Jump to content

The Hit Last Year By Dunta Not A Foul...per Mike Pereira


The Peregrine
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://msn.foxsports...-analyst-091911

At the 1:10 mark, Bernie asks Mike why Dunta wasn't suspended. He stated 'because he shouldn't have. The hit last year was not a foul.' He goes on to say that the league extended the protection of the wide receiver to include the period of time after the catch is made until he has time to protect himself.'

I still think that Maclin had time to protect himself as he 'braced' for the impact. He could have even made a 'football move' as we took a couple of steps. So all the media and fans crying about Dunta being a dirty player can kill it. We most certainly can use this for reference. That is ALL I am hearing about since the moment it happened and when Vick got hurt. Everyone is saying that we are a dirty team.

First it was our O-line was dirty, now the dirty hits and taking cheap shots. I don't think it was a cheap shot, just a KILL shot. Every defensive player in the league wishes for an opportunity like that (I would think).

Edited by The Peregrine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

' He goes on to say that the league extended the protection of the wide receiver to include the period of time after the catch is made until he has time to protect himself.'

Which is the biggest load of sheet Goodwell has dropped on us to date ..he wants to turn the game into an aerial circus for god's sake .........just go ahead and make the rule he wants ." after the receiver has caught the ball and is safely in the end zone, he is no longer defenseless " ....... :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your headline is a little misleading. It suggest he is talking about last year's play. He is saying that the Dunta hit from this week would not have been a foul last year.

The only part I disagree with him on is that it shouldn't be a foul this year either. Maclin had time to protect himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your headline is a little misleading. It suggest he is talking about last year's play. He is saying that the Dunta hit from this week would not have been a foul last year.

The only part I disagree with him on is that it shouldn't be a foul this year either. Maclin had time to protect himself.

How is it misleading? He was talking about the hit this year and referred to the hit last year not being a foul. If he is saying that the Dunta hit from this week would not have been a foul last year, in essence, he is saying that the hit last year was not a foul. The hit last year would be a foul this year. But all in all, last year it was not. In the headline, I just stated that Mike said the hit last year by Dunta was not a foul. Don't mean to confuse or mislead. Lord knows how this board can get in an uproar over misleading titles.

Edited by The Peregrine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comment From Zander Is it against the rules for Rob Ryan to have a Playboy centerfold on his play chart during the game? Someone took a shot of it. [Mike Pereira] I liked Rob Ryan before hearing this. I really like him now. I don't think any rule covers this.
I noticed this too. If this is really the case and not a photoshop of the center fold, this is HILARIOUS. He will become my favorite coordinator. I can relate to a guy like that. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it misleading? He was talking about the hit this year and referred to the hit last year not being a foul. If he is saying that the Dunta hit from this week would not have been a foul last year, in essence, he is saying that the hit last year was not a foul. The hit last year would be a foul this year. But all in all, last year it was not. In the headline, I just stated that Mike said the hit last year by Dunta was not a foul. Don't mean to confuse or mislead. Lord knows how this board can get in an uproar over misleading titles.

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it misleading? He was talking about the hit this year and referred to the hit last year not being a foul. If he is saying that the Dunta hit from this week would not have been a foul last year, in essence, he is saying that the hit last year was not a foul. The hit last year would be a foul this year. But all in all, last year it was not. In the headline, I just stated that Mike said the hit last year by Dunta was not a foul. Don't mean to confuse or mislead. Lord knows how this board can get in an uproar over misleading titles.

You are a little confused. He isn't referencing last year's hit at all.

He is saying the hit from this Sunday night would not have been a foul under last year's rules, but that it is under the new rule changes. He isn't talking about last the hit that Dunta made on DeSean at any point in the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunta does light people up at times. I don't think he is trying to be intentionally dirty it just happens. I hate hits like that, it's poor tackling he could jack him up just as easily making a proper tackle but don't think for a second once a team sees that it can get into some WR's heads. Especially when they are running a route in traffic. Doesn't know up in the stat sheet per say but it does have some sort of influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the two plays are way different. DeSean got one stop before he was blasted, he truly was defenseless. Maclin took four steps had time to protect himself. The two plays really aren't similiar except for the fact that Dunta threw his shoulder in there but also made some contact with the helmet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defensless receiver is a myth. They have pads, a helmet, and the ability to protect themselves by not going for a pass that is going to get their head knocked off. If the WR decides to go after the ball, and the defender hits them after the ball has arrived, then that should be a legal hit. Are we going to say punt returners now get to take 2 steps and make a football move before the coverage unit is allowed to hit them too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defensless receiver is a myth. They have pads, a helmet, and the ability to protect themselves by not going for a pass that is going to get their head knocked off. If the WR decides to go after the ball, and the defender hits them after the ball has arrived, then that should be a legal hit. Are we going to say punt returners now get to take 2 steps and make a football move before the coverage unit is allowed to hit them too?

I hear ya, but the NFL doesn't agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunta does light people up at times. I don't think he is trying to be intentionally dirty it just happens. I hate hits like that, it's poor tackling he could jack him up just as easily making a proper tackle but don't think for a second once a team sees that it can get into some WR's heads. Especially when they are running a route in traffic. Doesn't know up in the stat sheet per say but it does have some sort of influence.

You hate it...I LOVE it!! I look forward to seeing hits like that. **Sigh** How I miss the weekly segments of Jacked Up!

I also disagree that it is poor tackling. It is forceful tackling. But you have to make sure you come with enough power/force to actually knock the runner down (reference Sean Weatherspoon and Matt Forte).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really care if everyone is saying we're a dirty team....we play hard, through the whistle. The Ravens and Steelers do the exact same thing and get praised for it. The difference between "dirty" and "smashmouth" is the ability to stop the opposing offense. If we were holding teams to 3 points and 189 total yards, no one would call us dirty...we'd be dominant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a little confused. He isn't referencing last year's hit at all.

He is saying the hit from this Sunday night would not have been a foul under last year's rules, but that it is under the new rule changes. He isn't talking about last the hit that Dunta made on DeSean at any point in the conversation.

I'll just agree to disagree. I still disagree. :P

Edited by The Peregrine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defensless receiver is a myth. They have pads, a helmet, and the ability to protect themselves by not going for a pass that is going to get their head knocked off. If the WR decides to go after the ball, and the defender hits them after the ball has arrived, then that should be a legal hit. Are we going to say punt returners now get to take 2 steps and make a football move before the coverage unit is allowed to hit them too?

This is my thinking as well. If you touch it, you get hit. It is on the QB to not set his receivers up for a big hit. Don't throw it, don't catch it, you better get gator arms real quick or else...you might hear Ray Lewis ask that question, 'You hear the footsteps coming?'

Edited by The Peregrine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your headline is a little misleading. It suggest he is talking about last year's play. He is saying that the Dunta hit from this week would not have been a foul last year. The only part I disagree with him on is that it shouldn't be a foul this year either. Maclin had time to protect himself.

Yup, and that's why the league will reduce or get rid of the fine after Dunta appeals.

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

×
×
  • Create New...