PDA

View Full Version : John Lynch Letter to the League...


Taco John
01-07-2005, 05:24 AM
Text in a letter sent from attorney Harvey Steinberg to Gene Washington on behalf of Denver Broncos safety John Lynch:

Dear Mr. Washington:

Please be advised that this office represents the interests of Mr. John Lynch with regard to your letter dated January 3, 2005. This letter should serve as our formal request, pursuant to Article XI of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, that this matter be set for a timely appeal before the Commissioner or his designee.

I am very concerned with the tenor of your letter to John with regard to this matter. Specifically, on prior occasions with regard to John and other players I have represented, the transmittal letter imposing the proposed sanctions merely contains a factual rendition of the allegations and the methodology for seeking an appeal. This letter is remarkably different. At paragraph 4 of your letter, in bold type you write the following, "But be reminded that future infractions of the type you have committed can lead to increased disciplinary action, up to and including suspension. Additionally, we will remind the officiating crew in this week's Broncos' game that you can be ejected from a game if they determine such action is warranted."

The inclusion of this language can only be perceived as an attempt to influence and affect John's play during the game. Prior to the final appeal, at which we believe we will prevail, there has not been a final determination as to whether or not John in fact violated any league rule and should be subjected to a fine. By including this language, you have demeaned the appellate process and have suggested that the official who was in the same position that John was prior to the tackle, viewed John's tackle as legal and appropriate.

It was only after several minutes of reviewing the videotape of this situation that it was ruled that no catch had been made. In fact, the referee who viewed the videotape personally advised Mr. Lynch that he could not imagine the Mr. Lynch would be fined since it took him several minutes of review to determine whether or not the catch had been made. If, as the referee initially determined, there was a catch and run by the receiver, John and his head coach have been informed that the tackle by John would have been both appropriate and within the NFL Rules.

The procedurally inconsistent inclusion of threatening language will possible affect John's game performance during the upcoming playoff game. This is totally inappropriate conduct for any league official. Of even more concern is your statement that you intend to have personal contact with the game officials prior to the game to advise them to keep an eye out for John. We are concerned that this may influence the outcome of this contest.

Obviously, John is aware of the rules and has tremendous respect for this game and his role. We assume the game officials are also aware of the rules. Your perceived need to remind them of the rules can only be interpreted by them as a message from you as a representative of the league to single John out for special attention. In reviewing the Collective Bargaining Agreement, we are well aware of the Commissioner's rights concerning the imposition of a fine. However, there is nothing contained within that agreement that would allow for you to attempt to threaten and intimidate a player by the language contained in your letter. John has gained a reputation amongst his peers as a tough but clean and legal player. We believe that assertion would be echoed not only by Competition Committee Chairman Richard McKay, but also Indianapolis Head Coach Tony Dungy, among others. Your letter besmirches that reputation inappropriately.

As a result, we fear that the integrity of this contest will be impacted adversely here by the influence on the impartiality of the officiating crew. To ensure that this does not take place, we are demanding a retraction of the above noted objectionable language. If, in fact, you or your representatives have already had contact with the officials, we demand to know who made that contact and exactly what was said to the officiating crew. Anything less jeopardizes the fairness of the officiating crew and the integrity of the contest.

I await your response to this correspondence.

Fairplay
01-07-2005, 05:27 AM
Obviously, John is aware of the rules and has tremendous respect for this game and his role.






Thats a joke.

Fairplay
01-07-2005, 05:30 AM
In fact, the referee who viewed the videotape personally advised Mr. Lynch that he could not imagine the Mr. Lynch would be fined since it took him several minutes of review to determine whether or not the catch had been made.








Start imagineing.

Fairplay
01-07-2005, 05:33 AM
The procedurally inconsistent inclusion of threatening language will possible affect John's game performance during the upcoming playoff game. This is totally inappropriate conduct for any league official.






John Lynch could have is preformance effected, sob.

Inappropriate conduct for an official. Ummmm what about Lynch's conduct? Thats ok i suppose? :hmmm:

Fairplay
01-07-2005, 05:47 AM
"But be reminded that future infractions of the type you have committed can lead to increased disciplinary action, up to and including suspension. Additionally, we will remind the officiating crew in this week's Broncos' game that you can be ejected from a game if they determine such action is warranted."







I don't see whats wrong with that statement at all.

Fairplay
01-07-2005, 06:27 AM
[QUOTE=Taco John] John has gained a reputation amongst his peers as a tough but clean and legal player. [QUOTE]






More out and out lies. Lynch was trying not to laugh when his lawyer was typing up this whopper.

Mile High Mania
01-07-2005, 07:09 AM
Maybe all the hub-bub about Lynch is a carefully crafted plan to take the focus and pressure off Plummer this week...

mlyonsd
01-07-2005, 07:15 AM
I was willing to give Lynch the benefit of the doubt on his hitting until that cheap shot he gave LJ in the face while he was on his back and couldn't protect himself.

What a puss. I hope somebody shatters his face mask and give him about a thousand stitches.

Chief Henry
01-07-2005, 07:30 AM
Like I've said about Denver many times...

FVCK DENVER AND ANYONE OR ANYTHING associated with the DONKEYS

Kerberos
01-07-2005, 08:07 AM
Like I've said about Denver many times...

FVCK DENVER AND ANYONE OR ANYTHING associated with the DONKEYS

Yea ... WHAT HE SAID!! ROFL ROFL ROFL

Cliff

dtebbe
01-07-2005, 08:22 AM
I lost all respect for Lynch when he whined about being hit by a WR. Brian Finnerin jacked his ass up. If you are going to take your shots at guys, you have to just shake it off when packback comes your way.

DT

Ultra Peanut
01-07-2005, 08:24 AM
Obviously, John is aware of the rules and has tremendous respect for this game and his role. That's why he does stuff like punching people after the play.

DaKCMan AP
01-07-2005, 08:54 AM
I thought Lynch was a clean player in Tampa Bay. Must be that Donkey organizational influence..

MikeTheWildcat
01-07-2005, 09:01 AM
It's funny, the Donkeys think it's ok when their players hurt the other teams players ("it was a legal hit") but they cry when their player gets hurt during "a legal hit" IE Dale Carter hurting their corner's knee several years ago. Remember how they kept talking about revenge and such. The league ruled that Carter had done a legal block, but the Donkey fans still thought it was wrong (and still whine about it today).

Sorry Donkey fans you can't have it both ways.

Skip Towne
01-07-2005, 10:08 AM
This damn well better "affect John's game performance" or he'll get his cheatin' Donkey azz bounced.

the Talking Can
01-07-2005, 10:11 AM
christ...sandy vageena alert....denial ain't just a song playing on DV's car radio....

the Talking Can
01-07-2005, 10:12 AM
by the way, I never realized what a giant p*&^y Lynch was...maybe if he cries on camera they'll stop such meanie-weenies to poor little old Lynchy-poo

morphius
01-07-2005, 10:16 AM
It's funny, the Donkeys think it's ok when their players hurt the other teams players ("it was a legal hit") but they cry when their player gets hurt during "a legal hit" IE Dale Carter hurting their corner's knee several years ago. Remember how they kept talking about revenge and such. The league ruled that Carter had done a legal block, but the Donkey fans still thought it was wrong (and still whine about it today).

Sorry Donkey fans you can't have it both ways.
The thing is that most Donkey fans seem to be a win at all costs, they find humor that their players sprayed themselves with PAM to try to beat the Chiefs in their first superbowl run, they don't see anything wrong with the league fines for salary cap infringment over that 2 year period, we could go on, but you get the idea, their team can do no real wrong.

Earthling
01-07-2005, 10:17 AM
:deevee: :deevee: :deevee: Lynch should have been ejected from that game after that happened. But, as if the Colts needed any reason to bury Denver in the playoffs, they now have added incentive. Like Paul Newman said in 'The Hustler'...."Now I'm going to beat you flat." This will be fun to watch.

Chief Henry
01-07-2005, 10:32 AM
:deevee: :deevee: :deevee: Lynch should have been ejected from that game after that happened. But, as if the Colts needed any reason to bury Denver in the playoffs, they now have added incentive. Like Paul Newman said in 'The Hustler'...."Now I'm going to beat you flat." This will be fun to watch.


It should have cost him a game too :banghead:

I personally feel this last hit on (former IOWA) tight end Dalls Clark
was a huge CHEEP SHOT. Lynch could have avoided that easily.
He could have sent the message by putting a sholder into Clarks
belly instead of his helmet on Clarks helmet. I swear if i was a head coach for a team that had that happen'd to, i would call a time out and just go BALISTIC on the officials and on LYNCH.

Earthling
01-07-2005, 11:05 AM
It should have cost him a game too :banghead:

I swear if i was a head coach for a team that had that happen'd to, i would call a time out and just go BALISTIC on the officials and on LYNCH.


:thumb: Yeah, I wish Dungy could have put Manning back in and kept them out of the playoffs totally. Of course if Manning got hurt it would have been his job. But rest assured, revenge is on its way!!

Iowanian
01-07-2005, 11:54 AM
I think it wouldn't be an issue if teams just started cheap shotting the cheap shotters on Denver.

Cut blocks on the back of all their knees should be expected.

Denver fans won't care though, because its just "part of the game".

I used to Like John Lynch. Denver has turned him Dirty. I hope a FB hits him so hard he Prolapses.

WilliamTheIrish
01-07-2005, 11:56 AM
What "message" does this send?

HC_Chief
01-07-2005, 12:27 PM
<img src="http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper36/DB0103fourteen.jpg">

You donkey bitches can't refute it, so f*ck off.

King_Chief_Fan
01-07-2005, 12:41 PM
My letter to John Lynch:
quit your crying you lousy cheating donk.
mend your ways or your history

Garcia Bronco
01-07-2005, 01:05 PM
It should have cost him a game too :banghead:

I personally feel this last hit on (former IOWA) tight end Dalls Clark
was a huge CHEEP SHOT. Lynch could have avoided that easily.
He could have sent the message by putting a sholder into Clarks
belly instead of his helmet on Clarks helmet. I swear if i was a head coach for a team that had that happen'd to, i would call a time out and just go BALISTIC on the officials and on LYNCH.

He did hit him shoulder first...in fact...he turned his body to do so...but don't let that get in your way. We go over it pretty good at the orangemane.com...come on by.

Garcia Bronco
01-07-2005, 01:49 PM
Here a good quote about the hit from Tony dungy

"I understand the rule very well, and it's a cloudy rule," said Colts head coach Tony Dungy, who coached Lynch with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for six seasons (1996-2001). "If the receiver has the ball and has two feet on the ground, it's a good hit. If he doesn't have the ball, or he doesn't have two feet on the ground, it's illegal. It's the timing and it's a bang-bang play........."

Count Alex's Wins
01-07-2005, 02:12 PM
He did hit him shoulder first...in fact...he turned his body to do so...but don't let that get in your way. We go over it pretty good at the orangemane.com...come on by.


Bullcrap! Look at the image. He's leading with his helmet.

HELMET-TO-HELMET CONTACT IS ILLEGAL.

http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper36/DB0103fourteen.jpg

HemiEd
01-07-2005, 02:37 PM
Bullcrap! Look at the image. He's leading with his helmet.

HELMET-TO-HELMET CONTACT IS ILLEGAL.

http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper36/DB0103fourteen.jpg

Wow, that is some proof if I have ever seen any. He is just one in a long line of Donkey Cheap shot artists! I wonder how many Colts linemen will have broken legs after Sunday?

Garcia Bronco
01-07-2005, 02:41 PM
Bullcrap! Look at the image. He's leading with his helmet.

HELMET-TO-HELMET CONTACT IS ILLEGAL.

http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper36/DB0103fourteen.jpg

His left Shoulder hit him first followed by the helmet...

Further more read this quote from tony dungy on the hit....

"I understand the rule very well, and it's a cloudy rule," said Colts head coach Tony Dungy, who coached Lynch with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for six seasons (1996-2001). "If the receiver has the ball and has two feet on the ground, it's a good hit. If he doesn't have the ball, or he doesn't have two feet on the ground, it's illegal. It's the timing and it's a bang-bang play........."

It says right there that the legality of the hit has nothing to do with helmet-to-helmet....but whether or not Clark was a runner or in the act of catching the ball. Ergo.....John Lynch was fined for hitting a defenseless receiver...not for helmet-to-helmet hit....which by the way....is legal against a runner. In fact the only time Helmet-to-helmet hits are not allowed is on a receiver in the act of catching the ball or the QB.

Don't try to argue this with me...I'm frickin expert.

Brock
01-07-2005, 02:44 PM
Don't try to argue this with me...I'm frickin expert.

Your guy got fined $75,000. Obviously, you're not near the expert you think you are.

Garcia Bronco
01-07-2005, 02:46 PM
Wow, that is some proof if I have ever seen any. He is just one in a long line of Donkey Cheap shot artists! I wonder how many Colts linemen will have broken legs after Sunday?

Here a pic of Kennison kicking Woodson in the head

http://www.nfl.com/u/nfl/photos/nfld72_lower.jpg

Garcia Bronco
01-07-2005, 02:48 PM
Here's a pic of some chief chopping Wheatly at the back of the knee.....dirty Chiefs

http://www.nfl.com/u/nfl/photos/nfld71_lower.jpg

Garcia Bronco
01-07-2005, 02:49 PM
Your guy got fined $75,000. Obviously, you're not near the expert you think you are.

Obviously it's a cheap attemp by the league to influence the game....but you know this.

beer bacon
01-07-2005, 02:54 PM
Obviously it's a cheap attemp by the league to influence the game....but you know this.

The league hates the poor persecuted Donkies :deevee:

Give me a break. Maybe if Lynch would stop spearing people in the chin and actually show remorse when he is punished it wouldn't be so bad.

Brock
01-07-2005, 02:57 PM
Obviously it's a cheap attemp by the league to influence the game....but you know this.

ROFL Pretty much the response expected.

HemiEd
01-07-2005, 03:00 PM
Here a pic of Kennison kicking Woodson in the head

http://www.nfl.com/u/nfl/photos/nfld72_lower.jpg

Hey Donkey, Woodson is tripping Kennison, what an imagination you have, poor donkey. I was hoping that the picture would be true, I would have used it as a screen saver!

Garcia Bronco
01-07-2005, 03:00 PM
The league hates the poor persecuted Donkies :deevee:

Give me a break. Maybe if Lynch would stop spearing people in the chin and actually show remorse when he is punished it wouldn't be so bad.

But that's not what he's being called for here is it? Is it?...look at the quote from Dungy.

Also...since none of you probably saw the hit because CBS was still covering the SD/RAMS game i'll recap what happened on the field for you

Play occurs..The hit...the fumble, the run around, and a Denver TD. Flag was thrown for something. The ref said into his mic that there was no penalty(he never specified what the penalty was) on the play and that it was a Denver TD.

Dungy doesn't think Dallas Clark caught the ball. So he challeges the catch. The ref comes back from replay. Says it wasn't a catch. And then calls the penalty again. He retro-activly called the penalty after looking at replay on a judgement call. It would the samething if he looked at the replay...cameback...and called pass interference. It's illegal...it's against the rules...before the challege...it was a catch and no penalty.

HemiEd
01-07-2005, 03:02 PM
Here's a pic of some chief chopping Wheatly at the back of the knee.....dirty Chiefs

http://www.nfl.com/u/nfl/photos/nfld71_lower.jpg


My new screen saver!

Garcia Bronco
01-07-2005, 03:02 PM
Hey Donkey, Woodson is tripping Kennison, what an imagination you have, poor donkey. I was hoping that the picture would be true, I would have used it as a screen saver!

The point is Hemied...as you've pointed out.....you can't take a still of the play and determine what happened before the picture and what happened afterward.

TEX
01-07-2005, 03:07 PM
His left Shoulder hit him first followed by the helmet...

Further more read this quote from tony dungy on the hit....

"I understand the rule very well, and it's a cloudy rule," said Colts head coach Tony Dungy, who coached Lynch with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for six seasons (1996-2001). "If the receiver has the ball and has two feet on the ground, it's a good hit. If he doesn't have the ball, or he doesn't have two feet on the ground, it's illegal. It's the timing and it's a bang-bang play........."

It says right there that the legality of the hit has nothing to do with helmet-to-helmet....but whether or not Clark was a runner or in the act of catching the ball. Ergo.....John Lynch was fined for hitting a defenseless receiver...not for helmet-to-helmet hit....which by the way....is legal against a runner. In fact the only time Helmet-to-helmet hits are not allowed is on a receiver in the act of catching the ball or the QB.

Don't try to argue this with me...I'm frickin expert.

Looks to me like the helmet hit first. This one is real easy - just watch it in slow motion and take off your orange and blue glasses. "Bronco - Vision" - what a concept... :shake:

Iowanian
01-07-2005, 03:08 PM
Maybe if Lynch wasn't tackling with the crown of his helmet so much, he wouldn't spend so much time with Neck injuries, which got him run out of Tampa.

PastorMikH
01-07-2005, 03:22 PM
If Lynch doesn't wasn't these kinds of letters, he should clean up his play. Seems like once every 2 weeks or so his name is associated with a "questionable"/illegal hit.

HemiEd
01-07-2005, 03:28 PM
The point is Hemied...as you've pointed out.....you can't take a still of the play and determine what happened before the picture and what happened afterward.

So are you trying to say by this reasoning that in the picture provided by Goatcheese that the Colt player is smacking Lynch in the helmet with his upper body? That the Colt player initiated the hit? Give me a break, donkeys are pathetic! Shannahan to the 49ers after Sunday!

Calcountry
01-07-2005, 03:57 PM
Text in a letter sent from attorney Harvey Steinberg to Gene Washington on behalf of Denver Broncos safety John Lynch:

Dear Mr. Washington:

Please be advised that this office represents the interests of Mr. John Lynch with regard to your letter dated January 3, 2005. This letter should serve as our formal request, pursuant to Article XI of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, that this matter be set for a timely appeal before the Commissioner or his designee.

I am very concerned with the tenor of your letter to John with regard to this matter. Specifically, on prior occasions with regard to John and other players I have represented, the transmittal letter imposing the proposed sanctions merely contains a factual rendition of the allegations and the methodology for seeking an appeal. This letter is remarkably different. At paragraph 4 of your letter, in bold type you write the following, "But be reminded that future infractions of the type you have committed can lead to increased disciplinary action, up to and including suspension. Additionally, we will remind the officiating crew in this week's Broncos' game that you can be ejected from a game if they determine such action is warranted."

The inclusion of this language can only be perceived as an attempt to influence and affect John's play during the game. Prior to the final appeal, at which we believe we will prevail, there has not been a final determination as to whether or not John in fact violated any league rule and should be subjected to a fine. By including this language, you have demeaned the appellate process and have suggested that the official who was in the same position that John was prior to the tackle, viewed John's tackle as legal and appropriate.

It was only after several minutes of reviewing the videotape of this situation that it was ruled that no catch had been made. In fact, the referee who viewed the videotape personally advised Mr. Lynch that he could not imagine the Mr. Lynch would be fined since it took him several minutes of review to determine whether or not the catch had been made. If, as the referee initially determined, there was a catch and run by the receiver, John and his head coach have been informed that the tackle by John would have been both appropriate and within the NFL Rules.

The procedurally inconsistent inclusion of threatening language will possible affect John's game performance during the upcoming playoff game. This is totally inappropriate conduct for any league official. Of even more concern is your statement that you intend to have personal contact with the game officials prior to the game to advise them to keep an eye out for John. We are concerned that this may influence the outcome of this contest.

Obviously, John is aware of the rules and has tremendous respect for this game and his role. We assume the game officials are also aware of the rules. Your perceived need to remind them of the rules can only be interpreted by them as a message from you as a representative of the league to single John out for special attention. In reviewing the Collective Bargaining Agreement, we are well aware of the Commissioner's rights concerning the imposition of a fine. However, there is nothing contained within that agreement that would allow for you to attempt to threaten and intimidate a player by the language contained in your letter. John has gained a reputation amongst his peers as a tough but clean and legal player. We believe that assertion would be echoed not only by Competition Committee Chairman Richard McKay, but also Indianapolis Head Coach Tony Dungy, among others. Your letter besmirches that reputation inappropriately.

As a result, we fear that the integrity of this contest will be impacted adversely here by the influence on the impartiality of the officiating crew. To ensure that this does not take place, we are demanding a retraction of the above noted objectionable language. If, in fact, you or your representatives have already had contact with the officials, we demand to know who made that contact and exactly what was said to the officiating crew. Anything less jeopardizes the fairness of the officiating crew and the integrity of the contest.

I await your response to this correspondence.
Great, now we have lawyers in the game.

Note for EA sports, and Madden 06, you have to put fines for cheap shots, and appeals, and legal chit IN THE GAME>

HC_Chief
01-07-2005, 04:03 PM
He does have a point: the NFL DOES promote these hits in their highlight reels, then turns areound and fines the player for it.

Wile_E_Coyote
01-07-2005, 05:27 PM
AP: NFL Won't Reverse Threat of Lynch Ejection

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_LYNCH_APPEAL?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=SPORTS

Garcia Bronco
01-07-2005, 05:47 PM
So are you trying to say by this reasoning that in the picture provided by Goatcheese that the Colt player is smacking Lynch in the helmet with his upper body? That the Colt player initiated the hit? Give me a break, donkeys are pathetic! Shannahan to the 49ers after Sunday!

His shoulder hit him first...i.e he led with his shoulder....but guess what....THE HIT IS NOT ILLEGAL IF CLARK CATCHES THE BALL....I'll type it again for everybody THE HIT IS NOT ILLEGAL IF CLARK CATCHES THE BALL....

And he did catch the ball...he took two steps with possssion and when he was tackle on the ground he still had possession.


The ref didn't think so on the replay.

Even Tony Dungy has said that if Clark catches the ball it's a good hit.

Just take'em off....take off the red and yellow glasses. It's a terrible call...and a bullshit fine.


I know that the defense has been a little dry for you guys lately. Woods doesn't hit anymore....but remember the hard hitting defense you guys had in the 90's....huh? The offense wasn't always pretty, but it got the job done. I guess you guys are all about the offense since yours took-off with Vermeil. I like offense too...but we can't lose the defense in the process.

DanT
01-07-2005, 07:41 PM
If it's true that the determination of whether a hit by a defender against a receiver is legal or not depends on whether or not the receiver has established possession of the ball, then that's a bullsh!t rule. It's bullsh!t because it's not in the spirit of the game (in my opinion). The only thing that timing should have to do with the legality of a hit is whether the hit happened early enough to constitute pass interference, in my opinion.

If the ball has been touched by the receiver, then the receiver is as much a target as if he has demonstrated possession. (If the ball goes past the receiver after he touches it, then he's protected by late-hit rules, obviously.)

The principle should be, if you don't want to get lit up, then make sure you have enough separation on the defender to make the catch. That's how I've always understood the spirit of the game to be with regard to passes.

Penalties and fines for hits should not be based on the fact that they happened in the time between when a receiver touches a ball and when the receiver might have been able to establish possession.

I'm not saying that receivers should be subject to any manner of cheap shot during those moments of time. They should be protected in those moments of time the same way they are protected in any other moment. They shouldn't be given any extra protection, though.

Leading with the crown of one's helmet is, in my opinion, a cheapshot that should never be tolerated.

I still have not seen video of the John Lynch hit. The photographs of it on this thread do not provide me conclusive evidence that he was, in fact, leading with the crown of his helmet.

Bwana
01-07-2005, 07:48 PM
At one point in time I had a lot of respect for Lynch. He was a good player that played the game all out and kept it clean. Times have changed and for whatever reason, he has turned into a two bit street thug on the field that plays the game dirty. He is not better than Romo was, a total punk ass. :shake:

Taco John
01-07-2005, 08:06 PM
At one point in time I had a lot of respect for Lynch. He was a good player that played the game all out and kept it clean. Times have changed and for whatever reason, he has turned into a two bit street thug on the field that plays the game dirty. He is not better than Romo was, a total punk ass. :shake:



I systematically think the people who are saying this are idiots.

Lynch hasn't "turned into" anything. He's the same thing he's always been, just in a different uniform.

Any anyone who can't see the difference between Romo and Lynch simply doesn't know the game, and might as well have their opinion dismissed out of hand. What a stupid comparison.

TEX
01-07-2005, 08:08 PM
At one point in time I had a lot of respect for Lynch. He was a good player that played the game all out and kept it clean. Times have changed and for whatever reason, he has turned into a two bit street thug on the field that plays the game dirty. He is not better than Romo was, a total punk ass. :shake:

I agree. Now ask yourself who they played for... :hmmm:

OldTownChief
01-07-2005, 08:35 PM
THE HIT IS NOT ILLEGAL IF CLARK CATCHES THE BALL....I'll type it again for everybody THE HIT IS NOT ILLEGAL IF CLARK CATCHES THE BALL....

And he did catch the ball...he took two steps with possssion and when he was tackle on the ground he still had possession.


The ref didn't think so on the replay.




It doesn't matter what you or Tony Dungy thinks. SPEARING or HELMET TO HELMET IS illegal - BALL OR NO BALL do you understand that part? BALL OR NO BALL, CATCH OR NO CATCH Spearing or Helmet to Helmet is illegal. I thought the hit on Dante by Lynch was boarderline and defended him on that one. You really so stupid not to see this hit for what it was? You couldn't be. Could You?

Garcia Bronco
01-07-2005, 08:48 PM
It doesn't matter what you or Tony Dungy thinks. SPEARING or HELMET TO HELMET IS illegal - BALL OR NO BALL do you understand that part? BALL OR NO BALL, CATCH OR NO CATCH Spearing or Helmet to Helmet is illegal. I thought the hit on Dante by Lynch was boarderline and defended him on that one. You really so stupid not to see this hit for what it was? You couldn't be. Could You?

He hit him right shoulder first for starters...he didn't spear him...spearing is more dangerous to the defender than the ball carrier. Which is why it's no longer a problem in the league. Helmet to Helmet are hit are legal against a runner....which is what a receiver is once he demostrates possession....Here is the quote from Dungy...A member of the competition committee

"I understand the rule very well, and it's a cloudy rule," said Colts head coach Tony Dungy, who coached Lynch with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for six seasons (1996-2001). "If the receiver has the ball and has two feet on the ground, it's a good hit. If he doesn't have the ball, or he doesn't have two feet on the ground, it's illegal. It's the timing and it's a bang-bang play........."

Has it started to sink in for you yet. I'm willing to discuss it with you until you do understand.

OldTownChief
01-07-2005, 09:08 PM
He hit him right shoulder first for starters...he didn't spear him...spearing is more dangerous to the defender than the ball carrier. Which is why it's no longer a problem in the league. Helmet to Helmet are hit are legal against a runner....which is what a receiver is once he demostrates possession....Here is the quote from Dungy...A member of the competition committee

"I understand the rule very well, and it's a cloudy rule," said Colts head coach Tony Dungy, who coached Lynch with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for six seasons (1996-2001). "If the receiver has the ball and has two feet on the ground, it's a good hit. If he doesn't have the ball, or he doesn't have two feet on the ground, it's illegal. It's the timing and it's a bang-bang play........."

Has it started to sink in for you yet. I'm willing to discuss it with you until you do understand.


I have enough common sence to see that it was an illegal hit and the appropiate fine was handed out. I couldn't find anywhere in the rules where it stated it was legal to break the rules on a "runner"

Now it looks like you may need to discuss it with me further until I understand (without quoting coaches talking to the press)

15 Yard Penalties
1. Chop block.
2. Clipping below the waist.
3. Fair catch interference.
4. Illegal crackback block by offense.
5. Piling on.
6. Roughing the kicker.
7. Roughing the passer.
8. Twisting, turning, or pulling an opponent by the facemask.
9. Unnecessary roughness.
10. Unsportsmanlike conduct.
11. Delay of game at start of either half.
12. Illegal low block.
13. A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent.
14. Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.
15. A punter, placekicker, or holder who simulates being roughed by a defensive player.
16. Leaping.
17. Leverage.
18. Any player who removes his helmet after a play while on the field.
19. Taunting.

Taco John
01-07-2005, 09:12 PM
14. Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.



What was unecessary about that shot? Receiver had ball. Safety is supposed to...?

Lynch did what he always has done in that situation... He moved in for a huge hit in order to try to knock the ball loose. He suceeded. Any helmet contact was incidental to the hit...

I agree with the Worldwide leader in Sports on this one... This is all stupid.

OldTownChief
01-07-2005, 09:16 PM
Any helmet contact was incidental to the hit...




This is where we will never agree on the hit, or that "he led with his shoulder". Hey, I've never been one to say that Lynch is a dirty player or that the Broncos are cheaters. I wish we had some big hitters on our team but I saw this one for what it was.

Garcia Bronco
01-07-2005, 09:24 PM
Play occurs..The hit...the fumble, the run around, and a Denver TD. Flag was thrown for something. The ref said into his mic that there was no penalty(he never specified what the penalty was) on the play and that it was a Denver TD.

Dungy doesn't think Dallas Clark caught the ball. So he challeges the catch. The ref comes back from replay. Says it wasn't a catch. And then calls the penalty again. Why would he waived the flag and call it after the replay?

Because the play on the field was called a fumble....when the call was changed to incomplete...they called the penalty on....that the proof right there as well.

OldTownChief
01-07-2005, 09:57 PM
Play occurs..The hit...the fumble, the run around, and a Denver TD. Flag was thrown for something. The ref said into his mic that there was no penalty(he never specified what the penalty was) on the play and that it was a Denver TD.

Dungy doesn't think Dallas Clark caught the ball. So he challeges the catch. The ref comes back from replay. Says it wasn't a catch. And then calls the penalty again. Why would he waived the flag and call it after the replay?

Because the play on the field was called a fumble....when the call was changed to incomplete...they called the penalty on....that the proof right there as well.

Throw out all that and just go by what you saw. Was it a clean hit?

Garcia Bronco
01-07-2005, 10:02 PM
Throw out all that and just go by what you saw. Was it a clean hit?

Without question it was a clean hit. Shoulder to shoulder and the receiver was not defenseless.

OldTownChief
01-07-2005, 10:10 PM
Without question it was a clean hit. Shoulder to shoulder and the receiver was not defenseless.

You saw it as shoulder to shoulder, I saw it as crown of helmet to face mask. :shrug: Your a Bronco fan and I could'nt care less for them or the Colts. I guess it could be that the commitee has it in for the Broncos :shake:
http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper36/DB0103fourteen.jpg

Garcia Bronco
01-08-2005, 12:04 AM
You saw it as shoulder to shoulder, I saw it as crown of helmet to face mask. :shrug: Your a Bronco fan and I could'nt care less for them or the Colts. I guess it could be that the commitee has it in for the Broncos :shake:
http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper36/DB0103fourteen.jpg


Fines aren't handed out by a committee....one guy makes the choice....

His name is Gene Washington....and when he played...that's right...he was a wide receiver.

OldTownChief
01-08-2005, 12:07 AM
Fines aren't handed out by a committee....one guy makes the choice....

His name is Gene Washington....and when he played...that's right...he was a wide receiver.

They should get Tony Dunge to take over that job.

Bwana
01-08-2005, 09:02 AM
I systematically think the people who are saying this are idiots.

Lynch hasn't "turned into" anything. He's the same thing he's always been, just in a different uniform.

Any anyone who can't see the difference between Romo and Lynch simply doesn't know the game, and might as well have their opinion dismissed out of hand. What a stupid comparison.

Really? Well take off the orange shades and look again. He has "turned into" a cheap shot artist. The last guy I remember taking this many cheap shots in a season was Romo, hence the comparison. How much money has the NFL fined him this season? Perhaps he is just misunderstood, yeah, that's it. :hmmm:

stevieray
01-08-2005, 09:06 AM
Really? Well take off the orange shades and look again. He has "turned into" a cheap shot artist. The last guy I remember taking this many cheap shots in a season was Romo, hence the comparison. How much money has the NFL fined him this season? Perhaps he is just misunderstood, yeah, that's it. :hmmm:

Anyone who plays for the Invescos automatically gets a free pass on their illegal play based on the fact that they are Invescos. Nothing more.

This is why titus says that only the Invescos are sanctioned for homerism on this board.


Every year, an invesco gets fined, and every year, we hear the same EXCUSES.

It tarnishes the board. It's old and it's BS.

OldTownChief
01-08-2005, 09:10 AM
Anyone who plays for the Invescos automatically gets a free pass on their illegal play based on the fact that they are Invescos. Nothing more.

This is why titus says that only the Invescos are sanctioned for homerism on this board.


Every year, an invesco gets fined, and every year, we hear the same EXCUSES.

It tarnishes the board. It's old and it's BS.


:clap: I havent been here every year yet but I see it big time this year.

Who are they(Taco) blowing?

stevieray
01-08-2005, 09:14 AM
:clap: I havent been here every year yet but I see it big time this year.

Who are they blowing?

I'll be that at least two stalled drives by the Invescos will be kept alive by the refs.

OldTownChief
01-08-2005, 09:16 AM
I'll be that at least two stalled drives by the Invescos will be kept alive by the refs.


Watch for the flag to come flying in at any time :hmmm:

ChiefsFanatik88
01-08-2005, 09:18 AM
Fines aren't handed out by a committee....one guy makes the choice....

His name is Gene Washington....and when he played...that's right...he was a wide receiver.

Just what part of illegal hit don't you understand?
The asswhip swung his elbow and hit Larry Johnson well after the play was over, He led with the helmet when he tackled that guy in the Indy game. He is a cheap shot artist. He got his due.

I hoped he got a signifigant fine to deter any future cheap shot tackling and he did.

Taco John
01-08-2005, 09:19 AM
Anyone who plays for the Invescos automatically gets a free pass on their illegal play based on the fact that they are Invescos. Nothing more.



You are just wacky! Do you honestly believe this? No seriously? ROFL

stevieray
01-08-2005, 09:21 AM
According to rival fans that post on this board.

OldTownChief
01-08-2005, 09:27 AM
Just what part of illegal hit don't you understand?
The asswhip swung his elbow and hit Larry Johnson well after the play was over, He led with the helmet when he tackled that guy in the Indy game. He is a cheap shot artist. He got his due.

I hoped he got a signifigant fine to deter any future cheap shot tackling and he did.

Don't waist your time. The only good Donk fan around here admitted it was a finable hit. These two f*cks are brain dead and blind. TJ has not the capacity of reason.

Mile High Mania
01-08-2005, 09:44 AM
Anyone who plays for the Invescos automatically gets a free pass on their illegal play based on the fact that they are Invescos. Nothing more.

This is why titus says that only the Invescos are sanctioned for homerism on this board.


Every year, an invesco gets fined, and every year, we hear the same EXCUSES.

It tarnishes the board. It's old and it's BS.

ROFL Tarnishes the board? Oh my ... seriously, I admit that we (rival fans) carry our team's flags proudly over here and at times will go to great levels to excuse the obvious. So do you guys at times... it's natural.

Tarnishing the board though... I'd tend to think that whining about refs, scheduling and other things similar to that are what tarnish any sports' related board.

Chiefs' homerism is definitely allowed here... many of us were talking in the preseason about how Gunther alone couldn't fix the defense, a majority of you said that he would. Some went to great lengths comparing the Gunther Effect to other teams and how they turned things around.

I know, I know... somehow I am "deflecting". I am not supposed to make my case or defend my team while using comparisons to other teams, specifically KC.

:deevee: The refs will keep at least 2 drives alive for Denver?

I really really hope that Denver can find a way to win in Indy.... I am so anxious to read the hundreds of comments about how they cheated or how the refs helped them. ROFL

stevieray
01-08-2005, 09:55 AM
ROFL Tarnishes the board? Oh my ... seriously, I admit that we (rival fans) carry our team's flags proudly over here and at times will go to great levels to excuse the obvious. So do you guys at times... it's natural.

Tarnishing the board though... I'd tend to think that whining about refs, scheduling and other things similar to that are what tarnish any sports' related board.

Chiefs' homerism is definitely allowed here... many of us were talking in the preseason about how Gunther alone couldn't fix the defense, a majority of you said that he would. Some went to great lengths comparing the Gunther Effect to other teams and how they turned things around.

I know, I know... somehow I am "deflecting". I am not supposed to make my case or defend my team while using comparisons to other teams, specifically KC.

:deevee: The refs will keep at least 2 drives alive for Denver?

I really really hope that Denver can find a way to win in Indy.... I am so anxious to read the hundreds of comments about how they cheated or how the refs helped them. ROFL

translation: It's not true, that's why I just wrote a short story.

whoman69
01-08-2005, 09:58 AM
I really have no idea whether the ball is caught or not can has to do with spearing. He led with his helmet into someone else's head. End of story.

stevieray
01-08-2005, 10:02 AM
I really have no idea whether the ball is caught or not can has to do with spearing. He led with his helmet into someone else's head. End of story.

true, unless you are an Invesco fan.

HemiEd
01-08-2005, 10:03 AM
Mile High Mania
"I really really hope that Denver can find a way to win in Indy.... I am so anxious to read the hundreds of comments about how they cheated or how the refs helped them." ----------------------------



It will be very interesting if that should happen, to say the least! However I think the chances of us getting to dump on the Donkeys are much greater!
As far as cheating goes, I am convinced that Shannahan teaches and endorses it. One poster recently indicated that there was probably an envelope of cash in Lynchs locker, probably true........

Mile High Mania
01-08-2005, 10:27 AM
Mile High Mania
"I really really hope that Denver can find a way to win in Indy.... I am so anxious to read the hundreds of comments about how they cheated or how the refs helped them." ----------------------------

It will be very interesting if that should happen, to say the least! However I think the chances of us getting to dump on the Donkeys are much greater!
As far as cheating goes, I am convinced that Shannahan teaches and endorses it. One poster recently indicated that there was probably an envelope of cash in Lynchs locker, probably true........

Teaches and endorses cheating? Envelopes of cash?

Settle down, Mr. Stone.

HemiEd
01-08-2005, 10:33 AM
Teaches and endorses cheating? Envelopes of cash?

Settle down, Mr. Stone.


Would you care for some propane?

Mile High Mania
01-08-2005, 10:35 AM
Would you care for some propane?

I do a great li'l Hank Hill voice... it's one of the few talents I have...

"Dammit Peggy"

It took me a while to get over the fact that that voice is the same voice used on the old guy in the Beavis and Butthead cartoons.

"What I wouldn't give for 5 minutes with the li'l bastards that ruined my lawn mower... "

StcChief
01-08-2005, 12:57 PM
I thought Lynch was a clean player in Tampa Bay. Must be that Donkey organizational influence..
What he said.
My respect ended when he was traded to the Donxs.
He's living down to the play level.

Mile High Mania
01-08-2005, 01:04 PM
What he said.
My respect ended when he was traded to the Donxs.
He's living down to the play level.

ROFL Yeah, he just started playing like this...

StcChief
01-08-2005, 01:14 PM
Good player in Tampa on a good D.
Now... Maybe it's the thin air.
Shanny under his skin to improve the D earn his money.

Seems to be a different player watching him.

Mile High Mania
01-08-2005, 01:17 PM
Good player in Tampa on a good D.
Now... Maybe it's the thin air.
Shanny under his skin to improve the D earn his money.

Seems to be a different player watching him.

Eh, I think you're just watching him more... or just paying more attention to him b/c he's a Bronco and within the division.

jjjayb
01-08-2005, 02:41 PM
It's cause of the 'roids. You go to Denver, you go to Balco.

wazu
01-08-2005, 03:34 PM
The inclusion of this language can only be perceived as an attempt to influence and affect John's play during the game.

Master of the obvious! Isn't the whole point of the disciplinary action to "affect John's play" during NFL games? What am I missing here? He's a dirty player, they beat him down on it, and warned him not to do it again, including this week. Is this guy really serious in thinking he's making some kind of a point?

WilliamTheIrish
01-08-2005, 04:04 PM
Fines aren't handed out by a committee....one guy makes the choice....

His name is Gene Washington....and when he played...that's right...he was a wide receiver.

What does that have to do with anything?

Gene Washington played at a time when hits like that were the norm.

What position Washington played in his career is moot to wether or not Lynch led with his helmet.

Mile High Mania
01-08-2005, 04:05 PM
This whole topic gives me tired head. He got fined, he doesn't like it and will appeal.