Jump to content

Boomer Esiason says Burfict needs head examined


Recommended Posts

Yep. Without knowing what was in his head you can't prove intent. It can be interpreted either way. Deion says it looks like he was trying to avoid the big hit. Fuck, even Martavis Bryant said he thought the hit wasn't dirty and that Burfict was trying to pull up.

Yet we know Shazier's intent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet we know Shazier's intent.  

I never said Shazier should be suspended. I also just agreed in this thread the flag was appropriately thrown on Burfict. "Intent" is not a criteria for the  "crown of the helmet" rule.

I'm not really sure what your point is....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the simple facts:    Two plays earlier the Steeler Center attempted a knee shot on Burfict on a screen pass.   Burfict hurdled him and Burfict right up to him jawing.

Then Boom he's leveling AB with his shoulder.       A week earlier Burfict took a shot against Max Williams that was completely out of the play.

True we are never going to know his intent and what he was trying to do.    Good chance Burfict's emotions got the best of him.    Unless you truly want to believe the Burfict that's athletic enough to avoid a knee shot flat footed somehow couldn't avoid putting a shoulder into AB's head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the simple facts:    Two plays earlier the Steeler Center attempted a knee shot on Burfict on a screen pass.   Burfict hurdled him and Burfict right up to him jawing.

Then Boom he's leveling AB with his shoulder.       A week earlier Burfict took a shot against Max Williams that was completely out of the play.

True we are never going to know his intent and what he was trying to do.    Good chance Burfict's emotions got the best of him.    Unless you truly want to believe the Burfict that's athletic enough to avoid a knee shot flat footed somehow couldn't avoid putting a shoulder into AB's head. 

Martavis Bryant doesn't think it was intentional or dirty...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said Shazier should be suspended. I also just agreed in this thread the flag was appropriately thrown on Burfict. "Intent" is not a criteria for the  "crown of the helmet" rule.

I'm not really sure what your point is....

intent is a critical factor in the league's fine assessment and you do believe Shazier should have been fined, correct?    The league does not fine all helmet to helmet hits even ones that are flagged.   They fine what the believe to flagrant, excessive etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martavis Bryant doesn't think it was intentional or dirty...

Intentional?   Are you saying Burfict didn't intend to hit AB?    I said it could have been avoided or changed to avoid a penalty.

Intentional is probably in reference to the injury, ya think?   Certainly we can all agree Burfict did intend to hit AB. 

Maurice NFL somebody on the Rich Eisen show didn't think it was dirty either.   He thought it could have been avoided and/or hit with his chest etc.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

intent is a critical factor in the league's fine assessment and you do believe Shazier should have been fined, correct?    The league does not fine all helmet to helmet hits even ones that are flagged.   They fine what the believe to flagrant, excessive etc. 

I think he should have been fined because it was a text-book example of spearing and was not flagged. The league should identify it as an illegal play somehow. Intent is absolutely not a factor in the fine schedule. They fine "flagrant" personal fouls. Here is the link to the "fuine schedule" per the NFL. http://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/fines-appeals/

Also here is the relevant entry.

Player Safety Rules and/or Flagrant Personal Foul (including, without limitation):

Suspension or fine; severity to be determined by degree of violation
(FINES LISTED ARE MINIMUMS).

Striking/Kicking/Kneeing

$8,681

$17,363

Horse-Collar Tackle

$17,363

$34,728

Face Mask

$8,681

$17,363

Leg Whip

$17,363

$34,728

Late Hit

$8,681

$17,363

Spearing

$23,152

$46,305

Impermissible Use of the Helmet (including illegal launching)

$23,152

$46,305

Hit on Defenseless Player

$23,152

$46,305

Blind-Side Block

$23,152

$46,305

Roughing the Passer

$17,363

$34,728

Low Block

$8,681

$17,363

Chop Block

$8,681

$17,363

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burfict plays with an edge, which I like.  But he does need to learn when to cut it out.  There is a reason he went undrafted, and we are seeing some of it.

He is a beast when he plays within the game, but he doesn't always do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he should have been fined because it was a text-book example of spearing and was not flagged. The league should identify it as an illegal play somehow. Intent is absolutely not a factor in the fine schedule. They fine "flagrant" personal fouls. Here is the link to the "fuine schedule" per the NFL. http://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/fines-appeals/

Also here is the relevant entry.

Player Safety Rules and/or Flagrant Personal Foul (including, without limitation):

Suspension or fine; severity to be determined by degree of violation
(FINES LISTED ARE MINIMUMS).

Striking/Kicking/Kneeing

$8,681

$17,363

Horse-Collar Tackle

$17,363

$34,728

Face Mask

$8,681

$17,363

Leg Whip

$17,363

$34,728

Late Hit

$8,681

$17,363

Spearing

$23,152

$46,305

Impermissible Use of the Helmet (including illegal launching)

$23,152

$46,305

Hit on Defenseless Player

$23,152

$46,305

Blind-Side Block

$23,152

$46,305

Roughing the Passer

$17,363

$34,728

Low Block

$8,681

$17,363

Chop Block

$8,681

$17,363

lol,  the league does use Flagrant.  

The word “flagrant,” when used here to describe an action by a player, is meant to indicate that the degree of a violation of the rules—usually a personal foul or unnecessary roughness—is extremely objectionable, conspicuous, unnecessary, avoidable, or gratuitous. “Flagrant” in these rules does not necessarily imply malice on the part of the fouling player or an intention to injure an opponent.

Which covers what you are saying about Shazier.    

They don't use intent in terms of malice.    Thank you.

Somehow you are comfortable with saying we can't know Burficts intent in relation to the hit being unnecessary or avoidable.   But you are comfortable with assuming Shazier's.    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol,  the league does use Flagrant.  

The word “flagrant,” when used here to describe an action by a player, is meant to indicate that the degree of a violation of the rules—usually a personal foul or unnecessary roughness—is extremely objectionable, conspicuous, unnecessary, avoidable, or gratuitous. “Flagrant” in these rules does not necessarily imply malice on the part of the fouling player or an intention to injure an opponent.

Which covers what you are saying about Shazier.    

They don't use intent in terms of malice.    Thank you.

Somehow you are comfortable with saying we can't know Burficts intent in relation to the hit being unnecessary or avoidable.   But you are comfortable with assuming Shazier's.    

 

 

LOL, you said intent was "critical factor" when issuing fines. Yet the rulebook mentions nothing about intent. I am sure if intent is obvious the league cares and will fine accordingly.. Meaning while intent CAN be a reason for issuing a fine, That doesn't mean intent is a "critical factor" in issuing fines. You were trying to say that since I thought Shaziers hit should have been fined that I must be making a conclusion about intent. When in reality a fine may be levied without any judgement on intent.

Thanks for making it clear that intent is not a "critical factor" in issuing fines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

LOL, you said intent was "critical factor" when issuing fines. Yet the rulebook mentions nothing about intent. I am sure if intent is obvious the league cares and will fine accordingly.. Meaning while intent CAN be a reason for issuing a fine, That doesn't mean intent is a "critical factor" in issuing fines. You were trying to say that since I thought Shaziers hit should have been fined that I must be making a conclusion about intent. When in reality a fine may be levied without any judgement on intent.

Thanks for making it clear that intent is not a "critical factor" in issuing fines.

Dance, Dance, Dance.  

You used intent in terms of avoidance and necessity.  You even referenced Deon Sanders arguement to support the hit could not be avoided etc.   Is this not correct?

As proven by the rulebook the league clearly used Flagrant to cover necessity and avoidance.   As you admit and stuck your foot in your mouth the league does use flagrant as a measure for fines.

You have argued that Shazier should be fined many times. Correct?    I don't think it was on the basis of intending to injure in which the NFL rulebook is clear they don't equate Flagrant to intention to injure or malice.    If that's the case, please make that clear.

If that's not the case it seems you are willing to extend Burfict assumptions that you aren't with Shazier.

At the end of the day Burfict's actions were selfish and helped cost his team a victory.  That hit was avoidable and unnecessary.  

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dance, Dance, Dance.  

You used intent in terms of avoidance and necessity.  You even referenced Deon Sanders arguement to support the hit could not be avoided etc.   Is this not correct?

As proven by the rulebook the league clearly used Flagrant to cover necessity and avoidance.   As you admit and stuck your foot in your mouth the league does use flagrant as a measure for fines.

You have argued that Shazier should be fined many times. Correct?    I don't think it was on the basis of intending to injure in which the NFL rulebook is clear they don't equate Flagrant to intention to injure or malice.    If that's the case, please make that clear.

If that's not the case it seems you are willing to extend Burfict assumptions that you aren't with Shazier.

At the end of the day Burfict's actions were selfish and helped cost his team a victory.  That hit was avoidable and unnecessary.  

  

Who's dancing again? You are the one that brought the question of intent into whether Shazier gets fined. Stating I must be making a judgement on intent to say he should be fined. A standard by which the NFL does not limit fines although we both agree it can be one condition. That doesn't mean one must make a judgement on intent as a reason for fines.

Regardless, watching you tap dance is starting to make me nauseous. 

I get it, you think Shazier should not be fined, and Burfict should be suspended. I think that is lame, but I could care less about your opinion, so please, don't bother trying to defend it any more. I won't be paying attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Who's dancing again? You are the one that brought the question of intent into whether Shazier gets fined. Stating I must be making a judgement on intent to say he should be fined. A standard by which the NFL does not limit fines although we both agree it can be one condition. That doesn't mean one must make a judgement on intent as a reason for fines.

Regardless, watching you tap dance is starting to make me nauseous. 

I get it, you think Shazier should not be fined, and Burfict should be suspended. I think that is lame, but I could care less about your opinion, so please, don't bother trying to defend it any more. I won't be paying attention.

I think the league should do things to take those hits out of the game.  Shazier should get fined.

Burfict should get suspended.  He's a repeat offender.  In addition, he helped screw this team with that hit that could have been avoided. 

If a person is going to argue all day long that Shazier should be fined or the league is fixed then that same person can't say "well we don't know intent and Deon Sanders blah, blah, blah." 

Shazier's hit illegal as it was, still was more of a football play than Burfict's hit on AB.   Because Gio was in fact a runner. 

The league does levy fines based on intent under their term Flagrant that they clearly say includes avoidance and necessity.   The only distinction they make is Flagrant doesn't mean intent to injure or malice acts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what is stupid? All fans and media talk about after games is who should get fined and how much. Its fucking stupid. I miss the days when big hits were celebrated. Football is weak nowadays.

I dont care about these peoples lives after football, just like nobody cares about the life of a steel mill worker or a coal miner after they retire at age 59 and die at the age of 65. Injuries are part of the risk NFL players take to make millions of dollars and retire at age 34 and be able to take care of their children's children financially for life. My father who has been a blue collar worker and suffered from torn meniscus 4 times, hernia, his hands are numb from solvents, he has had two shoulder surgeries and his shoulder is still messed up. Was diagnosed with planar fascieitis in both feet and had to work and live with it for 18 months. He sure as hell didnt make millions of dollars.

Football is dying a slow death. All I read about on social media is how players like Burfict should not be in the league. A mere 15 years ago he would be a superstar. It is sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what is stupid? All fans and media talk about after games is who should get fined and how much. Its fucking stupid. I miss the days when big hits were celebrated. Football is weak nowadays.

I dont care about these peoples lives after football, just like nobody cares about the life of a steel mill worker or a coal miner after they retire at age 59 and die at the age of 65. Injuries are part of the risk NFL players take to make millions of dollars and retire at age 34 and be able to take care of their children's children financially for life. My father who has been a blue collar worker and suffered from torn meniscus 4 times, hernia, his hands are numb from solvents, he has had two shoulder surgeries and his shoulder is still messed up. Was diagnosed with planar fascieitis in both feet and had to work and live with it for 18 months. He sure as hell didnt make millions of dollars.

Football is dying a slow death. All I read about on social media is how players like Burfict should not be in the league. A mere 15 years ago he would be a superstar. It is sad.

He will still be a superstar.   The Bengals/Stealers out shined another Saban National Championship all week. 

Suh got mega dollars and is featured in national adds.    What Burfict went through is a drop in a bucket compared Murder Ray. 

Give it time and if he cleans up his act,  this week will Benefit him greatly.   I hope Sunday's broadcast is filled with dominating Burfict hits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-dub says Boomer Esiason should go see his gynecologist.  Fuck this whole smear campaign against Burfict and fuck anyone participating in it with a splintery log.  He should play within the rules whenever the NFL has a consistent set of them.  Until then they can all eat a dick.  Fuck 'em up, Taze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...