Meriweather NOT suspended.

[Tony Oday]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/23685169/report-brandon-meriweather-to-be-fined-not-suspended

Wtf.

[pbmax]

Florio on Dan Patrick's radio show that the League thinks Merriweather's hit on Starks doesn't qualify under the new rule.

[pittstang5]

BS! I hope he gets fined...big time.

[Tony Oday]

Yeah crown of the helmet is legal against Packer Rbs...forgot that.

[bobblehead]

The starks hit was "legal". He was coming in midsection high for the tackle, when starks lowered the shoulder down on his punk bitch head. He didn't intend to have helmet contact at all I would imagine, which contributed to him getting the 10 count.

[pbmax]

The starks hit was "legal". He was coming in midsection high for the tackle, when starks lowered the shoulder down on his punk bitch head. He didn't intend to have helmet contact at all I would imagine, which contributed to him getting the 10 count.

Nope, according to the rule, intention or aim for target does not matter. Crown of helmet to any part of the body is prohibited under these conditions:

From the League Video:

Prohibits a runner or tackler from initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet outside the tackle box (outside of tackle to outside of tackle, 3 yards past LOS and ALL the way back to offensive endline).

Three components:

1. Player must line up his opponent
2. Must lower his head
3. Must deliver a forcible blow with the crown of the helmet

Also from the League Video:

If both players are moving (video shows Bucs-Lions game run O wide left near sideline, LB coming to cut off RB) at an angle and neither player has lined up his opponent, the contact (with crown) is legal.

This would seem to be the out on the Starks hit. If true, its problematic. Why does an angle in the collision change the applicability of the rule if the hit is at 90 degree angle? Would you rather be T-boned or hit head on? Also, Starks is pinned to sideline so Merriweather COULD line him up and hit at a 90 degree angle, it was not a glancing glow that deflected harmlessly to an angle.

I find that argument dumb, but logical from the rule's instructions. Florio's contention that there was an angle to the blow that either caused the hit to not be delivered by the crown of the helmet to be an imaginative viewing of the tape.

[MadScientist]

This would seem to be the out on the Starks hit. If true, its problematic. Why does an angle in the collision change the applicability of the rule if the hit is at 90 degree angle? Would you rather be T-boned or hit head on? Also, Starks is pinned to sideline so Merriweather COULD line him up and hit at a 90 degree angle, it was not a glancing glow that deflected harmlessly to an angle.

I find that argument dumb, but logical from the rule's instructions. Florio's contention that there was an angle to the blow that either caused the hit to not be delivered by the crown of the helmet to be an imaginative viewing of the tape.

It's more of a case where it is hard to say that an opponent was 'lined up' when they are both moving and the hit comes from the side. When it is dead on, the opponent can be lined up even when moving. That kind of impact can cause serious, career ending neck injuries, not just a concussion. It is dangerous enough that they can't give it a pass just due to the dynamics of a fast moving game.

[run pMc]

Any engineers or physics smartypantses (pantsi?) online? I'm guessing the at an angle vs. head-on argument has to do with vectors -- two forces meeting headon transfer energy differently than at an angle. Boy, I almost sounded smart there. If a RB is running along the sideline and is hit from the side at an angle, he probably gets forced out of bounds. If a RB is diving straight across the goal line and a DT hits him, he's gonna be stopped cold. I'm thinking there's more energy or something absorbed or whatever in a head-on collision (and thus more opportunity for injury) and that's the argument being made in the rules.

All the same, if you look at the photos Meriweather doesn't exactly have low pad level when he's going in for the hit -- he's at least shoulder high each time. He's looking to blow up, not wrap up, the RB...and IMO that's going to make him a vegetable if he doesn't change his tackling form.

It's true Starks lowers his head to deliver a little punishment back...but at 6-2 he's got to be one of the tallest RBs in the league. Meriweather's still aiming pretty high.

I remember a story about how Ronnie Lott used to practice his tackling form with a gigantic sand bag, ostensibly hung up like a boxing heavy bag. The way WAS played, I wonder if they actually practice tackling form anymore. Hell, our safeties could learn a thing or two about form as well.

[Guiness]

Any engineers or physics smartypantses (pantsi?) online? I'm guessing the at an angle vs. head-on argument has to do with vectors -- two forces meeting headon transfer energy differently than at an angle. Boy, I almost sounded smart there. If a RB is running along the sideline and is hit from the side at an angle, he probably gets forced out of bounds. If a RB is diving straight across the goal line and a DT hits him, he's gonna be stopped cold. I'm thinking there's more energy or something absorbed or whatever in a head-on collision (and thus more opportunity for injury) and that's the argument being made in the rules.

All the same, if you look at the photos Meriweather doesn't exactly have low pad level when he's going in for the hit -- he's at least shoulder high each time. He's looking to blow up, not wrap up, the RB...and IMO that's going to make him a vegetable if he doesn't change his tackling form.

It's true Starks lowers his head to deliver a little punishment back...but at 6-2 he's got to be one of the tallest RBs in the league. Meriweather's still aiming pretty high.

I remember a story about how Ronnie Lott used to practice his tackling form with a gigantic sand bag, ostensibly hung up like a boxing heavy bag. The way WAS played, I wonder if they actually practice tackling form anymore. Hell, our safeties could learn a thing or two about form as well.

I'm an engineer, but an electrical one! Still have a little of that background...

I'd wager that hitting at an angle is less dangerous because some of the forces remain as inertia - one or both of the players keep moving, albeit in a different direction. In a head on collision, all of the force is going to be absorbed, none of it deflected.

The hit on Starks was still a headhunting shot. Trying to interpret the rule however, I wonder if Starks could've been penalized for lowering his helmet into the tackler? There is something about that as well.

[mraynrand]

Trying to interpret the rule however, I wonder if Starks could've been penalized for lowering his helmet into the tackler? There is something about that as well.

absolutely, if he's leading with the crown. Some might think he was just lowering his shoulder.

[Fritz]

Don't give the NFL any ideas. It's a world in which Starks could be punished while Merriweather gets off scot-free.

[bobblehead]

Nope, according to the rule, intention or aim for target does not matter. Crown of helmet to any part of the body is prohibited under these conditions:

From the League Video:





Also from the League Video:



This would seem to be the out on the Starks hit. If true, its problematic. Why does an angle in the collision change the applicability of the rule if the hit is at 90 degree angle? Would you rather be T-boned or hit head on? Also, Starks is pinned to sideline so Merriweather COULD line him up and hit at a 90 degree angle, it was not a glancing glow that deflected harmlessly to an angle.

I find that argument dumb, but logical from the rule's instructions. Florio's contention that there was an angle to the blow that either caused the hit to not be delivered by the crown of the helmet to be an imaginative viewing of the tape.

I am saying he didn't mean for the helmet to make contact (I think). I believe he was going for a head to the side shoulder to the belly tackle and starks dropped the hammer.

Because of the proximity of the head on the body all players by definition lead with the helmet. The crown is another matter, but when you form tackle, you slide the crown alongside the body and wrap. You can lead with the facemask in such a situation, but the risk is greater if you do hit the body first.

[bobblehead]

absolutely, if he's leading with the crown. Some might think he was just lowering his shoulder.

Its kinda a crappy rule....sort of like what defines smut. I can't define it but I know it when I see it. When a defender spear a guy in the earhole its dirty, don't care of the angles. If a defender is squared up for a tackle and the RB spears him in the chest (or face) its dirty.

My belief from the start is that the Lacy hit was as cheap as can be, but the starks hit was clean on both ends. Starks lowers to brace for impact, wtf should he do? Merriweather wasn't helmet high to start with, but he was higher than he needed to be, and his bad form got him hurt (partly cuz he is a dirty fucker who starks was looking to hurt).

[CaptainKickass]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...-not-suspended

Wtf.

I'm gonna say this one more time. Feel free to quote me on this in the future too.

Since the "Fail Mary" play in Seattle in particular, it has become painfully obvious to me - a lifelong Packer fan and shareholder - that the NFL cares not for player safety, cares not for the NFL rules, and most of all - cares not for any individual player or any fan.

The only thing the NFL actually cares about - is the bottom line. Money. Dollars. Moolah. Coin. Etc Etc.

It is for this reason that - while I may chat online with you all in a playful manner and follow along with the ONLY fan owned franchise in the NFL - I absolutely, positively, and without question refuse to give another dollar to the entity known as the NFL.

The lack of suspension, inconsistency and obvious favoritism in this particular case only solidifies my stance.

I will pirate every game broadcast, even if it's televised in my market, I'll tolerate the commercials from whatever market I'm getting the stream from (I had a Spanish language feed the other day - it was BEAUTIFUL not to have to listen to The Buck-Man duo, and when a field goal is made they don't scream "Gooooooaaaaallll" the scream "BUENOOOOOOOOO" ), and I refuse to attend any game in person even if the tickets are bought for me.

Fuck the NFL.

.

[swede]

I'm gonna say this one more time. Feel free to quote me on this in the future too.

Since the "Fail Mary" play in Seattle in particular, it has become painfully obvious to me - a lifelong Packer fan and shareholder - that the NFL cares not for player safety, cares not for the NFL rules, and most of all - cares not for any individual player or any fan.

The only thing the NFL actually cares about - is the bottom line. Money. Dollars. Moolah. Coin. Etc Etc.

It is for this reason that - while I may chat online with you all in a playful manner and follow along with the ONLY fan owned franchise in the NFL - I absolutely, positively, and without question refuse to give another dollar to the entity known as the NFL.

The lack of suspension, inconsistency and obvious favoritism in this particular case only solidifies my stance.

I will pirate every game broadcast, even if it's televised in my market, I'll tolerate the commercials from whatever market I'm getting the stream from (I had a Spanish language feed the other day - it was BEAUTIFUL not to have to listen to The Buck-Man duo, and when a field goal is made they don't scream "Gooooooaaaaallll" the scream "BUENOOOOOOOOO" ), and I refuse to attend any game in person even if the tickets are bought for me.

Fuck the NFL.

.

Thank you for your contributions to this forum. A dollar has been donated to the NFL on your behalf.