Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NFL)   Tom Brady fined $10,000 for his Ty Cobb impression after too many people were making jokes that he'd never be fined for anything   (nfl.com) divider line 85
    More: Obvious, Ed Reed, NFL, unnecessary roughness, Bernard Pollard, Baltimore Ravens, sliding, AFC Championship Game, Patriots  
•       •       •

2229 clicks; posted to Sports » on 23 Jan 2013 at 10:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 09:17:31 PM  
Less than Frank Gore was fined for wearing his socks too low.
 
2013-01-23 09:26:22 PM  
Said it'd happen, Goodell saw too good an opportunity to pass up to fine Brady the equivalent of 25 cents and have his media sycophants extol his fairness and how this proves he doesn't play superstar favorites, etc.
 
2013-01-23 09:28:31 PM  

Mentat: Less than Frank Gore was fined for wearing his socks too low.


Frank Gore is a serial offender, that was the SECOND time he pulled that bullshiat
 
2013-01-23 09:32:36 PM  
Ty Cobb impersonation?

So... he got piss drunk, then shouted racial epithets at the nearest black player and slapped him for being uppity?
 
2013-01-23 09:37:24 PM  

robsul82: Said it'd happen, Goodell saw too good an opportunity to pass up to fine Brady the equivalent of 25 cents and have his media sycophants extol his fairness and how this proves he doesn't play superstar favorites, etc.


While he loaned Brady $20K under the table.
 
2013-01-23 10:09:25 PM  
Same amount that Frank Gore got for having socks that were too short. Brady tried to rip ligaments.
 
2013-01-23 10:14:13 PM  

Mentat: Less than Frank Gore was fined for wearing his socks too low.


GAT_00: Same amount that Frank Gore got for having socks that were too short. Brady tried to rip ligaments.


Well which is it?
 
2013-01-23 10:14:34 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Ty Cobb impersonation?

So... he got piss drunk, then shouted racial epithets at the nearest black player and slapped him for being uppity?


No, I think that was Gisele
 
2013-01-23 10:15:55 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

"AND LET THAT BE A LESSON TO YOU!"

 
2013-01-23 10:19:37 PM  

jaylectricity: Mentat: Less than Frank Gore was fined for wearing his socks too low.

GAT_00: Same amount that Frank Gore got for having socks that were too short. Brady tried to rip ligaments.

Well which is it?


Frank Gore's was $10,500
 
2013-01-23 10:46:45 PM  

Mentat: jaylectricity: Mentat: Less than Frank Gore was fined for wearing his socks too low.

GAT_00: Same amount that Frank Gore got for having socks that were too short. Brady tried to rip ligaments.

Well which is it?

Frank Gore's was $10,500


As it should be. He looked terrible that day.
 
2013-01-23 10:52:17 PM  

Mentat: jaylectricity: Mentat: Less than Frank Gore was fined for wearing his socks too low.

GAT_00: Same amount that Frank Gore got for having socks that were too short. Brady tried to rip ligaments.

Well which is it?

Frank Gore's was $10,500


Jesus! That makes no sense.
 
2013-01-23 10:52:43 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Ty Cobb impersonation?

So... he got piss drunk, then shouted racial epithets at the nearest black player and slapped him for being uppity?


I thought he might have charged into the crowd and beat a one armed man half to death.

i
 
2013-01-23 10:53:17 PM  
I'm sure Brady learned his lesson from this.
 
2013-01-23 11:00:51 PM  

Mentat: jaylectricity: Mentat: Less than Frank Gore was fined for wearing his socks too low.

GAT_00: Same amount that Frank Gore got for having socks that were too short. Brady tried to rip ligaments.

Well which is it?

Frank Gore's was $10,500


Missed the 500.
 
2013-01-23 11:02:45 PM  

iron_city_ap: I'm sure Brady learned his lesson from this.


i291.photobucket.com

/now roll over, Gisele
 
2013-01-23 11:25:51 PM  
As long as we all remember that Suh is a dirty player and DESERVES TO BE PUNISHED! But Brady would never even think about hurting a player....

/or cheating
 
2013-01-23 11:27:20 PM  
Ravens linebacker Bernard Pollard, who has a habit of knocking Patriots players out of games, took issue with the slide.

static3.businessinsider.com
Pollard, maybe you should sit this particular debate out, hmm?
 
2013-01-23 11:34:21 PM  
$10,500? Pfftt.

Clearly an egregious rules-violation meriting a $10,695 fine.
 
2013-01-23 11:34:29 PM  

Theaetetus: Ravens linebacker Bernard Pollard, who has a habit of knocking Patriots players out of games, took issue with the slide.

[static3.businessinsider.com image 449x337]
Pollard, maybe you should sit this particular debate out, hmm?


Legal hit
 
2013-01-23 11:36:00 PM  
Fark Tom Brady.
 
2013-01-23 11:41:01 PM  

Theaetetus: Ravens linebacker Bernard Pollard, who has a habit of knocking Patriots players out of games, took issue with the slide.

[static3.businessinsider.com image 449x337]
Pollard, maybe you should sit this particular debate out, hmm?


Maybe you should never post again. Clean hit. Ridley lowered his head into Pollard. It sucked and it was scary, but Pollard didn't do anything wrong.
 
2013-01-23 11:43:55 PM  

Theaetetus: Ravens linebacker Bernard Pollard, who has a habit of knocking Patriots players out of games, took issue with the slide.

[static3.businessinsider.com image 449x337]
Pollard, maybe you should sit this particular debate out, hmm?


In Pollard's defense (only on this particular hit) Ridley was the one that put his head down into him and Pollard went for it
 
2013-01-23 11:50:22 PM  
blogs.sacbee.com
 
2013-01-23 11:51:36 PM  

robsul82: Said it'd happen, Goodell saw too good an opportunity to pass up to fine Brady the equivalent of 25 cents and have his media sycophants extol his fairness and how this proves he doesn't play superstar favorites, etc.


You're going to find out where he's staying and skeet in his gumbo aren't you.
 
2013-01-23 11:52:41 PM  
He would have been thrown out of a soccer game for that.
 
2013-01-24 12:05:38 AM  

Theaetetus: Ravens linebacker Bernard Pollard, who has a habit of knocking Patriots players out of games, took issue with the slide.

[static3.businessinsider.com image 449x337]
Pollard, maybe you should sit this particular debate out, hmm?


I can't stand either team or their players, but that play was legit. Your point = FAIL
 
2013-01-24 12:21:39 AM  

Malcolm_Sex: Legal hit

INeedAName: Maybe you should never post again. Clean hit.

Laocoon: I can't stand either team or their players, but that play was legit. Your point = FAIL


Repeat after me, the three of you: "just because it's legal to hit a running back helmet-to-helmet doesn't mean that it's a good thing."

Just a few years ago, you three would have been saying it's legal to crack-back block, chop block, or spear someone, so therefore those are the greatest thing since sliced bread and kittens.
 
2013-01-24 12:24:35 AM  

Theaetetus: Malcolm_Sex: Legal hit
INeedAName: Maybe you should never post again. Clean hit.
Laocoon: I can't stand either team or their players, but that play was legit. Your point = FAIL

Repeat after me, the three of you: "just because it's legal to hit a running back helmet-to-helmet doesn't mean that it's a good thing."

Just a few years ago, you three would have been saying it's legal to crack-back block, chop block, or spear someone, so therefore those are the greatest thing since sliced bread and kittens.


Thank you for underscoring my suggestion that you never post again. You posted again, and it was even dumber than your earlier post.
 
2013-01-24 12:29:06 AM  

INeedAName: Theaetetus: Malcolm_Sex: Legal hit
INeedAName: Maybe you should never post again. Clean hit.
Laocoon: I can't stand either team or their players, but that play was legit. Your point = FAIL

Repeat after me, the three of you: "just because it's legal to hit a running back helmet-to-helmet doesn't mean that it's a good thing."

Just a few years ago, you three would have been saying it's legal to crack-back block, chop block, or spear someone, so therefore those are the greatest thing since sliced bread and kittens.

Thank you for underscoring my suggestion that you never post again. You posted again, and it was even dumber than your earlier post.


Look, Sparky, if you don't actually have anything substantive to add to the discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time with your bluster.
 
2013-01-24 12:29:11 AM  

thisiszombocom: [blogs.sacbee.com image 240x180]


"Haters gonna hate."
 
2013-01-24 12:40:20 AM  

Theaetetus: Malcolm_Sex: Legal hit
INeedAName: Maybe you should never post again. Clean hit.
Laocoon: I can't stand either team or their players, but that play was legit. Your point = FAIL

Repeat after me, the three of you: "just because it's legal to hit a running back helmet-to-helmet doesn't mean that it's a good thing."

Just a few years ago, you three would have been saying it's legal to crack-back block, chop block, or spear someone, so therefore those are the greatest thing since sliced bread and kittens.


In that picture you posted, Ridley had dropped his head to about waist level. Pollard is even leading with his shoulder, right at the point where Ridley is holding the ball. The waist is just about the safest point in the body to tackle someone. If he goes any lower, there's a good chance he could have blown out Ridley's knee. So, if the ball carrier drops his head that low, where on the body should a defender attempt to tackle him? This isn't to say that Pollard doesn't have a history of questionable hits, but the example that you posted hardly seems to be one of them.
 
2013-01-24 12:59:27 AM  

Theaetetus: INeedAName: Theaetetus: Malcolm_Sex: Legal hit
INeedAName: Maybe you should never post again. Clean hit.
Laocoon: I can't stand either team or their players, but that play was legit. Your point = FAIL

Repeat after me, the three of you: "just because it's legal to hit a running back helmet-to-helmet doesn't mean that it's a good thing."

Just a few years ago, you three would have been saying it's legal to crack-back block, chop block, or spear someone, so therefore those are the greatest thing since sliced bread and kittens.

Thank you for underscoring my suggestion that you never post again. You posted again, and it was even dumber than your earlier post.

Look, Sparky, if you don't actually have anything substantive to add to the discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time with your bluster.


If you'd post something that wasn't pants-on-head stupid, people would be able to add substantive comments.
 
2013-01-24 01:15:47 AM  
FTFA: Brady apologized to Reed, even though it was an accident.

The apology?
 
2013-01-24 01:33:56 AM  

Theaetetus: Look, Sparky, if you don't actually have anything substantive to add to the discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time with your bluster.


It has already been pointed out that Ridley was the individual that lowered his head in the incident; Pollard was not at fault. Regardless of that, it was a clean, legal hit. Frightening, considering the result, but still within the rules of the game.

Emphasis mine: It was a clean, legal hit.
 
2013-01-24 01:37:27 AM  

Theaetetus: INeedAName: Theaetetus: Malcolm_Sex: Legal hit
INeedAName: Maybe you should never post again. Clean hit.
Laocoon: I can't stand either team or their players, but that play was legit. Your point = FAIL

Repeat after me, the three of you: "just because it's legal to hit a running back helmet-to-helmet doesn't mean that it's a good thing."

Just a few years ago, you three would have been saying it's legal to crack-back block, chop block, or spear someone, so therefore those are the greatest thing since sliced bread and kittens.

Thank you for underscoring my suggestion that you never post again. You posted again, and it was even dumber than your earlier post.

Look, Sparky, if you don't actually have anything substantive to add to the discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time with your bluster.


I did. But you ignored it. The hit was clean, the concussion was the result of Ridley's action. Pollard was going for a body shot.
 
2013-01-24 01:44:24 AM  
meh it was harmless, just like the fine is to brady's bank account.
 
2013-01-24 01:44:45 AM  

Tickle Mittens: robsul82: Said it'd happen, Goodell saw too good an opportunity to pass up to fine Brady the equivalent of 25 cents and have his media sycophants extol his fairness and how this proves he doesn't play superstar favorites, etc.

You're going to find out where he's staying and skeet in his gumbo aren't you.


Like he'd have the local cuisine, lol...he's so the kind of person who'd go to New Orleans and eat at Applebees.
 
2013-01-24 01:52:03 AM  

INeedAName: Theaetetus: INeedAName: Theaetetus: Malcolm_Sex: Legal hit
INeedAName: Maybe you should never post again. Clean hit.
Laocoon: I can't stand either team or their players, but that play was legit. Your point = FAIL

Repeat after me, the three of you: "just because it's legal to hit a running back helmet-to-helmet doesn't mean that it's a good thing."

Just a few years ago, you three would have been saying it's legal to crack-back block, chop block, or spear someone, so therefore those are the greatest thing since sliced bread and kittens.

Thank you for underscoring my suggestion that you never post again. You posted again, and it was even dumber than your earlier post.

Look, Sparky, if you don't actually have anything substantive to add to the discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time with your bluster.

I did. But you ignored it. The hit was clean, the concussion was the result of Ridley's action. Pollard was going for a body shot.


Ssshhh ... His New England vag is still sandy. Let him have his sad little tirade.
 
2013-01-24 01:54:48 AM  

Theaetetus: INeedAName: Theaetetus: Malcolm_Sex: Legal hit
INeedAName: Maybe you should never post again. Clean hit.
Laocoon: I can't stand either team or their players, but that play was legit. Your point = FAIL

Repeat after me, the three of you: "just because it's legal to hit a running back helmet-to-helmet doesn't mean that it's a good thing."

Just a few years ago, you three would have been saying it's legal to crack-back block, chop block, or spear someone, so therefore those are the greatest thing since sliced bread and kittens.

Thank you for underscoring my suggestion that you never post again. You posted again, and it was even dumber than your earlier post.

Look, Sparky, if you don't actually have anything substantive to add to the discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time with your bluster.


yes, defenders must be psychic and know if an offensive play will lower their head into their intended path of tackling the body of said player. otherwise, that's a 20K fine.

/football is violent. we're watching people slowly kill themselves. the public has never care, but apparently we do now...
 
2013-01-24 02:14:05 AM  

Larry Mahnken: FTFA: Brady apologized to Reed, even though it was an accident.

The apology?


He just kept making dick jokes.
 
2013-01-24 02:25:37 AM  

drunk_bouncnbaloruber: Larry Mahnken: FTFA: Brady apologized to Reed, even though it was an accident.

The apology?

He just kept making dick jokes.


They always seem to go way too long, with way too little.
 
2013-01-24 03:07:14 AM  

INeedAName: Theaetetus: INeedAName: Theaetetus: Malcolm_Sex: Legal hit
INeedAName: Maybe you should never post again. Clean hit.
Laocoon: I can't stand either team or their players, but that play was legit. Your point = FAIL

Repeat after me, the three of you: "just because it's legal to hit a running back helmet-to-helmet doesn't mean that it's a good thing."

Just a few years ago, you three would have been saying it's legal to crack-back block, chop block, or spear someone, so therefore those are the greatest thing since sliced bread and kittens.

Thank you for underscoring my suggestion that you never post again. You posted again, and it was even dumber than your earlier post.

Look, Sparky, if you don't actually have anything substantive to add to the discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time with your bluster.

I did. But you ignored it. The hit was clean, the concussion was the result of Ridley's action. Pollard was going for a body shot.


I have no doubt that Theaetetus is brilliant in whatever area of law he specializes in, but whenever he tries to comment on something sports related it is almost always retarded.
 
2013-01-24 06:08:55 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Ty Cobb impersonation?

So... he got piss drunk, then shouted racial epithets at the nearest black player and slapped him for being uppity?


And then yanked a cripple out of his wheelchair while punching him
 
2013-01-24 06:55:58 AM  

A Fark Handle: Theaetetus: INeedAName: Theaetetus: Malcolm_Sex: Legal hit
INeedAName: Maybe you should never post again. Clean hit.
Laocoon: I can't stand either team or their players, but that play was legit. Your point = FAIL

Repeat after me, the three of you: "just because it's legal to hit a running back helmet-to-helmet doesn't mean that it's a good thing."

Just a few years ago, you three would have been saying it's legal to crack-back block, chop block, or spear someone, so therefore those are the greatest thing since sliced bread and kittens.

Thank you for underscoring my suggestion that you never post again. You posted again, and it was even dumber than your earlier post.

Look, Sparky, if you don't actually have anything substantive to add to the discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time with your bluster.

yes, defenders must be psychic and know if an offensive play will lower their head into their intended path of tackling the body of said player. otherwise, that's a 20K fine.

/football is violent. we're watching people slowly kill themselves. the public has never care, but apparently we do now...


money talks, in this case lawsuits from former players really blew the whole thing wide open... the threat the NFL has to worry about in the long run is not just settling with players but having to change the rules and possibly suffer talent shortage as parents start taking kids out of the sport entirely

the fans don't necessarily want players to die young from this stuff any more than they want players to die on the field, but they also didn't take blows to the head seriously at all... in fact spearing (or "big hits") was a highlight of the game, you knew the other guy was hurting but didn't realize the consequences of those hits on both players

so it's not really up to the fans to decide on this stuff, they just want to see their teams win and their players succeed regardless of unforeseen medical issues, but they also don't want their teams to suck because concussions make their star players perform less or have a substantially lower quality of life - they also don't want their teams to suck because there isn't as much talent coming up through the school system any more than the NFL wants it

so yeah it's really a selfish thing
 
2013-01-24 07:33:48 AM  

GAT_00: Same amount that Frank Gore got for having socks that were too short. Brady tried to rip ligaments.


But it's MUCH worse of an infraction to wear your corporate sponsored socks improperly. Think of those poor sweatshop workers.
 
2013-01-24 07:39:56 AM  

ArtosRC: Theaetetus: Look, Sparky, if you don't actually have anything substantive to add to the discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time with your bluster.

It has already been pointed out that Ridley was the individual that lowered his head in the incident; Pollard was not at fault. Regardless of that, it was a clean, legal hit. Frightening, considering the result, but still within the rules of the game.

Emphasis mine: It was a clean, legal hit.


Yep, it sucks for Ridley, but a lot of runners run low like that. It's a miracle more of them don't get plastered every week.
 
2013-01-24 07:57:15 AM  

neuroflare: Mentat: Less than Frank Gore was fined for wearing his socks too low.

Frank Gore is a serial offender, that was the SECOND time he pulled that bullshiat


How many kids watching Frank Gore decided to wear THEIR socks low after that? HUH? How many switched from knee-highs to calf-highs? BECAUSE OF YOUR HERO FRANK GORE, HOW MANY OF THEM ARE WEARING ANKLETS WITH THOSE LITTLE POM-POMS ON THEM???!!!
 
2013-01-24 08:01:59 AM  

bahamasorbust: INeedAName: Theaetetus: INeedAName: Theaetetus: Malcolm_Sex: Legal hit
INeedAName: Maybe you should never post again. Clean hit.
Laocoon: I can't stand either team or their players, but that play was legit. Your point = FAIL

Repeat after me, the three of you: "just because it's legal to hit a running back helmet-to-helmet doesn't mean that it's a good thing."

Just a few years ago, you three would have been saying it's legal to crack-back block, chop block, or spear someone, so therefore those are the greatest thing since sliced bread and kittens.

Thank you for underscoring my suggestion that you never post again. You posted again, and it was even dumber than your earlier post.

Look, Sparky, if you don't actually have anything substantive to add to the discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time with your bluster.

I did. But you ignored it. The hit was clean, the concussion was the result of Ridley's action. Pollard was going for a body shot.

I have no doubt that Theaetetus is brilliant in whatever area of law he specializes in, but whenever he tries to comment on something sports related it is almost always retarded.


You noticed that too, eh? From what I've seen it looks like he's a Pats fan so that might be skewing how he viewed that hit. It seems like he spends so much time reading up on patent law that he missed learning the very distinct difference between a running back lowering his head into a tackle and a defenseless receiver getting their clock cleaned on a blind hit. Ridley knocked himself out more than anything on that hit. If he was going to call out Pollard on a dirty hit he should have looked for something different. I'm sure there are some out there (just not from that game that I remember right away). Ridley needs to learn that you can't lower your head to break a tackle all the time.

The hit on Pitta on the other hand, while technically a clean hit when watched in slow motion, was surprising it didn't draw a flag with how penalty happy the refs have been this year calling anything even remotely close.
 
2013-01-24 08:02:01 AM  

Theaetetus: Pollard, maybe you should sit this particular debate out, hmm?


I realize there was already a firestorm of replies to this, but as a Boston resident who happens to be a Ravens fan, I didn't hear any of my rabid Patriots fan friends say there was anything wrong with the hit... then or since.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report