rules protecting a defenseless receiver.

"Technically, by the rules, even if you initiate contact below the neck, but you get up into a players head and neck area for a defenseless receiver, technically under that rule, that was a violation," Anderson said. "That’s why it was called (a penalty). And it will be subject to discipline."

The league expanded the definition of a "defenseless receiver" in March. If a receiver has caught the ball, but hasn’t had time to protect himself, he can’t be hit in the head or neck area.

"Yes, it was a bang-bang play," Anderson said. "You can make the argument that it was different from the others (hits on Sunday).

But at the end of the day, it was still illegal under the current rules. And we have to be very vigorous about enforcing and protecting our players against hits like this."

Never mind that the 'defenseless receiver' status has been debunked - at what point did Dunta get up into Jackson's head and neck area? The film shows Jackson's head and helmet coming down as a result of the hit (creating some helmet-to-helmet contact), but Dunta's helmet never rises above the level of Jackson's shoulder pads.

This is exactly why I figured he'd be fined because by the letter of the law he did get into the shoulder/neck area

Robinson.jpg

He'll lose his appeal, I think

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple questions for you Mr. David TTU..... how do you avoid THAT hit?? Meriweather and Harrison's hits CAN be disciplined by suspensions, and maybe the league is doing the right thing by suspending players for THOSE types of hits, but how do you eliminate a collision where a ball is up for grabs and a defensive and offensive player are both going for the ball?? Are you suggesting that one should back off and allow the other to catch it and possibly score?? Or maybe they should both just stop running and let it drop so when their coach's chew them out, they can say, "player safety coach". Perhaps the QB should no longer throw the ball over the middle and in in Kolb's case, just take the sack when he flushed from the pocket by Babineau and Bierman. Maybe QB's should not be allowed to play until they FULLY understand how defenses work.

We all know NONE of these things will happen, so again, how do you eliminate THIS particular hit and why is it a deserved fine when the rule itself is so vague??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well played by the OP! ;) I disagree on nearly every point. However, a good writer seeks to stir up controversy and this was definitely acheived with this post. Even the analysts that used to play have said this was a knee-jerk reactionary call and that is isn't even in the same neighborhood as the other two players that were fined for lunging and launching at the head of another player. Shoulder to the sternum? Split second? Feet on the ground? Illegal? PLEASE!

Edited by ol'_dirty2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I played MLB in high school, and while I cannot speak for anyone else on the board about their experiences. When I was TAUGHT to TACKLE is was shoulder to chest. Your JOB is to dislodge the ball from the receiver. Now while your "true" tackle argument does have some validity, in this instance it is not valid. On a split second play like that you have a fraction of a second to react. The Falcons were in zone, which means the middle of the field is usually open for short passes. But that also means that when you go over the middle and you get the ball, either a CB or a Safety will be waiting for you. Daunta did NOT put a dirty hit on Jackson. It was clean but very violent. I agree with most of the posters on here, if Daunta goes in for a “tackle”, Jackson more than likely breaks away. If it was such a dirty hit, why did both players ask each other if they were okay? Why didn’t the Eagles players get upset? WHY DID THE FANS CHEER BOTH PLAYERS WHEN THEY GOT UP? Eagles fans are some of the most notorious fans for loving when someone gets injured (remember Irving’s career ender, they CHEERED). So I will make a deal with you. You stop watching this violent sport. And go watch the Atlanta pillow tops against the Philly flower pots in the NFFL (National Flag Football League), and leave the real sports to us.

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...