Suh Fined, Not Suspended

[pbmax]

I get the sense that Roger has a soft spot for his favorite repeat offender.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/10/ndamukong-suh-fined-100000-not-suspended/

Its getting a mite ridiculous, though not as ridiculous as this Tweet from the Detroit Lions themselves:

Dan Hanzus ‏@DanHanzus 18m
This is odd. RT @DetroitLionsNFL RT if hearing that @NdamukongSuh apologized in the team meeting gives you pride as a #Lions fan. #OnePride

Someone is either trolling them or they have already deleted the original Tweet. Take Pride in Your Apology!

[Fritz]

It's so easy and fun to hate on the Lions.

They won, the fans are crowing, but there were signs of the SOL (Same Old Lions) all over that game.

This incident being one of them.

[mraynrand]

Lions offense looked really sharp. They have a run game to go with the passing attack; Bell and Bush run extremely well and are dangerously complimentary. Bush was extremely quick.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Fining a star player is a joke. He needs to lose a game and a game's pay.

My problem with that play was it could so easily have ended the season for the other player.


I see Lions fans are comparing that hit to Clay Matthew's flying squirrel. That was worthy of 15 yards and nothing more. Kapernick was near the sideline when Clay launched, it wasn't a flagrant dirty play.

[MadScientist]

It was a bad hit because it went low, but trying to block a trailing guy on a play like that isn't too far out of line in football, so the 100K fine with no suspension seems about right. Stomps and kicks to the nuts have no place in football.

[Tony Oday]

They beat the Vikings...they are horrible. I REALLY hope Ponder is playing us. We can stop AP and would love to see Jennings with 3 catches for 30 yards agains the Pack.

[Freak Out]

Suh could/should have hit the guy high.....that's football. But to go for the knees like that.....chump.

[smuggler]

Let him play next week. Anytime a player blocks Suh low, they get a $10,000 bonus from out of that fine money.

[Iron Mike]

Who's the bigger douchebag? Warren Sapp, or DonkeyKong Suh???

[hoosier]

Who's the bigger douchebag? Warren Sapp, or DonkeyKong Suh???

Suh definitely hurts his team more. So does that make him the bigger DB, or is Sapp bigger because he usually got away with it?

[MadScientist]

Who's the bigger douchebag? Warren Sapp, or DonkeyKong Suh???

Hard to compare, because they didn't do much in the way of fining or suspending for cheap shots back then. Suh might have lost a game for the stomp, but would not have been fined for this latest cheap shot 10 years ago.

[Guiness]

Not sure why he didn't get suspended for this, you would think it was a textbook case for it, against a player who, as a repeat offender, deserves it. The fact that Sullivan was not hurt was more luck than anything else. Does anyone believe Suh's story that he spoke and Sullivan had a 'great conversation' running out at half time? I imagine it went something like this "No hard feelings, right? "I wasn't going for your knees dude" "Uh, ya, right, ok" "No hard feelings then" "Umm, sure"

[RashanGary]

My only issue with suh is that he doesnt make a good enough effort to stay within the rules. The penalties are a killer for his team. But his on-field demeanor, thats a guy you want on your team. I love when we injure players. Inflicting damage is the goal. You want to break your opponents body along with their spirit and will. The things he does to Quarterbacks are wonderful. There are parts of life that are competitive, brutal, heartless and unfair. All of that is incapsulated in football. There is only one goal, that goal is to win at all costs, and in a game predicated on violence, the most violent team usually wins. Wake up. Football people know it. "affect the head" "put a little hot sauce on his knee", clay driving kolbs head into the turf and nearly breaking his neck, Reggie making a concious effort to dislocate shoulders, kramer talking in the 60s about using his helmet as a weapon and lombardi saying simply not to feed the media. . . . . People who play and coach know that its all about violence. Injury is the goal. Did anyone see justin smith punch cobb in the bicep?

The more violent team wins and winning is all that matters. You could say, violence is the name of the game. It still is. They dont talk about it as much, but players go to bed envisioning themselves hurting sundays opponent. They just do. And Suh is good at it. In life he might be a mother fucker, but in football he's a great player. He's a big man with a mean streak. Thats what you want. Now, if he could just make a better effort to stay within the rules, he'd be one of the greatest defensive players in football.

[Pugger]

Who's the bigger douchebag? Warren Sapp, or DonkeyKong Suh???

:lol:

Sapp easily. He targeted Cliffy and body-slammed him well away from the play. If that creep pulled that shit today he would have been fined for sure and possibly suspended.

[Pugger]

My only issue with suh is that he doesnt make a good enough effort to stay within the rules. The penalties are a killer for his team. But his on-field demeanor, thats a guy you want on your team. I love when we injure players. Inflicting damage is the goal. You want to break your opponents body along with their spirit and will. The things he does to Quarterbacks are wonderful. There are parts of life that are competitive, brutal, heartless and unfair. All of that is incapsulated in football. There is only one goal, that goal is to win at all costs, and in a game predicated on violence, the most violent team usually wins. Wake up. Football people know it. "affect the head" "put a little hot sauce on his knee", clay driving kolbs head into the turf and nearly breaking his neck, Reggie making a concious effort to dislocate shoulders, kramer talking in the 60s about using his helmet as a weapon and lombardi saying simply not to feed the media. . . . . People who play and coach know that its all about violence. Injury is the goal. Did anyone see justin smith punch cobb in the bicep?

The more violent team wins and winning is all that matters. You could say, violence is the name of the game. It still is. They dont talk about it as much, but players go to bed envisioning themselves hurting sundays opponent. They just do. And Suh is good at it. In life he might be a mother fucker, but in football he's a great player. He's a big man with a mean streak. Thats what you want. Now, if he could just make a better effort to stay within the rules, he'd be one of the greatest defensive players in football.

You sound like Greg Williams.

[RashanGary]

You sound like Greg Williams.

Honestly, I think i echo the mentality of most good defensive players and coaches throughout the history of football. I think there is a little part of everyone who feels bad for the opponent when they're injured, but football fosters desperation and proactive self preservation. In a word, agressiveness. The feeling of rekief that you just disarmed a potential threat trumps feeling bad for their pain. The only honest time where everyone on the field actuall cares is when a player breaks his neck or appears to have. The reality that life isnimportant finally comes to the forefront. But when a guynshreds his knee, about the only honest emotion i see from a defense is get thisnguynoff the field so we can do it to the next guy. Nobody feels bad. There is too much of a possibility that you're next to care about the other teams knees and hips. You care about yours and your teammates. Thats it.

[RashanGary]

People who have never experienced real, prolonged danger probably cant even comprehend what it would be like to wish harm on another human being. I've been there. Ive envisioned putting an arrow through the chest of my physically, emotionally and sexually abusive step dad. I held my bow in my hand while my mom was getting beaten and considered it. I never did, but ive had my back far enogh against a wall often enough to relate to wanting to destroy another person. Probably, the first thing i would have done as he bleed out was stand over him, put my hand on his throat in a feeling of dominance and said, "you will never hurt another one of us again" after that, probably cried and hugged my mom.

Regardless, people with their backs against the wall fight in a way some people cant even fathom. Football fosters that part of people. The desperation to win only snowballs with the real desperation to protect uour body and the bodies of your teammates. The feeling of needing to dominate and destroy is brought to the forefront.

inflicting physical harm is the epitome of stopping a mother fucker in his tracks. The need to win becomes as strong as the need to survive. You dont have time to care. Thats how football is played. Thats how the greatest defenders do what they do. They hurt people pecause they want to. They want to because their desperate. They're desperate because their in harms way and because losing feels like dying. You only have time to dominate, to destroy. Greg Williams said it well, but every team draws on that primal desperation to dominate, to be the aggressor.

[MadScientist]

My only issue with suh is that he doesnt make a good enough effort to stay within the rules. The penalties are a killer for his team. But his on-field demeanor, thats a guy you want on your team. I love when we injure players. Inflicting damage is the goal. You want to break your opponents body along with their spirit and will. The things he does to Quarterbacks are wonderful.
There's a big difference between hurting your opponent and injuring him. Throwing out cheap shots to heads and knees, most injuries happen when a foot or something gets caught and then a hit comes from a side. It happens, it's part of football, but I can't see a reason to love it happening. A couple of years ago (may have been during the SB run) a Dallas player hit Rodgers when his leg was caught. He knew if he continued it would blow out Rodgers leg, so he let up. Rodgers was able to bounce back up without injury. That's good football.

I want the Packers to hit the other guys so hard they don't want to get up, but not in a way that they can't get up.

[mraynrand]

A lot of people face terrible conflicts in their personal lives without inflicting it upon others, regardless of whether it's a physical sport or sharpening pencils in a CPA's office. I have sympathy for people who have those conflicts, but I think it's a bad idea to go down the road of trying to justify (or even just 'explain') bad behaviour on the playing field due to a certain mentality; either one that came from a troubled background, or one that is ginned up by an irresponsible coach. There are all sorts of stories about players with troubled backgrounds or aggressive impulses who use the football field to express that aggression physically, as an outlet, and yet do so without breaking the rules.

[RashanGary]

McCarthy, in that SB run played tapes of people going to war, protecting their fellow soldiers, prevailing, surviving. He may not have said,"affect the head" but he did inspire intense feelings of the commaradery that comes with surviving as a unit. The rest comes on its own. When you truly feel your in a corner with your unit and you depend on each other to survive, nobody has to tell you what to do to dominate, you just do. You care about your group, your team, not the people trying to hurt you. Thats what is drawn on in football. Thats how they feel on the field. Thats why these guys seem ruthless, but really they're just people pushed to the limits of desparation. Jolly plays that way, sitton, suh, sapp. . . . . passionate people who are desperate will shoot a mother fucker in the chest to protect their mom or spike a qbs head off the turf to stop him from destroying their team. Now, is it really that desperate? maybe not, but good coaches make you believe it is and good players believe it for 60 minutes on sunday.

[RashanGary]

A lot of people face terrible conflicts in their personal lives without inflicting it upon others, regardless of whether it's a physical sport or sharpening pencils in a CPA's office. I have sympathy for people who have those conflicts, but I think it's a bad idea to go down the road of trying to justify (or even just 'explain') bad behaviour on the playing field due to a certain mentality; either one that came from a troubled background, or one that is ginned up by an irresponsible coach. There are all sorts of stories about players with troubled backgrounds or aggressive impulses who use the football field to express that aggression physically, as an outlet, and yet do so without breaking the rules.

dude, if someone far superior to me physically is appearing to take the life of a loved one and all I hace is a 3" pocket knife, its going to be prudent of me to make sure he doesnt see me before i put it in his neck. Thats a rule. You're going to be penalized for stupidity in life and football and the penalties can be severe. Yes, he has to have a better awareness of the reality of his situation.

Fact remains, coaches and players draw on the unity and desperation I grew up in. Crossing the line of aggressiveness to unnecessary brutality is a greyer line than a lot of people want to think. At what point is force too much? Thats the point i make, these guys are on the edge of snapping. They play to destroy and dominate. Sometimes it goes too far. Get over it.

[George Cumby]

Are we not mixing apples and oranges, here? It's one thing to protect your loved ones, its another to intentionally injure your opponent in a GAME.

I LOVE a physically dominating defense that intimidates their opponent. I don't necessarily wish to see the opponents injured.

.02

[mraynrand]

At what point is force too much?

when you break the rules. and from watching football for a lifetime, and knowing a lot of the guys you talk about (guys who came from horrible backgrounds even worse than what you faced), most guys know what the boundaries are and play right up to them - but not over. You may be surprised that a lot of kids who face abuse, who experience alcoholic, brutalizing fathers and other terrible circumstances, are actually able to grow up adjust and find peace - and use a sport like football as an outlet, without crossing the line to be a dirty player. At the same time, guys who grow up in nice households, with picnics and noodle salads, turn into jerks.

Either way, I'm not excited about using a troubled childhood as a way to justify bad behavior, and I certainly want to remove coaches who use that as a motivation for dirty play on the field.

[RashanGary]

Are we not mixing apples and oranges, here? It's one thing to protect your loved ones, its another to intentionally injure your opponent in a GAME.

I LOVE a physically dominating defense that intimidates their opponent. I don't necessarily wish to see the opponents injured.

.02

And i understand that. The amount of pressure you'd have to have put on you before you commit to that type of aggression is probably greater than mine. Id say that for most people. I would also say, there is a level of danger where you would hurt a person intentionally, and a level where the only thing you would feel is relief that the danger was removed. You've just never been there most likely, and consider that a blessing. Doesnt mean football players dont draw on it though.

Even in football, you really only see the worst of the worst in the post season because its more desperate.

I do agree, and Ive come a long way in my life feeling safe with people and safe in the world. I dont like the fact that i flip that switch sometimes. But i do see what goes on out there and i do understand it. I probably shouldnt even watch football. It brings that part of me out. I have a hard time picturing not doing everything to win. I just want to destroy. And when one of them does harm to one of us, i picture their leg snapping and i dont care. Thats just the truth and im only that cold when it comes to winning.

[RashanGary]

Either way, I'm not excited about using a troubled childhood as a way to justify bad behavior, and I certainly want to remove coaches who use that as a motivation for dirty play on the field.

Thats fine, but you're missing out on realities of humanity.

[Fritz]

There is a story just brewing here in Detroit that Suh had another off-the-field "incident."


Coincidentally, Suh makes a comment that fits absolutely perfectly here and melds the discussion of on- and off- field behaviors.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130911/SPORTS0101/309110107/

[Patler]

Am I wrong about this? It seems to me that not so long ago, the block by Suh wouldn't have even merited a penalty. So long as you got your head in front of the player, it wasn't a "clip", and blocking low was allowed - period. Didn't matter where on the field it was. It looked like Suh had is helmet in front.

Was that longer ago than I remember it being????

[Guiness]

Am I wrong about this? It seems to me that not so long ago, the block by Suh wouldn't have even merited a penalty. So long as you got your head in front of the player, it wasn't a "clip", and blocking low was allowed - period. Didn't matter where on the field it was. It looked like Suh had is helmet in front.

Was that longer ago than I remember it being????

Like last season? That was a peel-back block defined, and there was no shortage of press on that rule change this off-season, as I'm sure you know Patler!

AFAIK Cut blocking is only allowed in close line play with a player who is not engaged with another blocker. Can you cut block a defender in the open field if he is NOT moving towards his own goal line? I'm not sure.

[mraynrand]

Can you cut block a defender in the open field if he is NOT moving towards his own goal line? I'm not sure.

So maybe Suh was just ignorant of the new rule, and he wasn't trying to kill the specter of his abusive father.

[Fritz]

He thought it was the Comcast repairman illegally entering his property.

[Guiness]

He thought it was the Comcast repairman illegally entering his property.

I love how he got off on that charge because the video footage did not show him actually pointing the gun at the repairman. smh

If you approach me carrying what appears to be a firearm, I'm going to feel threatened. It doesn't matter if you pointed it me or not, or whether it turns out it was a genuine IMI Desert Eagle, a pellet gun or a carved piece of wood painted black. I know gun laws are very different in the US but there is no way his actions could be interpreted as anything but hostile.

[pbmax]

I don't think this rule is new, its been around. Open field blocking low has been illegal for a couple of decades (not joking, I think it was the 80s). In line play has not changed much except for the crack back block prohibition being extended away from the LOS.

[Patler]

I don't think this rule is new, its been around. Open field blocking low has been illegal for a couple of decades (not joking, I think it was the 80s). In line play has not changed much except for the crack back block prohibition being extended away from the LOS.

Could be, I was thinking it was less than that, but at my age two decades in some things seem like a year or two, and two months for other things seems like forever!!!

[Guiness]

I don't think this rule is new, its been around. Open field blocking low has been illegal for a couple of decades (not joking, I think it was the 80s). In line play has not changed much except for the crack back block prohibition being extended away from the LOS.

Suh's hit would be a peel back block, wouldn't it?

If open field low blocking has been illegal for a while, how did the rule against peel back blocks change anything? Was the new rule only to get rid of it in close line play?

[mraynrand]

He thought it was the Comcast repairman illegally entering his property.

When you live in a neighborhood where repairmen enter properties as they please, you develop a hatred, a killer mentality that you can't help but project onto the field of play. You are protecting your RG-6 coaxial cable, after all.

[pbmax]

Suh's hit would be a peel back block, wouldn't it?

If open field low blocking has been illegal for a while, how did the rule against peel back blocks change anything? Was the new rule only to get rid of it in close line play?

Peel backs were legal (see Hines Ward) and outside the scope of any downfield blocking rules as long as you were above the waist. I am not sure if the peel back rule eliminates them entirely or just when its up around the shoulders like Ward used to do, but I think Suh's falls under a low block rule regardless of the new peel back one.

[Guiness]

Peel backs were legal (see Hines Ward) and outside the scope of any downfield blocking rules as long as you were above the waist. I am not sure if the peel back rule eliminates them entirely or just when its up around the shoulders like Ward used to do, but I think Suh's falls under a low block rule regardless of the new peel back one.

Googling found this for me


What does Peel-Back Block Mean?

When an offensive player blocks a defensive player who is running towards his own end zone (from the side or behind). This type of block below the waste has been illegal outside the tackle box since 2005. On March 20th 2013 the NFL voted to make peel-back blocks below the waste illegal inside the tackle box as well, resulting in a 15-yard penalty.

Not sure how this meshes with what you're saying. It just talks about low blocks, I assume the high ones are still ok?

Great spelling of waist incorrectly twice in the same paragraph!

[swede]

What does Peel-Back Block Mean?

When an offensive player blocks a defensive player who is running towards his own end zone (from the side or behind). This type of block below the waste has been illegal outside the tackle box since 2005. On March 20th 2013 the NFL voted to make peel-back blocks below the waste illegal inside the tackle box as well, resulting in a 15-yard penalty.

I think they meant "below the junk"

[pbmax]

Googling found this for me


Not sure how this meshes with what you're saying. It just talks about low blocks, I assume the high ones are still ok?

Great spelling of waist incorrectly twice in the same paragraph!

Well either it means that Ward's blocks are still legal (not what I thought) OR that they are covered under other rules. It seems they are covered under other rules (Ward's wikipedia page):


Ward often faced criticism for his style of blocking, particularly for his propensity to hit defenders on their blind-side. During a game on October 19, 2008, Ward put a vicious downfield blindside block on rookie Cincinnati Bengals linebacker Keith Rivers. The impact of the block left Rivers with a broken jaw, and caused him to miss the remainder of the 2008 season. Ward was not penalized for this block, nor was he fined by the league as the hit was deemed legal. The league, however, later passed a new rule banning such hits. The so-called "Hines Ward Rule" made a blindside block illegal if the block came from the blocker's helmet, forearm or shoulder and lands to the head or neck area of a defender.[10] In a Sports Illustrated poll of NFL players in 2009, he was voted the "dirtiest player in the NFL."[1]

But back to the original question about downfield below the knees, I think at one time as long as the block was not from behind (head in front of blockee) that it was legal downfield. I believe that was changed some time ago, prior to the peel-back rules changes you cite from 2005. However, I guess it would depend on which action the ref or League finds objectionable. If its peel back then its a recent change (though it has been that way his entire career). If it was simply below the waist from side or behind, he has even less of an argument.

My view of it is that they were out of the LOS (is it 3 feet or yards on either side of the ball?) area so the new 2013 peel back rule can't apply. Nor does it look like a peel back block at all because Sullivan was in front of Suh. I think the announcer was simply too eager to expound on rules changes.

[Guiness]

Well either it means that Ward's blocks are still legal (not what I thought) OR that they are covered under other rules. It seems they are covered under other rules (Ward's wikipedia page):



But back to the original question about downfield below the knees, I think at one time as long as the block was not from behind (head in front of blockee) that it was legal downfield. I believe that was changed some time ago, prior to the peel-back rules changes you cite from 2005. However, I guess it would depend on which action the ref or League finds objectionable. If its peel back then its a recent change (though it has been that way his entire career). If it was simply below the waist from side or behind, he has even less of an argument.

Thanks for that.

Now someone need to tell me why that TB rookie was fined for his shove of Geno Smith! Riddle me that!