PackFanWithTwins
11 years ago

We see things very differently then as I didn't see anything wrong with the hit on Finley.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



I don't think it was an intentional hit, but it was illegal by rule.

Cannot hit the head or neck area of a defenseless player with helment, shoulder or forearm.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
dhazer
11 years ago
People seem to forget how good the Bengal defense is, they haven't given up 300 yards passing in 17 straight games
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
reed
Dulak
11 years ago

People seem to forget how good the Bengal defense is, they haven't given up 300 yards passing in 17 straight games

Originally Posted by: dhazer 



hey dhazer havnt seen you post in awhile ... welcome back (or maybe Ive missed em).

ya that was a wacky game ... 0-14 ..... 30-14 ..... ends with 30-34 .... I mean come on.

I dont think we should feel so bad - the niners touted as the second coming this season have the same record as us. I mean seriously we heard more about them then the ravens whom won the superbowl.
sschind
11 years ago

You mean other than it being against the rules? You can't hit a receiver who is catching a pass in the head. It's as simple as that. The defender didn't hit Finley anywhere BUT his head.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 



The ONLY other option would have been for him not to hit him at all them because they were going straight for each other. I can see the illegality in light of the defenseless receiver rule but I still don't think it was a bad hit. He didn't dive at him and he didn't lead with his helmet. He was leading with his shoulder (isn't that the way tackles are supposed to be made) and his shoulder hit Finley in the helmet. It was an illegal hit by definition of the rules but I don't think it was intentional and I don't think it was worthy of a fine. Yes it should have drawn a penalty because it was against the rules but it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

This is exactly the kind of play that so many Packers fans who are bitching about it now would be defending it as perfectly fine if the roles were reversed. Not saying anyone here in particular but a lot of them would be and you know it.
steveishere
11 years ago

The ONLY other option would have been for him not to hit him at all them because they were going straight for each other. I can see the illegality in light of the defenseless receiver rule but I still don't think it was a bad hit. He didn't dive at him and he didn't lead with his helmet. He was leading with his shoulder (isn't that the way tackles are supposed to be made) and his shoulder hit Finley in the helmet. It was an illegal hit by definition of the rules but I don't think it was intentional and I don't think it was worthy of a fine. Yes it should have drawn a penalty because it was against the rules but it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

This is exactly the kind of play that so many Packers fans who are bitching about it now would be defending it as perfectly fine if the roles were reversed. Not saying anyone here in particular but a lot of them would be and you know it.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



I don't know it was a weird looking hit. Like he was just running by and his shoulder happened to hit Finley in the helmet. I think he just took a bad angle or something and didn't make contact where he wanted to. If he took a better angle he could have smashed Finley legally and it would have been a great hit but it didn't work out that way. I think his fine was less than is usual for those hits so they took some of that into account. I don't think anyone has said it was an intentional hit though so I don't know where that is coming from.
Zero2Cool
11 years ago
There are millions of Packers fans, young, old, boy, girl, man, woman, hetero, homo, smart, stupid, etc ... there's always going to be a portion that fits any statement.


The hit was illegal and should have been flagged, per the rules according to former head of officiating, Mike Pereira.

Here's a break down of the play. I was surprised taunting wasn't called.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/mike-pereira-week-3-live-092213 
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (11m) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : Did they know that at the time or was that something the realized afterwards?
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Van Ness played most of season with broken thumb
wpr (9-Apr) : yay
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy says Steelers likely to protect Packers game. Meaning, no Ireland
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Struggling to figure out what text editor options are needed and which are 'nice to have'
Mucky Tundra (8-Apr) : *CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP*
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : WR who said he'd break Xavier Worthy 40 time...and ran slower than you
Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Who?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
19-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.