Should Roughing/Spearing Penalties be Automatic Reviews

[STBR 27]

Now this one on Davis was an actual Helmet to helmet hit that was missed by the refs. In fact what the defender did there is the epitome of the rule. A fine should have been levied. He launched himself with the crown of his helmet.

The gif is right in front of you, yet you still say it is illegal? The helmets never touch and Chancellor puts his shoulder pad into the chest of Davis. The only thing illegal is hitting a defenseless player.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

The gif is right in front of you, yet you still say it is illegal? The helmets never touch and Chancellor puts his shoulder pad into the chest of Davis. The only thing illegal is hitting a defenseless player.

not worth arguing with you if you are saying the helmets never touched

 

[SomeGuy]

That does not resemble football any more.
You can't tell a defender he can't break up a pass.

 

[STBR 27]

not worth arguing with you if you are saying the helmets never touched

Good, I would hate to have to argue with a blind person about a video.

 

[Money]

I think it's hilarious that the NFL can be sued by 1,000's of former players over concussions and people are mad at the league for these flags/fines.

I hate getting lukewarm coffee at McDonald's but I'm not actually mad at McDonald's. I'm mad at the assclowns that spilled coffee on themselves in their cars and then sued McDonald's because the coffee was too hot.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Good, I would hate to have to argue with a blind person about a video.

Upon further review.... I stand corrected. it was a good hit.

I'll await my plate of crow.

 

[Mondio]

I think it's hilarious that the NFL can be sued by 1,000's of former players over concussions and people are mad at the league for these flags/fines.

I hate getting lukewarm coffee at McDonald's but I'm not actually mad at McDonald's. I'm mad at the assclowns that spilled coffee on themselves in their cars and then sued McDonald's because the coffee was too hot.

i have a feeling if you were served coffee that caused 3rd degree burns to your genitals and endured multiple surgeries to recover you'd be singing a different tune.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

i have a feeling if you were served coffee that caused 3rd degree burns to your genitals and endured multiple surgeries to recover you'd be singing a different tune.

yeah it would be a higher pitch

 

[Money]

i have a feeling if you were served coffee that caused 3rd degree burns to your genitals and endured multiple surgeries to recover you'd be singing a different tune.

I hope someone doesn't choke on an ice cube. I'm not a big fan of warm soda.

 

[Breaker99]

both are illegal hits.
The whitner one was a penalty long before the helmet to helmet rule came in. You haven't been allowed to head the Receivers for awhile now. Not like the WR ducked into the hit. Shoulder to helmet elbow to helmet is all a penalty. Now this one on Davis was an actual Helmet to helmet hit that was missed by the refs. In fact what the defender did there is the epitome of the rule. A fine should have been levied. He launched himself with the crown of his helmet.

Actually it wasn't a helmet to helmet hit on Davis, it just looks like it because the force throws his head back. Same with the Whitner hit. Whitner was flagged and given a 21k fine, Chancellor was flagged for the hit on davis and the NFL later declined to fine him and I believe even said he shouldn't have been penalized.

Point is, none of it is clear. Too much is up to the judgement of the refs.

 

[Breaker99]

i have a feeling if you were served coffee that caused 3rd degree burns to your genitals and endured multiple surgeries to recover you'd be singing a different tune.

I love how that old lady is the first argument whenever someone thinks a lawsuit is frivolous. I don't mean to get off subject.... but that case is so wrongly used.

People always act like the lady is an idiot for driving with hot coffee between her legs.

Mrs. Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. She was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap.

The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds (109 degrees). Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.

Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

ON top of that she offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.

But McDonalds is the victim?

 

[Money]

I love how that old lady is the first argument whenever someone thinks a lawsuit is frivolous. I don't mean to get off subject.... but that case is so wrongly used.

People always act like the lady is an idiot for driving with hot coffee between her legs.

Mrs. Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. She was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap.

The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds (109 degrees). Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.

Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

ON top of that she offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.

But McDonalds is the victim?

Who said McDonalds is the victim?

Back on topic...who is surprised that the league is taking steps to not be sued by players again?

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Actually it wasn't a helmet to helmet hit on Davis, it just looks like it because the force throws his head back. Same with the Whitner hit. Whitner was flagged and given a 21k fine, Chancellor was flagged for the hit on davis and the NFL later declined to fine him and I believe even said he shouldn't have been penalized.

Point is, none of it is clear. Too much is up to the judgement of the refs.

yeah I have been corrected on that. Even put a pic of the hit, up to eat my crow too.
The Whitner hit though was a blow to the head & is finable. NFL has had rules from head hunting before the helmet to helmet rules came about. Even though he used his shoulder it was to the head of the ram WR.

Only time I complain about the hits to the head, is if the offensive player lowers his head into the hit. I don't like the defense being fined or even penalized for that.

 

[Breaker99]

Who said McDonalds is the victim?

Back on topic...who is surprised that the league is taking steps to not be sued by players again?

Saying the lawsuit was frivolous is saying the defendant is a victim.


I am not surprised they are taking steps to stop from being sued, or for even player safety. I am saying the implementation is poor and and uneven and its negatively effecting the game.

 

[Breaker99]

yeah I have been corrected on that. Even put a pic of the hit, up to eat my crow too.
The Whitner hit though was a blow to the head & is finable. NFL has had rules from head hunting before the helmet to helmet rules came about. Even though he used his shoulder it was to the head of the ram WR.

Only time I complain about the hits to the head, is if the offensive player lowers his head into the hit. I don't like the defense being fined or even penalized for that.

If you watch the play he clearly is not head hunting. He pulls way back at the last second and doesn't drive through the guy. The receiver brings his head down into the contact area, he doesn't aim for the head and the contact is with his shoulder to his shoulder/chest. Just like with Davis it makes the hit causes his head to snap back and so they automatically call it. I say its b.s.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

If you watch the play he clearly is not head hunting. He pulls way back at the last second and doesn't drive through the guy. The receiver brings his head down into the contact area, he doesn't aim for the head and the contact is with his shoulder to his shoulder/chest. Just like with Davis it makes the hit causes his head to snap back and so they automatically call it. I say its b.s.

Dude that is a hard sell.
1st off the WR wasn't lower his head. he was in the air falling to the ground & extended. & Whitner does lower his shoulder at the end. Then even if he was letting up he got nothing but net on the guys head. That will draw the wrath of the NFL everytime. Otherwise all defenders will say it was an accident. My personal opinion Whitner lowered his pads to jar the ball loose. He was letting up. But like I said. Either way it is a flag. if the Seattle play hit the guys head that would have been a fine too.

 

[Money]

Saying the lawsuit was frivolous is saying the defendant is a victim.


I am not surprised they are taking steps to stop from being sued, or for even player safety. I am saying the implementation is poor and and uneven and its negatively effecting the game.

The victims are people who want their coffee hot and the people who want to continue to see big hits on WRs.

 

[JDM]

I love how that old lady is the first argument whenever someone thinks a lawsuit is frivolous. I don't mean to get off subject.... but that case is so wrongly used.

People always act like the lady is an idiot for driving with hot coffee between her legs.

Mrs. Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. She was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap.

The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds (109 degrees). Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.

Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

ON top of that she offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.

But McDonalds is the victim?

Yes. Coffee is supposed to be hot and spilling it was entirely her fault.