John Lynch Letter to the League... - Page 4

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.

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...SECTION=SPORTS

Garcia Bronco · 01-07-2005, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hemied

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,

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 bullshit rule. It's bullshit 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.

Taco John · 01-07-2005, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bwana

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bwana

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.

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

OldTownChief · 01-07-2005, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTownChief

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTownChief

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTownChief

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.

01-07-2005, 05:24 AM
Taco John Sapere Aude Join Date: Jun 2001 Casino cash: $3507937	John Lynch Letter to the League... 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.
Posts: 77,978

01-07-2005, 04:03 PM	#46
HC_Chief That's just f***in' stupid Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: suburbia Casino cash: $3687107	He does have a point: the NFL DOES promote these hits in their highlight reels, then turns areound and fines the player for it. __________________ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Posts: 12,355

01-07-2005, 05:27 PM	#47
Wile_E_Coyote avatar down for remodel Join Date: Jul 2001 Casino cash: $10004900	AP: NFL Won't Reverse Threat of Lynch Ejection http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...SECTION=SPORTS Last edited by Wile_E_Coyote; 01-07-2005 at 05:32 PM..
Posts: 6,009

01-07-2005, 07:41 PM	#49
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4531711	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 bullshit rule. It's bullshit 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.
Posts: 4,224

01-07-2005, 07:48 PM	#50
Bwana It's Five O'Clock Somewhere Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Billings, Montana Casino cash: $2139573647	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. __________________ Adventure is dangerous....but monotony can kill you.
Posts: 69,732

01-07-2005, 09:24 PM	#58
Garcia Bronco No Keys, No Problem Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Denver Casino cash: $5313136	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.
Posts: 30,835