Would Garvin's Fine Be Different If Huber Wasn't Hurt?

I voted no fine at all
it was a great football play!

 

I agree with BSF.....If he wasnt hurt there would have been no fine. He was a defensive player attempting to tackle a punt returner. He needed to be blocked.

Than we have this.... "The punter is considered a defenseless player through out the play." Rule is so much BS.....Than make a rule..... After punt punter sprints to his sideline at a 90* angle and another player sprints from sideline to point of punt at 90* angle. Than this new player may attack the punt returner.

 

If he wasn't hurt there would be almost no attention given to it and it would have gone away quietly.

 

I still think he draws a fine, just because he crushed him and it was all over the highlight reels. If he just stood Huber up with the same hit and incidental helmet contact, no fine no penalty no fuss.

 

I vote hines would be proud of a damn good block on a guy who was zeroing in on a tackle, going full speed and only zoned in on the tackle, without enough equipment on. no fine at all should have been levied injury or not.

 

From my understanding, I think that the league offices review all the film (or so they say) of all the games. So even without an injury, they would have seen what they deemed an egregious hit and fined him. I think his injury definitely impacted the fine. I'm thinking $7,500 without the injury.

 

I vote that he would have been fined the same. RG loves him some fine$.:mrgreen:

 

I voted no fine. While it's certainly possible he'd still have received a fine, since RG seems to have it out for the Steelers anyhow, it certainly wouldn't have been this big of an issue AT ALL.

 

Voted less of a fine. The problem we have here is a lack of communication!!! You can hit a guy hard, just not with the crown of the Helmet and not to the head/face. It's really that simple and the league has been saying it for a few years now. The injury definitely increased the amount of the fine.

Cajun-

 

right not hurt.. no fine.. and if a punter is always a defenseless player then he should be made to stand till and not try to block or tackle a runner or anyone.. he should be made to stand still or better yet.. fall to the ground and play dead like we did when we were kids playing cowboys and indians or cops and robbers or army men... but seriously .. if they cannot be blasted and are deemed defenseless then they shouldnt be able to participate in the play .. how many times have you seen a "defenseless punter" be the last possible man to tackle the return man and he shoves them out of bounds.. and that guy was just standing there .. he was looking at AB.. he didnt want to try to tackle him.. he was just looking in his direction .. but the guy that blasted him came almost straight at him... couldnt he see that? if this is all true and yiou cant blast a QB maybe after a QB throws an INT he shoudl have to freeze as well and not try to make a tackle ifhe cant get blasted? protected players (QBs and Punters/ Kickers) if they cant be blocked they shouldnt be able to tackle or block .. stupid double standard

HINES