Whitner fined 21k for hit in end zone

Agree with all...n e 1 else concerned we still can't cover this basic pattern...with 3 defenders in the area?

Originally posted by GNielsen:
When you watch him making a clear attempt to hit the receiver below the shoulder with his shoulder and not his helmet in slow motion, you have to wonder what the NFL was thinking when they fined him. That's one of the strangest decisions I've seen in a long time.

Yesterday I was watching some highlights of old NFL games and one of the things that popped out was the fact that many of those hits would be deemed illegal today. The game seemed to be much more vicious and offensive players really had to have courage going against some of those defenses. A lot of that has been taken away and now it seems that you can never really make a hard hit against anyone, which is giving offenses an unfair advantage.

Dude just changed his last name to "Hitner". lol

This fine pushed him over the edge. lol

Good. I hope he backs the name change up.

NFL is a f**king joke now days you cant hit anyone hard without a flag and fine.

The hit was illegal...that's the rule.

(W)hitner just needs to hit players below the waist and above the knees. It's as simple as that. He can protest or change his name - but the rule is a rule and everyone has to play by it.

Originally posted by verb1der:
Dude just changed his last name to "Hitner". lol

That makes no sense and sounds very much like hitler

Originally posted by Imfasterthanur:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by ihab:

This play just says it all about the preposterous rules of the NFL game. Defensive players should stop taking the field until the league until this shameless competitive advantage to the offense is addressed.

Since the receivers head whiplashed, these lame refs probably assumed it was a helmet-to-helmet hit.

Given the context of NFL speed -- where every plau is based on millisecond reaction time -- that's as PERFECT as a hit you can give.

http://nflcommunications.com/2011/12/27/definition-of-a-defenseless-player/

wrong

Gooddell is terrible for the league.

Originally posted by pdizo916:
Gooddell is terrible for the league.

This.

I hope the paper work gets completed soon so he can have that name on his jersey this Sunday. That would be awesome.

Originally posted by 4ML:
The hit was illegal...that's the rule.

(W)hitner just needs to hit players below the waist and above the knees. It's as simple as that. He can protest or change his name - but the rule is a rule and everyone has to play by it.

so basically he has to aim for the groin?

What's f**king crazy is these guys look at the film and SEE CLEAR AS DAY that it's legal, but they fine anyway. They are literally trying to fine hitting out of the game. The players hate it and so do the fans. But they keep doing it because we keep paying.

All I'm asking is the d-backs legally play more physical. Holding and pass interference on the defense should be more lax since you can't hit the receivers once they catch it.

Originally posted by RonMexico:

Originally posted by Imfasterthanur:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by ihab:

This play just says it all about the preposterous rules of the NFL game. Defensive players should stop taking the field until the league until this shameless competitive advantage to the offense is addressed.

Since the receivers head whiplashed, these lame refs probably assumed it was a helmet-to-helmet hit.

Given the context of NFL speed -- where every plau is based on millisecond reaction time -- that's as PERFECT as a hit you can give.

http://nflcommunications.com/2011/12/27/definition-of-a-defenseless-player/

wrong

The rule as it is written is horrible.

First this part:

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.

What the f**k does that mean? Unnecessary contact. Well in this case it was necessary because he was trying to break up a TD.

(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

Again, f**king b******t. So basically if the guy catches it you are not allowed to hit him. Way to ruin the game.

I love the NFL but this s**t is starting to get to me.

Originally posted by Antix:
What's f**king crazy is these guys look at the film and SEE CLEAR AS DAY that it's legal, but they fine anyway. They are literally trying to fine hitting out of the game. The players hate it and so do the fans. But they keep doing it because we keep paying.

All I'm asking is the d-backs legally play more physical. Holding and pass interference on the defense should be more lax since you can't hit the receivers once they catch it.

This. I would really be interested in finding out how many of these fines are over-turned. This isn't pocket change they are taking from these guys.

If it is clearly an illegal hit and a hit that was not needed or you can tell had some intent to injure then fine them. But you can tell from this hit that it was just part of the game (let alone that it was clean).

But as you stated the NFL seems to throw out these fines when 99% of people seem to agree the hit was fine. It is almost like they are giving a big f**k you to everyone and saying we will do what we want.