2010-11 NFL Season

Cribbs is not defenseless because he is a running back is all. I don't think that particular play was a dirty one, but because of who did it, and pictures like the above, there's certainly plenty of room for people have the opposite opinion.
I wasn't responding to the Cribbs hit specifically, but the quote that "that play is legal because he is a running back". A hit deemed to be intentional helmet-to-helmet by the officials can be called no matter the position of the ballcarrier, that's all...
 
I wasn't responding to the Cribbs hit specifically, but the quote that "that play is legal because he is a running back". A hit deemed to be intentional helmet-to-helmet by the officials can be called no matter the position of the ballcarrier, that's all...

Absolutely correct. IMO outside of the Meriweather hit, and maybe the hit on Massaquoi, I don't think ejections will suddenly be coming, and refs will let the league take care of it rather than make that big of a mistake about something they can't look at again for intent. So many hits look vicious, it's difficult to judge intent immediately.
 
That statement is simply not true.

Existing rule 12, 2, 7g bans "using any part of a player's helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily," and also states, "violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent."

Any opponent, including the ballcarrier. This rule is different than the rule that labels a player as "defenseless".

Then explain why the NFL said the hit was legal.
 
Then explain why the NFL said the hit was legal.
The NFL said the hit was legal because they ruled there was no intentional helmet-to-helmet contact on that play. There clearly was on the Meriweather hit. Your quote was:

Cribbs is a running back in that play, that play is legal because he is a running back.

and the rule I posted clearly states that "violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent."

So, my point is that it doesn't matter what position the ball carrier plays, if there is deemed to be intentional helmet-to-helmet contact the rule will be enforced.
 
WOW.....

....I read this article about the Raiders...and it makes ya think....really hard!:(

The answer is simple: the QBs aren't the problem, and they never were.

Cable lied to us and told us we would be in the playoffs with an average QB. He used JaMarcus as a scapegoat for his own ineptitude.

We were led to believe that JaMarcus was what was holding this team back. Well, JaMarcus is gone and something is still holding us back.

Whatever the problem was last year, it's still here.

It is as clear as day—Tom Cable is what's holding this team back, and what's been holding the team back all along.

Tom Cable is an O-line coach by trade and all offseason he told us our O-line, as well as our receivers, was good enough and would improve with better QB play.

Tom Cable is fraud, a liar and the biggest joke of a head coach that I've seen since Art Shell part II.

Well, fast-forward to today and Tom Cable's O-line has sidelined two QBs, Bruce Gradkowski and Jason Campbell, with injuries. At this rate, it's only a matter of weeks before we're forced to bring back JaMarcus.

Things have gotten so bad that we are now down to Kyle Boller, our third string QB, and Shane Lechlar, a Pro-Bowl punter, taking snaps at QB with the offense.

Maybe next week we can try Sebastian Janikowski out at QB.

If you want average QB play, the first thing you need is average coaching. Then average O-line play and protection. And then average receivers.

Well, our coach is a clown, our O-line is a joke and we have a receiver corps filled with inexperienced youngsters. It's no surprise the offense hasn't improved.

It's time for some major changes with the Oakland Raiders. We need a real head coach. Someone who can actually evaluate talent. Someone who won't tell us our O-line can perform when the rest of the world knows damn well it can't. Some one who won't spread false hope in the form of blatant lies.

The Raiders need to part ways with Tom Cable, the same way they did with Lane Kiffin, JaMarcus Russell and the other cancerous scum that held this team back.

Maybe JaMarcus Russell Wasn't the Oakland Raiders' Problem After All | Bleacher Report
 
That statement is simply not true.

Existing rule 12, 2, 7g bans "using any part of a player's helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily," and also states, "violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent."

Any opponent, including the ballcarrier. This rule is different than the rule that labels a player as "defenseless".

Including the ball carrier, so WHO hit Who ?
 
Interesting .....
Wern't they pretty much in the same boat with the last coach and the coach before him and before him ......

well...not really. The last coach was Kiffin. He wanted NO PART of Ja-Fatass Russell. Kiffin wanted Calvin Johnson and sign a FA QB or Troy Smith in the 2nd or 3rd round. Before that it was Art Shell, the Callahan and then Gruden.
 
well...not really. The last coach was Kiffin. He wanted NO PART of Ja-Fatass Russell. Kiffin wanted Calvin Johnson and sign a FA QB or Troy Smith in the 2nd or 3rd round. Before that it was Art Shell, the Callahan and then Gruden.

My point was, you had other good coaches and didn't get much farther.
It was a HUGE mistake the day they let Gruden go.
 
You HAD Shanahan at one point and let him go..... or get away.
Al won't get a top notch coach in there anymore because as you know, Al wants to run the show.

They FIRED him, and then wouldn't pay him the money they owed him for his contract. After that, who the hell wanted to go coach there? (Just think what might have happened had they kept him?)

They got lucky getting Gruden and screwed up ONCE AGAIN when they let him go.
 
They FIRED him, and then wouldn't pay him the money they owed him for his contract. After that, who the hell wanted to go coach there? (Just think what might have happened had they kept him?)

They got lucky getting Gruden and screwed up ONCE AGAIN when they let him go.

With Shana-douche.....it was the same as with Kiffin...smart, young coach that was not going to be a "yes man" to a meddling owner....same as Gruden.

From my Vibrant using Tapatalk.....
 
You HAD Shanahan at one point and let him go..... or get away.
Al won't get a top notch coach in there anymore because as you know, Al wants to run the show.

An UNPROVEN Shana-jerk where no one made a big deal when they did fire him. Hindsight, as stated, is always 50-50.

From my Vibrant using Tapatalk.....
 
Let's face it Salsa, the problem with the Raiders isn't QBs, coaches or O-line, the problem is the owner. If that owner would sell the team and get a competent owner in there it would probably be a good team in a year or two.

Well, you CAN blame then O-line because Cable refuses to put into then better players..we have our # 1 & our # 2 QBs injured. When that happens...your O-line has a problem.

From my Vibrant using Tapatalk.....
 
:river
With Shana-douche.....it was the same as with Kiffin...smart, young coach that was not going to be a "yes man" to a meddling owner....same as Gruden.

From my Vibrant using Tapatalk.....

An UNPROVEN Shana-jerk where no one made a big deal when they did fire him. Hindsight, as stated, is always 50-50.

From my Vibrant using Tapatalk.....

Ahhhh, you calling him names cuz' you're still butt-hurt over all those ass-whoopings Shanahan and the Broncos gave you?:river
 
:river



Ahhhh, you calling him names cuz' you're still butt-hurt over all those ass-whoopings Shanahan and the Broncos gave you?:river

Oh no...even if the Raiders had won...he was still an a$$ monkey. Lol...and the Raiders have gone into Denver the last couple of years and either stomped them or ended their playoff hopes. So I would6 not brag to mucho. ;-)

From my Vibrant using Tapatalk.....
 

NFL Playoffs Picks - Week 1

Student Athelets and Class

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts