Do coaches encourage dirty play?

Submitted by StephenRKass on

Yesterday there was a post on Fairley's cheap shots in the Auburn - Georgia game (http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/auburns-nick-fairley-cheap-shot-artist.) To me, it sure doesn't look good. I have several questions, not just with this, but with cheap shots in general.

  1. How many of you have seen coaches encourage dirty play? (as a player, or another coach with a coach letting it happen.) This could happen in two ways:  either to ignore cheap shots, or to actively encourage them. There have been comments on here about Saban, Chizik, Bielema, Hope, and Dantonio. Is there any insider info. on these coaches and dirty play?
  2. Can you refresh my memory on any Big 10 coaches suspending their own players for cheap shots, especially prior to outside outrage and pressure?
  3. Why does it seem that nothing happens? Are the Conferences and the NCAA toothless?
  4. What is the line between having a "hard edge" and dirty play? I personally think that there is no room for shots with the goal of injuring someone else, but not everyone feels the same way. We love the photo of Branch walking away after he leveled the PSU QB. That's obv. a clean hit. I guess I would just hope that we want the rules applied in a fair way.

Schmoe

November 16th, 2010 at 10:20 AM ^

1. Yes. Some coaches encourage dirty play. No insider info, but I am thinking at the very least they want that to a point. That point is to avoid a penalty.

2. Coaches that would suspend their players would not have players doing it. And they are coaches that give out disciplinary action behind the scenes and lessons are learned.

3. They have their rules. They think that is good enough. As long as it does not affect the bottom line.

4. Yes, that line is there. And it is tough to follow the correct edge. These days, people (NFL, etc.) whine about that line instead of simply accepting the challenge to play the right way.

HAIL 2 VICTORS

November 16th, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^

God came to me in a dream and I saw you in a Gator uniform.

Grey Shirt?  What is the Grey shirt you speak of?

Dirty?  That resteraunt floor was just washed and by the time I finished it SHINED!

It just seemed like the right time to go back to the NFL.

Hear no Maurice Clarett, See no Terelle Pryor, Speak of neither.

Of course I am letting them back on the team the assault was a MISDEMEANOR!  Chris Ruckers...No comment.

maizenblue92

November 16th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^

The only time I've seen it on a full scale for an entire game was last year's game of the Saints vs Vikings. The Saints were willing to take a few 15 yard penalties to make sure Favre was hit as often as possible and was hurting by the end of the game.

dakotapalm

November 16th, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^

I remember the 1996 Florida-Florida State game with Danny Wuerfful who would win the Heisman trophy that year. Between Reinard Wilson and Andre Wadsworth, it seemed the Gators' QB was getting hit after the whistle nearly every play.

Of course, I believe the 1997 Florida State team put a QB out of the game about eight of the 12 games they played. Bobby Bowden's (or Mickey Andrews') defenses were pretty legendary for hitting with the intent of getting the opposing QB out of the game.

ChosenOne

November 16th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^

I havent personally experienced coaches encouraging dirty play.  In fact it was the opposite.  But we were always the better team when we stepped on the field (except in playoffs where it was a much even talent wise).  I feel its more on the coaches looking the other way when it happens and some are more lenient on it.  But I feel there is a grey area also, like is pounding a RBs hurt body part dirty?  They chose to play injured.

StephenRKass

November 16th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^

I suppose that someone playing against Michigan would want to hit Denard's throwing shoulder as hard as possible, and that is within the bounds of "fair play." iirc, Bo Jackson said he was never so sore as after the bowl game vs. Michigan.

I guess I'm thinking more about chop blocks, or two guys on the O Line tag teaming someone, or the spearing from Fairley. I just can't see justification for that, and think suspensions would be in order.

If a team like Auburn has Fairley suspended by the league against, say, Alabama, and they lose, that would be a strong incentive for coaches to come down hard on dirty play.

ChosenOne

November 16th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^

I think coaches now a days are under so much pressure to get the W, that a lot of minor incidents are over looked. So unless an incident happens so severe, that they have to take action in order to keep their jobs they will continue to look the other way.

Fairley wont be suspended nor punished by Chizik.  He is key to a NC for Auburn and the people that could get Chizik fired know that and would rather have the NC then morality at this point.  

Here's to the SEC stepping up and doing it tho! (pry wont happen)

MGoShtoink

November 16th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^

1.  I don't think you need insider info with Chizik... this is insider enough:

The helmet spear to the back came AFTER this!  Ridiculous.

2.  There probably are... often they say for "violating team rules" or something.  I don't recall a coach suspending a player for a cheap shot.  I'd be curious what the board comes up with.

3.  I'd say both are cowardly, don't want to upset their cash cows.

4.  Hard Edge doesn't mean going out and slaughtering a team by means of dirty play.  Hard Edge means playing with everything you have, leaving it all on the field.

bluenyc

November 16th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^

I know this is not a answer to the OP.  The SEC will probably not do anything to Auburn.  I think they had 5 personal fouls for that game including 2 DL ejected for throwing punches at the end of the game.  Fairley had late hits on Murray all day.

If Chizik doesn't suspend Fairley, I hope we never play Auburn. 

Jeffy Fresh

November 16th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^

I played defensive end in high school. We were taught whenever we had an interception to find the qb and annihilate him. It was technically legal because we were "blocking" him but when you have 2 defensive ends blindsiding you when you are already feeling sorry for yourself because you threw an int it could get ugly. Let me tell you though, it was damn fun. My coach played for Minnesota back in the day. That's all part of the game as far as I'm concerned. What happened in the pile during fumbles though was down right assault.

Shaqsquatch

November 16th, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^

The pile was nothing compared to interior line play. So many scratches, punches, pulled hair, wrenched limbs, and spit. In one game I had a guy stomp on my Achilles with his cleats after the play, slicing it pretty deeply (thankfully no tendon damage, just a cleat full of blood). And another one dropping full-body on my elevated leg while I was pinned under a couple players.

JeepinBen

November 16th, 2010 at 10:36 AM ^

and they're different. I think you can have a clean hard hit on a QB (like you're talking about) and you can have a dirty on a QB. There's a difference in my mind between what Jamar Adams did to Tebow:

and what Fairley did in this game:

There's hard plays, and dirty plays. Fairley was playing dirty

Space Coyote

November 16th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^

Coaches that encourage dirty plays won't be around long in college football.  IME, none of the coaches that you listed, or any other coach that I can think of, actually encourages dirty plays to happen.  Not much is gained from dirty plays - particularly in today's high scrutiny world of slow motion replay - and much, much more is sacrificed.  

I don't want to make the excuse that physical play is part of the culture of football and that's why cheap shots are often ignored.  But getting back to the high levels of scrutiny that everyone in college football is under, both players and coaches, it has become increasingly difficult to take action for a "dirty play," particularly when there is a ton of gray area between someone playing hard, fast, maybe even a little out of control, but cleanly, to someone purposely making a dirty play.  

It is extremely hard to enforce, and coaches knowing how good many of these student-athletes off the field on a personal level, it is often very difficult to simply point, he's a dirty player.

I think all coaches face this scrutiny.  Rich Rod did with Mouton, Kelly has had to deal with it at ND, and there are many, many coaches that have to deal with it.  I don't think any of them said, "Hey, go out in punch this guy" or "stomp that dude like a Young Buck song" (throw back reference).  I think to an extent all coaches ignore it, but there is a great complexity that exists with actions off the field that seem to have less gray area than actions that take place off the field.

brose

November 16th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^

When he was coach of the Eagles...

 

And I dunno if Dantonio asked for that cheap shot clip on Martin last month, but it definately gave MSU a better chance to win.   Not accusing him of anything, but sometimes cheap plays give you a better chance to win as another posted already listed last years NFC championship game with Favre.

Tater

November 16th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^

I think Tressel encourages dirty play; I also think his "student" Dantonio does, too.  I fully realize that this could be "sour grapes" coming from a Michigan fan, but too many injuries seem to happen against both teams, especially from a Michigan standpoint.  I don't have any "proof," but I do think both teams play dirty.  Sam Webb apparently agrees about MSU; he says Martin's injury was caused by a dirty play; I am assuming it was an ankle twist in a scrum. 

I have mixed emotions about this, too.  Part of me is glad that Michigan stays classy.  The other part of me wishes they would temporarily adopt the "Code of Hammurabi" against teams like that, or at least the bastardized "eye for an eye" version to which most who are familiar with it refer. 

Ultimately, though, I'm glad Michigan is the kind of program that doesn't do that, even if I want to throw things at my television sometimes.

Urban Warfare

November 16th, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^

Which injuries against OSU are you talking about specifically?  Every injury I can remember came from a clean hit, like McGuffie in '08 and Stonum in '09.

bronxblue

November 16th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^

I think most coaches don't condone cheap shots or dirty play, but there is a very fine line between intensity and dangerous behavior.  I suspect that the vast majority of coaches will punish a guy for a deliberate cheap shot, but a very stiff tackle or an aggressive block tends to be interpretted quite differently depending on whose side you are on. 

TennBlue

November 16th, 2010 at 11:34 AM ^

  1. Some coaches encourage cheap shots in particular games not with the intent of injuring anyone, but for the psychological factors.  One value is intimidation, to make you physically afraid of their team; the other is to make you mad.  If they can get you more interested in retaliating for a cheap shot than in playing your game, they win.  Additionally, my experience has been that while refs often don't see the initial cheap shot, they do usually see the retaliation.  Thus the offender wins twice on it.
  2. All coaches want their kids to play hard, right up to the limits of what the rules allow.  Sometimes players will make a split-second decision about a play that turns out to be a bad idea and crosses the line.  My own advice to my teams was, "If you never commit a foul, you're not playing hard enough.  A foul now and then is OK - just don't make a habit out of it."

And of course, there are a few dick coaches who specifically do want to see a player taken out of the game.  They'll put a bench-warmer in with the express job of hurting someone and getting him on the sideline.  Thankfully, those guys are few and far between.

BlueTimesTwo

November 16th, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^

Coaches may not explicitly encourage their players to take cheap shots, but if they don't respond when cheap shots are taken, then they send the message that they condone such actions, and that the ends justify the means.  If the team benefits from the loss/intimidation of the opposing player, and there are no negative consequences for the player, they get the message that their play was a good thing.  Actions speak louder than words, and inaction by the coach speaks just as loudly. 

In a similar way, Dantonio may not encourage his guys to get into trouble and get arrested, but the lack of real consequences for the guys that get into trouble sends the message that Dantonio doesn't really care about discipline.  To a certain degree, it becomes a self-filfilling prophesy - MSU gets a reputation as a place where a guy can get away with a lot, so it appeals to some of the knuckleheads and wannabe thugs who take greater liberties than they would if they knew that there would be real consequences.  It is kind of like being the Oakland Raiders of the Big Ten.

Cville-Blue

November 16th, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^

BlueTimesTwo has an avatar photo of the UM hockey team... which got me thinkin'! Of course, coaches encourage cheap revenge shots all the time in hockey. They bring in the tough guy with all the PIMs and have him take shots at the other team's enforcer or even make the other team's star afraid to touch the puck. Its all a part of the strategy of the game, even accepting that there are penalties to be paid.

Or, to take it further, we all know there are enforcers in basketball... or at least there have been teams with enforcers (thinking 1989 Detroit Bad Boys). Intimidate the other team and we'll deal with the foul shots or technicals if they come.

A baseball pitcher aims at a batter to get the other team back for some dirty play they pulled off. A soccer player slide tackles, cleats first, into the leg of his opponent.

Much of this can be categorized as "dirty play." Attempting to harm a player on the opposing team." Whether coaches actually explicitly tell their players to do it or implicitly allow them to do it... doesn't matter. It's all within the parameters of coaching. So, I have to conclude that coaches, even by merely allowing it, coach dirty play.

So, the question seems to be... is dirty play acceptable or unacceptable? Then, where do you draw the line? That, I would imagine, is the question that keeps commissioners and such up at nights!

Skunkeye

November 16th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^

I remember that Buddy Ryan put a bounty on a kicker and planned on paying extra money to the player that took him out.  When this became public, the NFL stepped in and  ruled that paying a bounty was a violation of the salary cap and the practice must be discontinued.  To believe that the practice of  actively encouraging the injury of an opposing player does not go on at all levels of football is naive.

StephenRKass

November 16th, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^

I'm sure that this does go on at all levels. I was curious whether coaches and players feel "That's just part of the game. Deal with it, and do it yourself wherever you can get away with it," or feel that there's something wrong with this.

Last month I took my kids to see the re-make of "Karate Kid." Enjoyed the movie. But a big part of the premise is that there is a right way and a wrong way to compete. One coach (the bad guy) is pretty much, "kill, maim, hurt, destroy, no mercy." The other coach, who coaches the kid with the badly injured leg (cheap shot by other guy) doesn't go for that kind of thinking. And the kid wins fair and square. Obviously, this often doesn't happen in real life. But it's my ideal.

While, like you said, it is naive to think this kind of thing doesn't go on at all levels, I don't like it, and I don't want it for Michigan. That is to say, I don't care in a sense whether Fairley (of Auburn) is suspended or not. I don't want Michigan players to spear, and to intentionally gouge, and injure, and end careers, and cause to bleed just for kicks. I want Michigan players to pound, to dominate, to intimidate, to hit hard, but to do this within the rules. That's why I love the hit by Branch, and the hits by Graham (thinking of driving the MSU RB back last year.) These are hard hits, but not cheap shots.

Now, I can understand the likes of Jake Long (and Lewan) trying to get away with as much holding as possible. I can understand DB's trying to get away with as much interference as possible. The difference, to me, is they aren't trying to hurt, they're trying to win. Maybe that's splitting hairs, but that's where I'm at.

MGoShtoink

November 16th, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^

The difference, to me, is they aren't trying to hurt, they're trying to win.

Exactly... Fairley was intentionally trying to hurt Murray... not so much the knee hit, but obviously the spear and facemask gouge.  He should be suspended, and there is precedence in the SEC for doing so:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-mississippistate-hughessuspended

I hope the SEC is reviewing Fairley's antics and suspens him for the rest of the regular season, if not the Bowl Game too.