PDA

View Full Version : Vikings' Winfield fined $17,500



AngloVike
12-23-2010, 10:31 PM
Vikings' Winfield fined $17,500 total for hit, uniform infraction




Webb said the uniform infraction apparently involved the height of Winfield's socks.

yeh gods have the league nothing better to worry about than the height of a players socks???? :ohmy:

Best get that included in the CBA Goodell... can't have the integrity of the league dragged down by someone's socks..:huh:

vikinggreg
12-24-2010, 01:31 AM
It was 7500 for the hit on Cutlers chin and 10000 for the socks, he's appealling the hit fine.

So it appears player safety in #2 and uniform marketing is #1.

Not that the hit to Culter chin was a huge hit but socks is 10k. Bernard Berrian's shoe fine was 5K and they even caught the eye of the commentors and fans....who the hell looks at sock height?

Winfield was fined 10000 for his celebration of a touchdown (drew a flag) on Monday night against the Saint Oct 2008, that's when he slid down the goalpost like a firemen, Greenway got a 7500 fine for a facemask that wasn't flagged and Ferguson was fined 5000 unnecessary-roughness call on a punt return in that same game.

Just not sure how socks and celebrations rate more than illegal hits.

Minniman
12-24-2010, 07:15 AM
I understand that the rules must be applied evenly, even if they are stupid rules, but these fines are getting out of hand.

The NFL needs a real commissioner again. This guy is a shill for the owners, and he does not have the best interest of the game in mind when making decisions.

Culpepper_4717
12-24-2010, 07:34 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2010-12/58381391.jpg

I have no idea why that is worth a 10K fine.

Tad7
12-24-2010, 03:16 PM
Players must wear a long, solid-color undersock that stretches to the knee - no leg skin may show - and then a white sock over it to the calf.
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/10/nfls-uniform-police-are-relentless


I wonder if Winfield has done it before since he's fined 5K more than the guy in that article.

vikinggreg
12-24-2010, 03:26 PM
Players must wear a long, solid-color undersock that stretches to the knee - no leg skin may show - and then a white sock over it to the calf.
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/10/nfls-uniform-police-are-relentless


I wonder if Winfield has done it before since he's fined 5K more than the guy in that article.

Looks like he was fined for his socks in Dec 2007 game against the niners, this fine was also 10K for his Christmas stockings being too long :whistle:

LINK (http://www.uniformviolation.com/ViolationDetails-NFL.php?vid=53&ln=Winfield)

Purple Floyd
12-24-2010, 07:32 PM
Winfield should appeal the fine for the socks and claim that the socks are the right height but he just has really short knees.

Mr Anderson
12-27-2010, 10:01 PM
I don't like the fine on the hit. He was trying not to hit Cutler and pulled up. It was bad luck and an accident. I don't think it should be a fine-able offense.

Infidel
12-28-2010, 01:20 AM
I don't like the fine on the hit. He was trying not to hit Cutler and pulled up. It was bad luck and an accident. I don't think it should be a fine-able offense.

Oh, sure.....he just forgot he had that big thing on his head? Or he forgot where his helmet was?

He didn't notice that it was gonna hit Cutler in the face?

Of course...he couldn't have moved his head to either side of Cutler's helmet?

LOL!

Cutler was still wearing the bandage a week later.

Winfield had a gigantic grin on his face as he walked away from Cutler.

He knew exactly what he did and he was hoping to get away with it.

Mr Anderson
12-28-2010, 02:17 AM
Cutler wearing a bandage for a week is somehow evidence of Winfield intentionally hitting him helmet to helmet?

Winfield pulled up and stopped, he was on a blitz, coming full speed on a frozen field, it's not that easy to stop in your tracks. If he didn't pull up, Cutler would have been concussed, and could have broken his jaw. Look at the play again, Winfield clearly stops himself from finishing the hit, and wraps up Cutler to stop himself.

I think it was an unfortunate coincidence, but nothing like the hits we've seen from guys like James Harrison or Brandon Meriweather this season, and wasn't worthy of a fine, but I guess that's why it was a relatively small fine.

Infidel
12-28-2010, 03:07 AM
I know all that. I knew it when it happened.

You can't let people get away with that kind of crap.

The fine was appropriate.

Marrdro
12-28-2010, 02:45 PM
Who really cares? It isn't my money.

Infidel
12-28-2010, 06:02 PM
It isn't my money, but as a citizen and sports fan, I have to care.

Fines for such offenses must increase and in some instances, criminal charges must be applied as the law allows.

It has been done in hockey and if the helmet is used as a weapon it should also be done in football.


The court found McSorley guilty of assault with a weapon, observing, "Every time a player uses a stick to apply force to another player, the stick is being used as a weapon and not to direct the puck as it was designed to do."

Although the judge found McSorley was aiming for the head, he considered whether a slash targetting the shoulder would have been a crime. He cited the 1991 Supreme Court decision of R. v. Jobidon, where a majority held that adults cannot consent to the intentional application of force causing serious hurt to each other in a fist fight or brawl.

In rough sports, the Supreme Court stated, players impliedly consent to intentional applications of force that are within the customary norms and rules of the game. But they cannot validly consent to serious violence that clearly extends beyond the ordinary norms of conduct. Implied consent covers only applications of force that cause minor bodily harm

Marrdro
12-28-2010, 06:06 PM
It isn't my money, but as a citizen and sports fan, I have to care.

Fines for such offenses must increase and in some instances, criminal charges must be applied as the law allows.

It has been done in hockey and if the helmet is used as a weapon it should also be done in football.


The court found McSorley guilty of assault with a weapon, observing, "Every time a player uses a stick to apply force to another player, the stick is being used as a weapon and not to direct the puck as it was designed to do."

Although the judge found McSorley was aiming for the head, he considered whether a slash targetting the shoulder would have been a crime. He cited the 1991 Supreme Court decision of R. v. Jobidon, where a majority held that adults cannot consent to the intentional application of force causing serious hurt to each other in a fist fight or brawl.

In rough sports, the Supreme Court stated, players impliedly consent to intentional applications of force that are within the customary norms and rules of the game. But they cannot validly consent to serious violence that clearly extends beyond the ordinary norms of conduct. Implied consent covers only applications of force that cause minor bodily harm
Are you seriously going to try and tell me that what McSorley did and what Whinny did are one in the same?

If so, get your popcorn, this is gonna be fun.

Infidel
12-28-2010, 06:17 PM
Did you miss this?


The fine was appropriate.

Winfield's hit on Cutler was clearly intentional.

All he had to do was move his head to either side to slip past Cutler's chin......instead he gave him the helmet squarely on the chin.

Intentional, although the force was restrained enough to only put a wound on the chin. It was intimidation and it did physical harm--using the helmet as a weapon.

But some hits I saw this season were hits where the helmet was used as a weapon to inflict GREAT harm.

Fines must increase by 10X or so for hits that inflict great harm using the helmet as a weapon and criminal charges are an option that may become necessary.

singersp
12-28-2010, 06:17 PM
It isn't my money, but as a citizen and sports fan, I have to care.

Fines for such offenses must increase and in some instances, criminal charges must be applied as the law allows.

It has been done in hockey and if the helmet is used as a weapon it should also be done in football.


The court found McSorley guilty of assault with a weapon, observing, "Every time a player uses a stick to apply force to another player, the stick is being used as a weapon and not to direct the puck as it was designed to do."

Although the judge found McSorley was aiming for the head, he considered whether a slash targetting the shoulder would have been a crime. He cited the 1991 Supreme Court decision of R. v. Jobidon, where a majority held that adults cannot consent to the intentional application of force causing serious hurt to each other in a fist fight or brawl.

In rough sports, the Supreme Court stated, players impliedly consent to intentional applications of force that are within the customary norms and rules of the game. But they cannot validly consent to serious violence that clearly extends beyond the ordinary norms of conduct. Implied consent covers only applications of force that cause minor bodily harm
Are you seriously going to try and tell me that what McSorley did and what Whinny did are one in the same?

If so, get your popcorn, this is gonna be fun.

+1

There's a big difference between flagrant hits & unintentional & incidental hits.

Unfortunately, the personnel issuing the fines, the referees & apparently Infidel still can't tell the difference.

All that matters to Goodell is that he lines his greedy large pockets with more & more cash. None of which, to my knowledge, goes to player compensation for debilitating injuries suffered on the field.

The player getting heavily fined when his hand incidentally brushed across Mannings helmet during a play was the epitome of stupid fines.

In today's "Goodell" football, EJ (I think it was EJ) would have been fined $25,000 for the time his shoelace made contact with Favre when he was a Packer. I still can't believe we were penalized 15 yards for that.

singersp
12-28-2010, 06:44 PM
Did you miss this?


The fine was appropriate.

Winfield's hit on Cutler was clearly intentional.

All he had to do was move his head to either side to slip past Cutler's chin......instead he gave him the helmet squarely on the chin.

Intentional, although the force was restrained enough to only put a wound on the chin. It was intimidation and it did physical harm--using the helmet as a weapon.

But some hits I saw this season were hits where the helmet was used as a weapon to inflict GREAT harm.

Fines must increase by 10X or so for hits that inflict great harm using the helmet as a weapon and criminal charges are an option that may become necessary.

Problem is, people are getting fined that shouldn't be due to interpretation of the rules.

10x are you serious? NO player is going to stand for a huge portion of his salary going to fines because a referees wrongly make judgment calls.

I disagree that Winfield's hit was intentional.

Case in point. A QB gets hit from behind & as he falls forward to the ground, he comes in contact with a players helmet who was coming in legally to tackle him. By definition of the rule, that player gets fined. If the QB's helmet comes in contact with the players, that player gets fined even more.

What has to happen is each & every fine needs to be reviewed by the NFL.

Not by referees, who never played the game, but by former players at those positions who can unbiasedly judge not only whether it was flagrant, unintentional or incidental, but put a severity grade to the flagrant ones. Then fines can be issued accordingly.

The fines should be based on a percentage of their income. You have DT's making as little as $310,000 a year. A $10,000 fine hurts them a lot worse than it will hurt someone like Peppers, who made $16.5 mil last year.

Problem even with that is, a $10,000 fine to one of those players would be equivalent to a $0.5 mil fine to Peppers for the same hit.

Marrdro
12-28-2010, 06:46 PM
It isn't my money, but as a citizen and sports fan, I have to care.

Fines for such offenses must increase and in some instances, criminal charges must be applied as the law allows.

It has been done in hockey and if the helmet is used as a weapon it should also be done in football.


The court found McSorley guilty of assault with a weapon, observing, "Every time a player uses a stick to apply force to another player, the stick is being used as a weapon and not to direct the puck as it was designed to do."

Although the judge found McSorley was aiming for the head, he considered whether a slash targetting the shoulder would have been a crime. He cited the 1991 Supreme Court decision of R. v. Jobidon, where a majority held that adults cannot consent to the intentional application of force causing serious hurt to each other in a fist fight or brawl.

In rough sports, the Supreme Court stated, players impliedly consent to intentional applications of force that are within the customary norms and rules of the game. But they cannot validly consent to serious violence that clearly extends beyond the ordinary norms of conduct. Implied consent covers only applications of force that cause minor bodily harm
Are you seriously going to try and tell me that what McSorley did and what Whinny did are one in the same?

If so, get your popcorn, this is gonna be fun.

+1

There's a big difference between flagrant hits & unintentional & incidental hits.

Unfortunately, the personnel issuing the fines, the referees & apparently Infidel still can't tell the difference.

All that matters to Goodell is that he lines his greedy large pockets with more & more cash. None of which, to my knowledge, goes to player compensation for debilitating injuries suffered on the field.

The player getting heavily fined when his hand incidentally brushed across Mannings helmet during a play was the epitome of stupid fines.

In today's "Goodell" football, EJ (I think it was EJ) would have been fined $25,000 for the time his shoelace made contact with Favre when he was a Packer. I still can't believe we were penalized 15 yards for that.
I don't think it goes to Goodell either. I think it was NP or someone smart like that who found out it all goes to charities.

Infidel
12-28-2010, 06:56 PM
10x are you serious? NO player is going to stand for a huge portion of his salary going to fines because a referees wrongly make judgment calls.

Maybe he'd rather go to prison.


What has to happen is each & every fine needs to be reviewed by the NFL.

Not by referees, who never played the game, but by former players at those positions who can unbiasedly judge not only whether it was flagrant, unintentional or incidental, but put a severity grade to the flagrant ones. Then fines can be issued accordingly.

Or, if the NFL can't put a stop to it, the hits will be reviewed by supreme court judges.

They can always confer with Alan Page, I suppose.

:D

singersp
12-28-2010, 07:00 PM
It isn't my money, but as a citizen and sports fan, I have to care.

Fines for such offenses must increase and in some instances, criminal charges must be applied as the law allows.

It has been done in hockey and if the helmet is used as a weapon it should also be done in football.


The court found McSorley guilty of assault with a weapon, observing, "Every time a player uses a stick to apply force to another player, the stick is being used as a weapon and not to direct the puck as it was designed to do."

Although the judge found McSorley was aiming for the head, he considered whether a slash targetting the shoulder would have been a crime. He cited the 1991 Supreme Court decision of R. v. Jobidon, where a majority held that adults cannot consent to the intentional application of force causing serious hurt to each other in a fist fight or brawl.

In rough sports, the Supreme Court stated, players impliedly consent to intentional applications of force that are within the customary norms and rules of the game. But they cannot validly consent to serious violence that clearly extends beyond the ordinary norms of conduct. Implied consent covers only applications of force that cause minor bodily harm
Are you seriously going to try and tell me that what McSorley did and what Whinny did are one in the same?

If so, get your popcorn, this is gonna be fun.

+1

There's a big difference between flagrant hits & unintentional & incidental hits.

Unfortunately, the personnel issuing the fines, the referees & apparently Infidel still can't tell the difference.

All that matters to Goodell is that he lines his greedy large pockets with more & more cash. None of which, to my knowledge, goes to player compensation for debilitating injuries suffered on the field.

The player getting heavily fined when his hand incidentally brushed across Mannings helmet during a play was the epitome of stupid fines.

In today's "Goodell" football, EJ (I think it was EJ) would have been fined $25,000 for the time his shoelace made contact with Favre when he was a Packer. I still can't believe we were penalized 15 yards for that.
I don't think it goes to Goodell either. I think it was NP or someone smart like that who found out it all goes to charities.

It's a figure of speech meaning Goodell is the one imposing more & higher fines. He doesn't seem to care that some aren't even intentional.

We have players in past history whose careers were ended by injuries on the field with very little compensation by the NFL, even though they never had a big payday as an NFL player. A little thought should go into taking those funds & helping those players out.

Fans quickly forget that players didn't always make millions playing football, some still don't. Even good "old school" players had to have jobs during the offseason to make ends meet.

singersp
12-28-2010, 07:06 PM
10x are you serious? NO player is going to stand for a huge portion of his salary going to fines because a referees wrongly make judgment calls.

Maybe he'd rather go to prison.


What has to happen is each & every fine needs to be reviewed by the NFL.

Not by referees, who never played the game, but by former players at those positions who can unbiasedly judge not only whether it was flagrant, unintentional or incidental, but put a severity grade to the flagrant ones. Then fines can be issued accordingly.

Or, if the NFL can't put a stop to it, the hits will be reviewed by supreme court judges.

They can always confer with Alan Page, I suppose.

:D

If it came to a criminal level, yes the courts would have to decide, not Goodell & his minions.

Again, Winfield's contact isn't nowhere's near the same level as a hit by a player who comes flying into a QB leading with his helmet & they shouldn't be treated as such.

Infidel
12-28-2010, 08:00 PM
True, but all Winfield had to do was move his head to either side to avoid putting his helmet to Cutler's chin.

He did not.

And there was the big grin.

The fine was appropriate.

Marrdro
12-28-2010, 08:07 PM
10x are you serious? NO player is going to stand for a huge portion of his salary going to fines because a referees wrongly make judgment calls.

Maybe he'd rather go to prison.


What has to happen is each & every fine needs to be reviewed by the NFL.

Not by referees, who never played the game, but by former players at those positions who can unbiasedly judge not only whether it was flagrant, unintentional or incidental, but put a severity grade to the flagrant ones. Then fines can be issued accordingly.

Or, if the NFL can't put a stop to it, the hits will be reviewed by supreme court judges.

They can always confer with Alan Page, I suppose.

:D
Going to prison over a game? Especially a game that everyone who plays it understands the violence associated with it.

WOW.

Marrdro
12-28-2010, 08:08 PM
It's a figure of speech meaning Goodell is the one imposing more & higher fines. He doesn't seem to care that some aren't even intentional.

Gotcha. I can track with that.

Infidel
12-28-2010, 08:13 PM
10x are you serious? NO player is going to stand for a huge portion of his salary going to fines because a referees wrongly make judgment calls.

Maybe he'd rather go to prison.


What has to happen is each & every fine needs to be reviewed by the NFL.

Not by referees, who never played the game, but by former players at those positions who can unbiasedly judge not only whether it was flagrant, unintentional or incidental, but put a severity grade to the flagrant ones. Then fines can be issued accordingly.

Or, if the NFL can't put a stop to it, the hits will be reviewed by supreme court judges.

They can always confer with Alan Page, I suppose.

:D
Going to prison over a game? Especially a game that everyone who plays it understands the violence associated with it.

WOW.

Yeah, the hockey fans had huge issues with the "stick as weapon" rulings, too.......but that's the way it is.

singersp
12-28-2010, 08:29 PM
10x are you serious? NO player is going to stand for a huge portion of his salary going to fines because a referees wrongly make judgment calls.

Maybe he'd rather go to prison.


What has to happen is each & every fine needs to be reviewed by the NFL.

Not by referees, who never played the game, but by former players at those positions who can unbiasedly judge not only whether it was flagrant, unintentional or incidental, but put a severity grade to the flagrant ones. Then fines can be issued accordingly.

Or, if the NFL can't put a stop to it, the hits will be reviewed by supreme court judges.

They can always confer with Alan Page, I suppose.

:D
Going to prison over a game? Especially a game that everyone who plays it understands the violence associated with it.

WOW.

Perhaps aggressive tackles should be rewarded with a hefty fine for felonious assault?

Would fights between two players be ruled as domestic violence?

Why stop there. If a team beats another team by 20+ points, perhaps the winning team should be fined for rape or the losing team be fined for indecent exposure?

:)

Marrdro
12-28-2010, 08:32 PM
10x are you serious? NO player is going to stand for a huge portion of his salary going to fines because a referees wrongly make judgment calls.

Maybe he'd rather go to prison.


What has to happen is each & every fine needs to be reviewed by the NFL.

Not by referees, who never played the game, but by former players at those positions who can unbiasedly judge not only whether it was flagrant, unintentional or incidental, but put a severity grade to the flagrant ones. Then fines can be issued accordingly.

Or, if the NFL can't put a stop to it, the hits will be reviewed by supreme court judges.

They can always confer with Alan Page, I suppose.

:D
Going to prison over a game? Especially a game that everyone who plays it understands the violence associated with it.

WOW.

Yeah, the hockey fans had huge issues with the "stick as weapon" rulings, too.......but that's the way it is.
Gonna try and "stick" that back into the discussion again are we. Hold on, I need to get another bag of popcorn.

Marrdro
12-28-2010, 08:33 PM
10x are you serious? NO player is going to stand for a huge portion of his salary going to fines because a referees wrongly make judgment calls.

Maybe he'd rather go to prison.


What has to happen is each & every fine needs to be reviewed by the NFL.

Not by referees, who never played the game, but by former players at those positions who can unbiasedly judge not only whether it was flagrant, unintentional or incidental, but put a severity grade to the flagrant ones. Then fines can be issued accordingly.

Or, if the NFL can't put a stop to it, the hits will be reviewed by supreme court judges.

They can always confer with Alan Page, I suppose.

:D
Going to prison over a game? Especially a game that everyone who plays it understands the violence associated with it.

WOW.

Perhaps aggressive tackles should be rewarded with a hefty fine for felonious assault?

Would fights between two players be ruled as domestic violence?

Why stop there. If a team beats another team by 20+ points, perhaps the winning team should be fined for rape or the losing team be fined for indecent exposure?

:)
Glad I refreshened by popcorn........Good stuff Singer.....

singersp
12-28-2010, 08:41 PM
10x are you serious? NO player is going to stand for a huge portion of his salary going to fines because a referees wrongly make judgment calls.

Maybe he'd rather go to prison.


What has to happen is each & every fine needs to be reviewed by the NFL.

Not by referees, who never played the game, but by former players at those positions who can unbiasedly judge not only whether it was flagrant, unintentional or incidental, but put a severity grade to the flagrant ones. Then fines can be issued accordingly.

Or, if the NFL can't put a stop to it, the hits will be reviewed by supreme court judges.

They can always confer with Alan Page, I suppose.

:D
Going to prison over a game? Especially a game that everyone who plays it understands the violence associated with it.

WOW.

Perhaps aggressive tackles should be rewarded with a hefty fine for felonious assault?

Would fights between two players be ruled as domestic violence?

Why stop there. If a team beats another team by 20+ points, perhaps the winning team should be fined for rape or the losing team be fined for indecent exposure?

:)
Glad I refreshened by popcorn........Good stuff Singer.....

You forgot to butter it though.

Marrdro
12-28-2010, 08:59 PM
10x are you serious? NO player is going to stand for a huge portion of his salary going to fines because a referees wrongly make judgment calls.

Maybe he'd rather go to prison.


What has to happen is each & every fine needs to be reviewed by the NFL.

Not by referees, who never played the game, but by former players at those positions who can unbiasedly judge not only whether it was flagrant, unintentional or incidental, but put a severity grade to the flagrant ones. Then fines can be issued accordingly.

Or, if the NFL can't put a stop to it, the hits will be reviewed by supreme court judges.

They can always confer with Alan Page, I suppose.

:D
Going to prison over a game? Especially a game that everyone who plays it understands the violence associated with it.

WOW.

Perhaps aggressive tackles should be rewarded with a hefty fine for felonious assault?

Would fights between two players be ruled as domestic violence?

Why stop there. If a team beats another team by 20+ points, perhaps the winning team should be fined for rape or the losing team be fined for indecent exposure?

:)
Glad I refreshened by popcorn........Good stuff Singer.....

You forgot to butter it though.
No butter my friend. Doc has me on a strict fatboy menu that Wildwoman works pretty hard to enforce.

Infidel
12-28-2010, 09:15 PM
Perhaps aggressive tackles should be rewarded with a hefty fine for felonious assault?

Not unless they used their helmet as a weapon.


Would fights between two players be ruled as domestic violence?

Not unless they were married.


Why stop there?

Why start there? Check the law.

The courts have made the consequences clear. You seem to be the only one left befuddled.

singersp
12-29-2010, 12:55 AM
Perhaps aggressive tackles should be rewarded with a hefty fine for felonious assault?

Not unless they used their helmet as a weapon.


Would fights between two players be ruled as domestic violence?

Not unless they were married.


Why stop there?

Why start there? Check the law.

The courts have made the consequences clear. You seem to be the only one left befuddled.

I'm not the one befuddled. You are the only one. You are taking things to an extreme & I don't see anyone agreeing with you. How many people here think players should be arrested & jailed for helmet hits?

Infidel, party of 1.

You think Winfield should be tried, convicted & sent to jail for assault with a deadly weapon? LMAO!

Since you claim these are all violations of the law, why aren't players being arrested, handcuffed & dragged off the field?

Why is Goodell issuing the fines & not the courts?

I'm guessing you feel boxing should be outlawed as well.

ejmat
12-29-2010, 01:14 AM
I don't like the fine on the hit. He was trying not to hit Cutler and pulled up. It was bad luck and an accident. I don't think it should be a fine-able offense.

Oh, sure.....he just forgot he had that big thing on his head? Or he forgot where his helmet was?

He didn't notice that it was gonna hit Cutler in the face?

Of course...he couldn't have moved his head to either side of Cutler's helmet?

LOL!

Cutler was still wearing the bandage a week later.

Winfield had a gigantic grin on his face as he walked away from Cutler.

He knew exactly what he did and he was hoping to get away with it.

Give me a break. Winfield clearly held up and tried not to hit Cutler. If he really wanted to hit Cutler than why didn't he just follow through? Please answer that.

Fact is AW should have been penalized for the hit. He peobably should be fined too. However, he did not do it purposely. If you want the play again AW clearly made sure Cutler was ok. Once he realized he hit him he pulled up to ensure it wasn't worse than what it already was.

ejmat
12-29-2010, 01:23 AM
True, but all Winfield had to do was move his head to either side to avoid putting his helmet to Cutler's chin.

He did not.

And there was the big grin.

The fine was appropriate.

Here is another example of how we can agree on something but the way you come to the conclusion is where we disagree. AW did not intentionally hit Cutler. If he did the injury would have been a lot worse. Also, do you know how difficult it is to just move your head to the right or left when you are running full speed on a blitz on ice?

Fining AW may be appropriate. I may not agree with $7500 but I can understand it. A helmet hit is a helmet hit. But it was not intentional in the very least. Nothing about that hit was intentional.

Infidel
12-29-2010, 01:51 AM
Also, do you know how difficult it is to just move your head to the right or left when you are running full speed on a blitz on ice?

Yes, I do. It's not hard at all. He had both hands on Cutler and was quite stable. He was slyly holding Cutler to keep him from falling down. He could easily have turned his head or pulled his head back.

He just gave him a head butt to the chin with the helmet.....it's as simple as that. The incontrovertible evidence is on film.

Which is why he got fined (no matter what your opinion may be about it, the FACT is that he got fined for a helmet to FACE hit and could have avoided it merely by moving his head a few inches).

Pretend it was an accident? Of course. He'd be crazy to admit that he did it intentionally to intimidate and shake up the QB in a very unsportsmanlike way.

:)

Infidel
12-29-2010, 01:58 AM
Singer said:


You think Winfield should be tried, convicted & sent to jail for assault with a deadly weapon?

No. I didn't say that.

You did. That's called setting up a straw man.

I have said several times that the fine was appropriate. Your reading skills are in question or......

You're getting desperate?

:woohoo:

Infidel
12-29-2010, 02:04 AM
Singer said:


Winfield clearly held up and tried not to hit Cutler. If he really wanted to hit Cutler than why didn't he just follow through? Please answer that.

He knew it was a late hit.....he did exactly what he wanted to do. He gave Cutler a head butt to the chin with his helmet. It could easily have been avoided by simply moving his head to either side. He didn't do that.

It was a cheap shot he thought he could get away with--an attempt to intimidate and shake Cutler up.......he'll know better next time (we hope).

singersp
12-29-2010, 02:36 AM
Singer said:


You think Winfield should be tried, convicted & sent to jail for assault with a deadly weapon?

No. I didn't say that.

You did. That's called setting up a straw man.

I have said several times that the fine was appropriate. Your reading skills are in question or......

You're getting desperate?


Nope, not getting desperate. Everyone here can clearly read that you are suggesting players going to prison for using a helmet as a deadly weapon.

I'm assuming that would include all players doing so, with Winfield being no exception.
:woohoo:

Infidel
12-29-2010, 02:54 AM
That's called unsuccessfully trying for the second time to set up a straw man!

Exceedingly desperate maneuver.

:D

singersp
12-29-2010, 03:05 AM
That's called unsuccessfully trying for the second time to set up a straw man!

Exceedingly desperate maneuver.

:D



Fines must increase by 10X or so for hits that inflict great harm using the helmet as a weapon and criminal charges are an option that may become necessary.



Maybe he'd rather go to prison.
:D


Keep grasping.

ejmat
12-29-2010, 03:26 AM
Also, do you know how difficult it is to just move your head to the right or left when you are running full speed on a blitz on ice?

Yes, I do. It's not hard at all. He had both hands on Cutler and was quite stable. He was slyly holding Cutler to keep him from falling down. He could easily have turned his head or pulled his head back.

He just gave him a head butt to the chin with the helmet.....it's as simple as that. The incontrovertible evidence is on film.

Which is why he got fined (no matter what your opinion may be about it, the FACT is that he got fined for a helmet to FACE hit and could have avoided it merely by moving his head a few inches).

Pretend it was an accident? Of course. He'd be crazy to admit that he did it intentionally to intimidate and shake up the QB in a very unsportsmanlike way.

:)

Okay...No more just trying to be rational with you. Mods forgive me...

Infidel you are an idiot!!!!!

singersp
12-29-2010, 03:27 AM
That's called unsuccessfully trying for the second time to set up a straw man!

Exceedingly desperate maneuver.

:D



Fines must increase by 10X or so for hits that inflict great harm using the helmet as a weapon and criminal charges are an option that may become necessary.



Maybe he'd rather go to prison.
:D

Keep grasping.

singersp
12-29-2010, 03:39 AM
Also, do you know how difficult it is to just move your head to the right or left when you are running full speed on a blitz on ice?

Yes, I do. It's not hard at all. He had both hands on Cutler and was quite stable. He was slyly holding Cutler to keep him from falling down. He could easily have turned his head or pulled his head back.

He just gave him a head butt to the chin with the helmet.....it's as simple as that. The incontrovertible evidence is on film.

Which is why he got fined (no matter what your opinion may be about it, the FACT is that he got fined for a helmet to FACE hit and could have avoided it merely by moving his head a few inches).

Pretend it was an accident? Of course. He'd be crazy to admit that he did it intentionally to intimidate and shake up the QB in a very unsportsmanlike way.

:)

Okay...No more just trying to be rational with you. Mods forgive me...

Infidel you are an idiot!!!!!

He's a fucking tool & is simply trying to get a rise out of people.

He won't be answering you. The hammer put him down forever.

And forever is a long, long time. Even if you are using Infidel's stopwatch.

singersp
12-29-2010, 03:42 AM
That's called unsuccessfully trying for the second time to set up a straw man!

:D

Oh, I'm pretty sure we were successful!

:laugh: :laugh:

ejmat
12-29-2010, 02:18 PM
Also, do you know how difficult it is to just move your head to the right or left when you are running full speed on a blitz on ice?

Yes, I do. It's not hard at all. He had both hands on Cutler and was quite stable. He was slyly holding Cutler to keep him from falling down. He could easily have turned his head or pulled his head back.

He just gave him a head butt to the chin with the helmet.....it's as simple as that. The incontrovertible evidence is on film.

Which is why he got fined (no matter what your opinion may be about it, the FACT is that he got fined for a helmet to FACE hit and could have avoided it merely by moving his head a few inches).

Pretend it was an accident? Of course. He'd be crazy to admit that he did it intentionally to intimidate and shake up the QB in a very unsportsmanlike way.

:)

Okay...No more just trying to be rational with you. Mods forgive me...

Infidel you are an idiot!!!!!

He's a fucking tool & is simply trying to get a rise out of people.

He won't be answering you. The hammer put him down forever.

And forever is a long, long time. Especially if you are using Infidel's stopwatch.
The hammer strikes again. Good job Ultra.

LOL @ Singer stop watch comment.

Zeus
12-29-2010, 04:02 PM
All that matters to Goodell is that he lines his greedy large pockets with more & more cash. None of which, to my knowledge, goes to player compensation for debilitating injuries suffered on the field.

I'm 99% sure that money from NFL fines goes to NFL Charities.

=Z=

Zeus
12-29-2010, 04:04 PM
He's a fucking tool & is simply trying to get a rise out of people.

He won't be answering you. The hammer put him down forever.

And forever is a long, long time. Even if you are using Infidel's stopwatch.

What thread prompted that? (Not that it wasn't about freaking time for it)

=Z=

jmcdon00
12-29-2010, 04:08 PM
He's a fucking tool & is simply trying to get a rise out of people.

He won't be answering you. The hammer put him down forever.

And forever is a long, long time. Even if you are using Infidel's stopwatch.

What thread prompted that? (Not that it wasn't about freaking time for it)

=Z=
I don't think there was a thread. Just too many complaints about him, the hammer was brought down.