Vontaze Bufrict facing 5 game suspension for hit· Page 2

Porforis
Veteran Member

7 years ago

I'm not sure if it should have been an illegal hit, and I don't think a players history should be a deciding factor in whether to consider something legal or illegal. It is either legal or not. If not, sure then look at history to determine punishment.

Many times I've seen a WR running a slant or offenses doing "RUB" routes, and a DB shoulder chuck them and knock them off their feet preventing them from being able to finish the route. That would be illegal under this rule. Offenses are going to adjust plays to you have guys like Gronk crossing shallow where they will basically be untouchable. All defenders are going to be able to do is tackle after the catch, not stop it from happening.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins

Again, this is a new rule.

Offenses are going to adjust plays to you have guys like Gronk crossing shallow where they will basically be untouchable

When's the last time you saw a team laying out Gronk like that on any route much less a shallow route? Since when is leveling someone like that the typical or intelligent way to deal with someone on a shallow crossing route? If it were, why aren't we seeing it all the time?

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#12

Again, this is a new rule.

When's the last time you saw a team laying out Gronk like that on any route much less a shallow route? Since when is leveling someone like that the typical or intelligent way to deal with someone on a shallow crossing route? If it were, why aren't we seeing it all the time?

Originally Posted by: Porforis

OK then why make this rule? Contact with a receiver anywhere else on the field was already against the rules either at PI, illegal contact, defensive holding. The only reason for this rule is so offenses can run a player shallow and have them protected.

Just another hand-cuff on the defense. and yes, if you could legally knock a receiving option off their feet, it was a great way to defend against them getting the ball.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Porforis
Veteran Member

7 years ago

#13

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins

The penalties are greater. PI, illegal contact, defensive holding are not personal fouls and apart from PI occurring at greater than 15 yards, the penalty is not as severe. What they're trying to do is discourage shots to the head of receiver, or defenders launching themselves at the upper bodies of receivers who do not have the ball, are not trying to block, and cannot see the hit coming. They discourage it by increasing the penalty and opening up the potential for fines or suspensions instead of a 5 yard penalty and a first down. It's also a personal foul so it opens things up for an ejection with subsequent personal fouls.

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#14

And the result is a suspension for a hit that should not be illegal in the first place, even according to the new rule. Didn't lead with helmet, didn't launch, was shoulder to chest.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Porforis
Veteran Member

7 years ago

#15

And the result is a suspension for a hit that should not be illegal in the first place, even according to the new rule. Didn't lead with helmet, didn't launch, was shoulder to chest.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins

He (barely) left his feet and led with his head and shoulder. Immediately before contact he plants and springs up, leading with his forearm. He hit the chest and shoulder area initially, and his shoulder/forearm slid up and hit the WR's neck/chin, all of which is illegal under the new rule. You can clearly see this from the replay. It's debatable whether he sprung prior to contact, it's clear he intended to plant and launch himself but if that was the only reason why they penalized it, it'd be ticky tacky since it was very close.

Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:

1. forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm,or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him

Cheesey
Preferred Member

7 years ago

#16

A players history SHOULD play into it. If you are consistently doing cheap shots, then you have to bring the hammer down hard.
Having this happen once, you can somewhat understand. Butdoing it over and over, you have to make a point to him and other players that there will be consequences for your actions. (Gee...where did I hear that before?)
Ignore these kinds of hits, don't make the penalty fit the "crime", and you will be sending the wrong message to the rest of the NFL.

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#17

If that is leading with the head, then every tackle ever made in history has been leading with the head.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Cheesey
Preferred Member

7 years ago

#18

Just heard it was dropped down to 3 games.

Porforis
Veteran Member

7 years ago

#19

If that is leading with the head, then every tackle ever made in history has been leading with the head.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins

Ignore that part of my post then. Forearm contact to the neck. You can call it a dumb rule if you want and I happen to agree it goes too far, but I can't see how anybody can argue it wasn't against the rule.

Smokey
Veteran Member

7 years ago

#20

Shazam , what an interesting thread .

NOT !

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (40m) : Packers were not selected for the 2025 Hall of Fame game.

dfosterf (3h) : PFOW Out of our division would be a good thing imo

Zero2Cool (4h) : Jameson Williams is done at 24 years old? What? He's a WR, not QB. I'm missing something here haha

wpr (5h) : Tomorrow is almost here.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : would you want him if Pack needed a back up qb?

packerfanoutwest (5h) : JW is done......stick a fork in him

Zero2Cool (7h) : You should. He goes to AFC that helps Packers.

packerfanoutwest (17h) : don't care

Zero2Cool (22h) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?

packerfanoutwest (22-Apr) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat

wpr (22-Apr) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.

wpr (22-Apr) : now 3

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Who? What?

beast (22-Apr) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?

Martha Careful (21-Apr) : meh

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast

wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.

wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!

dfosterf (21-Apr) : 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.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24