Andre Carter fined $15K for Rivers hit

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:51 am

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. -- The NFL fined Patriots defensive end Andre Carter $15,000 for a hit on San Diego Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers during New England's 35-21 triumph Sunday at Gillette Stadium.

Carter's was one of a number of fines announced by the league on Friday. San Diego defensive lineman Antonio Garay also was fined $15,000 for a hit below the knees of Patriots quarterback Tom Brady last Sunday.

Chargers safety Eric Weddle was docked $15,000 for unnecessary roughness in the same game, when he made helmet-to-helmet contact with Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski.

Philadelphia defensive tackle Cullen Jenkins was fined $15,000 for a helmet-to-helmet hit on Atlanta quarterback Matt Ryan.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:08 am

The League is out of control with this. I know that plenty of you will disagree, but this is going to cause a fundamental change in the game that, I think, will hamstring defenses and cripple the appeal of the game.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:50 pm

Countertrey wrote:The League is out of control with this. I know that plenty of you will disagree, but this is going to cause a fundamental change in the game that, I think, will hamstring defenses and cripple the appeal of the game.

I'm not sure that decisions that hamstring defenses harm the appeal of the game. I'm pretty sure offense is more important to the televisability of the game.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:08 pm

Not for the millions who believe that tough defense has value. I have been very concerned with the increasing frequency of rules designed to hobble defenses... a trend that began in the 70's with the outlawing of the bump and run, and has been accelerating into the first dacade of the 2000's. The game is being diluted. The incredible performances of wide receivers today are viewed in awe, especially compared to players like Charlie Taylor and Lance Alworth... but today's receivers NEVER get touched... and are routinely allowed to push off. It's only getting worse. Somehow... offenses in the 60's still managed to score (is 72-48 enough?). But, today, no one has the patience to await evolutionary changes in offenses in response to new defensive concepts... they just change the rules.

There is nothing wrong with a hard fought 10-7 game. The problem is, we aren't allowed to see those anymore. The league has decided that we must have at least 40 points in every game. That's crap. Shouldn't the game appeal to those who like defense, as well?

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:34 pm

Countertrey wrote:Shouldn't the game appeal to those who like defense, as well?

You are fighting a losing battle, my friend.

Between rules that favor the offense, increased specialization, and the tension between gameplay and commercials . . . well, I've made my peace with it and take the NFL for what it is.

There are a few changes I'd make to the rules if I could. But that's not realistic, of course.

I've found a healthy alternative to the madness in rugby. Might not be for everyone, but for me it's the right balance that lets me watch NFL games without stressing out too much anymore — since I get my real intense sporting excitement elsewhere now.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:58 pm

I know... doesn't make it right. The League will eventually kill the game. They will. It will turn to a less scripted team version of pro wrestling. The game is less beautiful than it once was, because someone felt that cheapening points was what fans wanted. Stupid. Just stupid. Doesn't mean that I should stop protesting. Your comment about rugby... and it's increasing following in this country... prove my point. Rugby is true to it's roots... Football is betraying it's roots...