PDA

View Full Version : Ed Reed Suspended


HOU-TEX
11-19-2012, 03:05 PM
Geez! Thoughts?

Safety ED REED of the Baltimore Ravens has been suspended without pay for one game for repeated violations of the rule prohibiting hits to the head and neck area of defenseless players.

http://nflcommunications.com/2012/11/19/baltimore-ravens-safety-ed-reed-suspended-one-game-for-repeated-violations-of-player-safety-rules/

Texn4life
11-19-2012, 03:25 PM
Don't agree with it at all. Although we need the Ravens to lose some games it seems like they're inconsistent with how they dish out punishment.

welsh texan
11-20-2012, 06:55 AM
Don't agree with it at all. Although we need the Ravens to lose some games it seems like they're inconsistent with how they dish out punishment.

Agreed and also would prefer to see them lose games with their best players playing rather than through some totting up suspension too.

How long do we think Ed Reed has left? With him not the force he used to be and Pollard can e a liability in coverage too, perilously close to s being a position of weakness for the ravens

thunderkyss
11-20-2012, 07:12 AM
Don't agree with it at all. Although we need the Ravens to lose some games it seems like they're inconsistent with how they dish out punishment.

I agree that they are being inconsistent & that's really the only thing I would ask them to change about how they do this.

I was listening to Mike & Mike in the morning on the way to work & they were astounded & totally against the fines, suspensions, and everything but the flag & cost of the penalty.

They didn't blame the refs, they said the refs are simply doing what the NFL has mandated they do. My point, is what else can the NFL do? If they've mandated that these hits will draw the flag, how can they not fine the players & how can they not increase the punishment for repeat offenders?

They are doing this, because they are being sued by former players. In the future, what would be their defense?


Prosecutor:So you knew these hits cause head injuries
NFL: Well, we didn't "know" but evidence strongly suggested
Prosecutor: But you mandated the officials throw the flag
NFL: Well, player safety is very important to us, so if there is a possibility...
Prosecutor: & we know these fines don't deter players... look what Chad Johnson said on such & such a day


If we don't think these hits lead to the kind of damage the NFL is being sued for, then "we" need to get on the former players for suing the NFL.

I don't necessarily believe that is the right course of action. I'm just saying the NFL is in between a rock & a hard place. They're not doing this because they can't find anything better to do. They're doing it to cover their butts.

In a sport as violent as the NFL is, they have to draw the line somewhere & above the shoulders on a defenseless player makes sense. Maybe they need to refine how they enforce it, but that's what we are seeing, in real time.

Hopefully sooner than later, they'll get it figured out. But right now, I can't see what else they can do.

HOU-TEX
11-20-2012, 09:30 AM
Don't agree with it at all. Although we need the Ravens to lose some games it seems like they're inconsistent with how they dish out punishment.

Do you happen to see the recent hit he was flagged for? It's a joke, man. The WR catches the ball and right when he turns up field to run Reed hits him as he finishes turning. So, imo, the WR turns into Reed's hit. I don't understand how the NFL can think these players can change their hitting angle in a nano second.

Texan_Bill
11-20-2012, 09:32 AM
Do you happen to see the recent hit he was flagged for? It's a joke, man. The WR catches the ball and right when he turns up field to run Reed hits him as he finishes turning. So, imo, the WR turns into Reed's hit. I don't understand how the NFL can think these players can change their hitting angle in a nano second.

This^^^^ It is a joke.

Playoffs
11-20-2012, 09:55 AM
Dangerous road the commish is going down, here. Reed didn't look to have the intent to go helmet to helmet. Ravens got a 15 yard penalty. Fine him and move on.

Say Watt
11-20-2012, 10:23 AM
This is getting out of control. I said it in the Dobbins thread, and I'll say it again. Goodell is an arrogant, POS, douche.

Dread-Head
11-20-2012, 10:25 AM
Times like now I MISS Hines Ward. The Steeler/Ravens game without him, Roethlissburger, Mendenhall, Lewis and Polamalu just wasn't the same. Hines used to PUNISH that muff-hugga. The Ravens and Steelers hate each other...and that game is so epic BECAUSE of all the cheap shots on both sides.

gtexan02
11-20-2012, 10:26 AM
If the NFL is serious about player safety, they have to start suspending people. I have no idea if the Reed hit warranted even a penalty (from the sounds of it, it did not). I'm not discussing the correctness of the call-- thats on the refs. But if the rules say "repeat offenders will lose games" and then they don't do it, thats just being a paper tiger and doesn't do anything. Multiple players have said they aren't going to change the way they play -- in the face of big fines. Well, suspensions are the only way to go up from there.

Again, not saying I agree with this particular case (havent seen the play) but I have no problem with the league fining players and then suspending them if they legitimately do go helmet to helmet repeatedly.

The1ApplePie
11-20-2012, 10:35 AM
This is getting out of control. I said it in the Dobbins thread, and I'll say it again. Goodell is an arrogant, POS, douche.

Offense means better ratings and the NFL needs to protect themselves from future civil action in the courts, hence the obviously hollow focus on "player safety".

Tailgate
11-20-2012, 10:52 AM
Do you happen to see the recent hit he was flagged for? It's a joke, man. The WR catches the ball and right when he turns up field to run Reed hits him as he finishes turning. So, imo, the WR turns into Reed's hit. I don't understand how the NFL can think these players can change their hitting angle in a nano second.

As Dilfer was saying on SC, it almost feels as if lawyers are running the show now.

Say Watt
11-20-2012, 11:13 AM
Offense means better ratings and the NFL needs to protect themselves from future civil action in the courts, hence the obviously hollow focus on "player safety".

I guess so. It just gets ridiculous that they don't actually focus on "player safety" and instead just look at "offensive player safety". The fact that Reed can get suspended for this but the guy that injured Cushing gets a slap on the wrist is an insult to every defensive player in the NFL.

thunderkyss
11-20-2012, 11:15 AM
The Ravens and Steelers hate each other...and that game is so epic BECAUSE of all the cheap shots on both sides.

Just don't hit them in the head, that's all they're saying. Hit the guy, hit him hard. Knock him off his feet, knock a lung out, break his lis franc.

Just don't hit him in the head.

infantrycak
11-20-2012, 12:15 PM
If the NFL is serious about player safety, they have to start suspending people. I have no idea if the Reed hit warranted even a penalty (from the sounds of it, it did not).

What the rule should be can be debated but the hit was a clear violation of the current rule. The other thing which is indisputable is Reed is a repeat offender - this isn't even a 2nd or 3rd offense.

thunderkyss
11-20-2012, 12:28 PM
What the rule should be can be debated but the hit was a clear violation of the current rule. The other thing which is indisputable is Reed is a repeat offender - this isn't even a 2nd or 3rd offense.

I think they said it's his third in 3 years. That's where I think it gets sketchy. If it was 3 times in 2 years, or 5 times in 4 years, I wouldn't have an issue at all.

I just find it hard to believe that Ed Reed is the first guy to have three of those hits in 3 years.

He may be.... I just don't think he's that kind of player to where he'd be the first one with that kind of a spread.

infantrycak
11-20-2012, 12:33 PM
I think they said it's his third in 3 years.

That is correct - one in 2010 and then this is his 2nd this year.

Sounds like his not attempting to wrap up was also part of their consideration - from PFT.com NFL VP Ray Anderson:

We want him to hit below the head and neck area, Anderson said. Wed like to see him use his shoulder. Wed like to see him wrap up in a more traditional technique. But we absolutely do not want to see head to head, shoulder, forearm to head or neck area, no real attempt to wrap, and almost going missile-like up high. We cannot have those in the game any longer.

gtexan02
11-20-2012, 12:39 PM
What the rule should be can be debated but the hit was a clear violation of the current rule. The other thing which is indisputable is Reed is a repeat offender - this isn't even a 2nd or 3rd offense.

Simple as that then. Play by the rules or don't play. The NFL, if it wants to take player safety seriously, has got to start suspending people like Ed Reed. Does it change the game for the better or the worse? Thats certainly debatable. But the violation and the punishment don't sound like they are debatable

thunderkyss
11-20-2012, 12:42 PM
That is correct - one in 2010 and then this is his 2nd this year.

Sounds like his not attempting to wrap up was also part of their consideration - from PFT.com NFL VP Ray Anderson:

Ok... I didn't know it was two this year. I don't have a problem with it.

Rey
11-20-2012, 12:44 PM
I've lost a little interest in the NFL as a whole. Still love football, but I just disagree with some of the calls and penalties they dole out. I don't think Dobbins should have been flagged nor fined and I don't believe Reed should have been either.

Take out the egregious stupid head hunting stuff. That's fine, but this borderline stuff should be left a lone.

It's football. Guys will get injured. Players are going to get concussions. Even with the amped up rules it's still happening. The only thing is that now you have a bunch of berderline BS stuff being called making the game less enjoyable IMO. Guys should be thinking about making good, clean hard hits...Not about how they might need to ease up or aim super low or not even hit hard because they don't want to get fined....

The game moves too fast for that. Saw a lot of talk about how Dobbins should have pulled up or some junk...Cutler is running towards him, Dobbins towards him...Two big fast guys running towards each other in open space is going to lead to a hard impact...Dobbins eases up there and it's possible Cutler pump fakes him and runs right past him.

Taking the aggression out of football is taking out a big element of the game.

Again, take the dirty purposeful head hunting out. That's fine. But penalizing guys who are making incidental contact because they didn't go way out of their way to avoid contact is bad for the game IMO.

thunderkyss
11-20-2012, 01:09 PM
It's football. Guys will get injured. Players are going to get concussions.

We need to start a petition & tell all those ex-players to stop suing. If not for them suing, the NFL wouldn't be going the way they are.

gtexan02
11-20-2012, 01:12 PM
I've lost a little interest in the NFL as a whole. Still love football, but I just disagree with some of the calls and penalties they dole out. I don't think Dobbins should have been flagged nor fined and I don't believe Reed should have been either.

Take out the egregious stupid head hunting stuff. That's fine, but this borderline stuff should be left a lone.

It's football. Guys will get injured. Players are going to get concussions. Even with the amped up rules it's still happening. The only thing is that now you have a bunch of berderline BS stuff being called making the game less enjoyable IMO. Guys should be thinking about making good, clean hard hits...Not about how they might need to ease up or aim super low or not even hit hard because they don't want to get fined....

The game moves too fast for that. Saw a lot of talk about how Dobbins should have pulled up or some junk...Cutler is running towards him, Dobbins towards him...Two big fast guys running towards each other in open space is going to lead to a hard impact...Dobbins eases up there and it's possible Cutler pump fakes him and runs right past him.

Taking the aggression out of football is taking out a big element of the game.

Again, take the dirty purposeful head hunting out. That's fine. But penalizing guys who are making incidental contact because they didn't go way out of their way to avoid contact is bad for the game IMO.

Dobbins specifically said he was trying to hit him high to mess up the throw. Bang - bang play? Sure, but when someone comes out and says "I was trying to him him high" he's going to get fined. At the end of the day, it's a game. There are risks involved, but its not worth my entertainment to see people severely, permanently injured. Dobbins could have wrapped him up or hit him hip high. Instead, he chose to hit him high and was fined as a result of it.

Dutchrudder
11-20-2012, 02:14 PM
Video of the Ed Reed hit: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap2000000097816/Ravens-Ed-Reed-suspended-one-game-for-violations-of-safety-rules

I thought this was a clear head-hunting type of hit. Reed propels himself at the WR with his arms at his side, like a missile hitting a target. He doesn't make any attempt to tackle or even go low to the midsection. No question in my mind that this was an illegal hit.

Glad to see him get suspended, but I'd like them to do more. This sort of "technique" is hurting the game, and just makes teams look stupid when they can't tackle. I'm sure Ed Reed knows how to tackle, but he just chooses not to in this case. Hit 'em in the pocketbook, then we'll start seeing some changes and going back to the basics of fundamental tackling.

Rey
11-20-2012, 02:30 PM
There are risks involved, but its not worth my entertainment to see people severely, permanently injured. Dobbins could have wrapped him up or hit him hip high. Instead, he chose to hit him high and was fined as a result of it.

That's not a call for you to make.

Guys make a choice to play football. It's their choice. They know the risk involved.

You can put all the rules in the game that you want, but as long as it's still football guys are going to get hit in the head and get concussions.

You have the luxury of sitting and watching the play multiple times...Rewinding...Thinking about it...

When you are on the field you don't have time to think about stuff like that. That's why rookies who think to much play slower and take time to get acclimated to the speed of the game.

He's thinking about making a play. And wanting to hit a guy up high is not the same as wanting to go head hunting.

The way they are going it's going to negatively affect the game. I can understand taking out the intentional blows to the head, but the plays where a D-lineman may brush a QB's helmet when he's flying past him or when a guy may make incidental contact with a players helmet is ridiculous.

It's like almost every time there is a hard hit I'm wondering if a flag is going to be thrown...Football is about hard hits, and if you don't want to be hit hard then don't play.

HOU-TEX
11-20-2012, 03:00 PM
Now it's been reduced to a $50k fine. What does this say about Goodell?

Andrew Brandt‏@adbrandt

NFL announces Ed Reed discipline of one game suspension and loss of $424,000 now reduced, after appeal, to only a $50,000 fine.

gtexan02
11-20-2012, 03:08 PM
That's not a call for you to make.

Guys make a choice to play football. It's their choice. They know the risk involved.

You can put all the rules in the game that you want, but as long as it's still football guys are going to get hit in the head and get concussions.

You have the luxury of sitting and watching the play multiple times...Rewinding...Thinking about it...

When you are on the field you don't have time to think about stuff like that. That's why rookies who think to much play slower and take time to get acclimated to the speed of the game.

He's thinking about making a play. And wanting to hit a guy up high is not the same as wanting to go head hunting.

The way they are going it's going to negatively affect the game. I can understand taking out the intentional blows to the head, but the plays where a D-lineman may brush a QB's helmet when he's flying past him or when a guy may make incidental contact with a players helmet is ridiculous.

It's like almost every time there is a hard hit I'm wondering if a flag is going to be thrown...Football is about hard hits, and if you don't want to be hit hard then don't play.

Rules have changed as we've learned more about how injuries affect the players. You say **** happens, its the risk they take and I disagree. There are rules in place to minimize those risks, and in the NFL does this both for the players and the sustainability of the product.

Most rules changes affect the game. Whether it makes it better or worse is subjective. Some people may enjoy slog fests where the final score is 6-3 but others may enjoy high scoring affairs where the offense gets the advantage. "Better" is not a factual or logical statement.

Games change with time. The game we play today is different in many, many ways than the game that was invented. This rule is not the biggest change we've seen, but I guess people just enjoy thinking short term

thunderkyss
11-20-2012, 04:07 PM
That's not a call for you to make.

Guys make a choice to play football. It's their choice. They know the risk involved.


Then they come back years later & sue the NFL.

Rey
11-20-2012, 06:30 PM
Then they come back years later & sue the NFL.

Out of all the guys that have played NFL football how many have sued?

It's overblown IMO and i think it has more to do with appearances and public appeal. No one likes seeing guys carted off with serious injuries.

The NFL is trying to avoid that image IMO because it's bad for business. The thing is, they have to find a happy medium. Enough violence but not to much to where the sport becomes grotesque and hard to watch.

They are softening the game up which I don't have an issue with. Do what you can to eliminate blatant head hunting and protect defenseless players.

But some of this stuff is going too far and it takes away from the sport IMO.

Rey
11-20-2012, 06:34 PM
Now it's been reduced to a $50k fine. What does this say about Goodell?

It says that he knows that was a bit too much and didn't deserve the original implications of the suspension.

ChampionTexan
11-20-2012, 06:45 PM
Out of all the guys that have played NFL football how many have sued?



SN concussion report: NFL could lose billions in player lawsuits

How many cases—and what kind—have been filed against the NFL, and how many players are we talking about?

As of mid-August, there were 135 cases with 3,402 former players, according to The Washington Times.

LINK (http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-08-22/nfl-concussion-lawsuits-money-bankrupt-players-sue-head-injuries)

This was as of a few months ago - I don't think the number's gotten smaller.

Rey
11-21-2012, 08:50 AM
LINK (http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-08-22/nfl-concussion-lawsuits-money-bankrupt-players-sue-head-injuries)

This was as of a few months ago - I don't think the number's gotten smaller.

That's not a lot of players relatively speaking. And some of those players are bankrupt so that might have something to do with their motives...

Rey
11-21-2012, 08:51 AM
Now it's been reduced to a $50k fine. What does this say about Goodell?

It says that he's fine with admitting that he may have reacted too harshly and made a mistake which I have 0 problem with.

Thread title should be changed to...Oh wait, nevermind.....

HOU-TEX
11-21-2012, 09:24 AM
It says that he's fine with admitting that he may have reacted too harshly and made a mistake which I have 0 problem with.

Thread title should be changed to...Oh wait, nevermind.....

You do know that it was Cottrel that heard the appeal, right. Goodell didn't have jack to do with lowering the punishment.

2012Champs
11-21-2012, 09:31 AM
You do know that it was Cottrel that heard the appeal, right. Goodell didn't have jack to do with lowering the punishment.



I dont think Goodell decides the punishment in the first place or at least that wasnt how the process was explained yesterday

Wolf6151
11-22-2012, 01:47 AM
I agree that they are being inconsistent & that's really the only thing I would ask them to change about how they do this.

I was listening to Mike & Mike in the morning on the way to work & they were astounded & totally against the fines, suspensions, and everything but the flag & cost of the penalty.

They didn't blame the refs, they said the refs are simply doing what the NFL has mandated they do. My point, is what else can the NFL do? If they've mandated that these hits will draw the flag, how can they not fine the players & how can they not increase the punishment for repeat offenders?

They are doing this, because they are being sued by former players. In the future, what would be their defense?


Prosecutor:So you knew these hits cause head injuries
NFL: Well, we didn't "know" but evidence strongly suggested
Prosecutor: But you mandated the officials throw the flag
NFL: Well, player safety is very important to us, so if there is a possibility...
Prosecutor: & we know these fines don't deter players... look what Chad Johnson said on such & such a day


If we don't think these hits lead to the kind of damage the NFL is being sued for, then "we" need to get on the former players for suing the NFL.

I don't necessarily believe that is the right course of action. I'm just saying the NFL is in between a rock & a hard place. They're not doing this because they can't find anything better to do. They're doing it to cover their butts.

In a sport as violent as the NFL is, they have to draw the line somewhere & above the shoulders on a defenseless player makes sense. Maybe they need to refine how they enforce it, but that's what we are seeing, in real time.

Hopefully sooner than later, they'll get it figured out. But right now, I can't see what else they can do.




I agree completely. I don't like the fines and suspensions but this is all about the NFL mitigating future liability payments in court.