OT - Ndamukong Suh fined $100,000 for illegal block

Submitted by Cold War on September 10th, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Ndamukong Suh was fined $100,000 today for his low block on Minnesota Vikings center John Sullivan on Sunday, but the Detroit Lions all-pro defensive tackle avoided the second suspension of his career.

The fine, the sixth of Suh's career, is one of the largest in league history.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2013/09/10/ndamukong-suh-fined-100000-for-illegal-block-minnesota-vikings-center-john-sullivan/2794433/

Comments

TheDirtyD

September 10th, 2013 at 7:24 PM ^

He's just blocking how every o-line blocks when they cut block. No matter where it's done at its still surprising to the blocked player. I agree with fining him but that's just insane.

SWPro

September 10th, 2013 at 10:22 PM ^

I would just like the NFL to explain why the Joe Looney hit on Kevin Williams was clean and this hit warranted a $100k fine. They seem quite similar to me.

bronxblue

September 10th, 2013 at 10:25 PM ^

This is obviously a result of his past reputation, but I see nothing in that hit that would qualify as overly dirty.  It was an illegal hit and he should be punished accordingly, but "dirty" implies some intent to injure that just didn't seem present.  I mean, Clay Mathews dived at a guy clearly out of bounds and tried to knock his head off; I've yet to hear the cries of dirtiness.  

I guess my problem with the NFL is that it has such a sliding scale for punishment that it feels arbitrary.  You look at some of these games in the trenches and you see offensive linemen absolutely demolishing tackles and going for knees and chop blocks, yet you don't see those players dragged out before the public for execution.  I'm not saying Suh isn't an idiot sometimes out there, but Rodney Harrison, a player known for going after players' heads with an intent to seriously injure, is on TV every week talking about "hard nosed" defense and crap like that.  It just feels like PR plays a huge role in who gets punished and who doesn't, and Suh's sometimes-dominant play gets overshadowed because he isn't viewed as a chosen son by certain people in the NFL world.

turtleboy

September 10th, 2013 at 11:35 PM ^

It was (yet another) stupid move by Suh, and it really in no way could've benefited the team. The center had no chance of catching the ball carrier, and Suh could've easily just manhandled him, but I also think the fine is grossly excessive. That type of play was legal only last season, and Suh was positioned beside him, where doing so positioned just slightly ahead would've been perfectly legal.
Suh is no James Harrison, here. He's made a few boneheaded lapses of judgement, and been undisciplined in the past, but he's also been falsely or improperly fined in the past, too. (Pulling a guy down by the dreads or shoulder pad and getting called for horsecollar tackles, or shoving Cutler down on his back and getting called for a blow to the head, for example) This is honestly a grey area penalty they're attributing a humongous fine to.

NoMoPincherBug

September 11th, 2013 at 1:37 AM ^

Suh is a foolish, selfish player who constantly does things to hurt his own team.  Schwartz is clueless and powerless to reign Suh in.  At this point, it is debatable whether having Suh on the roster is good for the Detroit Lions...very debatable. 

umichjenks

September 11th, 2013 at 5:50 AM ^

hits SF's QB after he is 2 yards out of bounds and no fine?  Not mention it was a horse collar tackle and went for his head/neck area.  But Suh gets a 100k fine, sounds logical. 

Cold War

September 11th, 2013 at 6:26 AM ^

If you're still pursuing the play, you're fair game to get blocked. If you're out of the play, stop pursuing. It's not contingent on the blocker to determine if you're not able to make a play and not touch you. That said, blocking a guy low can always be questioned.

Section 1

September 11th, 2013 at 12:17 PM ^

During the Michigan football season, why is an NFL topic allowed to escape moderation?  Isn't there a rule about that?  What does Ndamukong Suh, or the Detroit Lions have to do with Michigan athletics or the collegiate football scene?

Section 1

September 11th, 2013 at 12:59 PM ^

So, I was right.

There is a rule, and the rule is that pro sports are Off-Topic and OT is generally banned during Michigan's football season.  I was correct about the rule.

But, as with many things MGoBoard, the rule is observed mostly in the breach ("We will let pro sports topics slide...) for a generally like-minded group of sports fans who all like the same team and share the same sort of groupthink about most things.

goblue20111

September 11th, 2013 at 3:43 PM ^

Except it clearly states there's an exception for pro-sports. Aren't you supposed to be an attorney? And of course there are going to be more topics about Detroit pro-sports on a blog about the University of Michigan as there are many fans from the state of Michigan. 

Your panties. Get them out of a bunch. 

Section 1

September 11th, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^

...the rule is clear.  You can read the rule.  The clear thing about the rule is that pro sports are Off Topic.  But the enforcement part is apparently made up on the fly.  It is a rule that can be enforced, it would seem, whenever they wish to enforce it.  Or conversely, as it is said, "let it slide."

I'm not completely disillusioned by that vagueness; although if it really were a matter of law, it would never fly.  The fact is that the notion of any rules whatsoever on the MGoBoard is a bit of myth.  The Board is closer to 97.1 call-ins, than the Oxford Debating Society.  It is all about entertainment of the target demo.

M-Wolverine

September 11th, 2013 at 4:24 PM ^

It's not a rule they don't enforce, it's a rule with an exception. Pro Sports are always OT, all year round (and should be labeled OT all year around). All OT things will be taken down during the football season, EXCEPT for pro sports, which will be left up, but still should be labeled OT, as it is OT. (As long as not too OT or redudant). As a matter of law, think of it as killing is against the law. Unless you're doing it in self-defense. That's the exception (in broad terms). There are also minor exceptions for big events of one sort or another. (Bin Laden dead, for example).

Just because you forgot, never learned or paid attention, or just don't understand it doesn't mean it's "made up on the fly." It just means you were wrong.