Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Fines From Monday Night

Redskins corner Fred Smoot was fined $5,000 for a uniform violation in the game against Pittsburgh, according to a source with knowledge of the situation, the only Skin who got nabbed for that. (Smoot was hoping the penalty would not exceed 5 grand, so he got his wish).

Also, Pittsburgh LB LaMarr Woodley was fined $10,000 for roughing the passer for a hit on QB Jason Campbell. Woodley threw Campbell to the ground violently during a sack, a play Campbell said he thought was "excessive." Woodley had been fined earlier this season for roughing the passer as well, on Sept. 14.

By Jason La Canfora  |  November 7, 2008; 3:54 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hall Agrees to One-Year Deal
Next: Who Will Go to Make Room for Hall?

Comments

First?

Posted by: dmorgan6617 | November 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone taken OG Barno outside for a walk today ?

Posted by: dspinx | November 7, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

frediefritz, Washington only has 1 officially retired number, 33. However there is supposed to be a rule about Ring of Fame #'s, where you don't take one with out the concent of the guy whos in that ring. JC did requested it from Doug Williams and was totally class. I understand there was a big issue in the Spurrier years when Wurfel and Rosenfels were both wearing 9 & 7

Posted by: alex35332 | November 7, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

The fine against Woodley is as absurd as the fine against Justin Tuck for the hit on Brook Bollinger.

PFT says they fined Woodley because he threw JC down "in an intimidating manner." WTF? What other manner are you supposed to tackle someone in - a caring and nurturing one?

The NFL is going way overboard with this nonsense. It's football. It's violent. People get hurt. Live with it.

Posted by: EpsteinsMothersDoctor | November 7, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I don't get it was it a leagle hit? if not did the ref flag it? If not, can we flag it now, go back and start the game over?

Posted by: alex35332 | November 7, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

No flag, perfectly legal hit. Woodley just didn't lay JC down gently on a bed of feathers is all.

Posted by: EpsteinsMothersDoctor | November 7, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

...depending on the outcome of the season. and it's pitiful. and i don't know why that is being tolerated up here (by wapo). for once i would like to read "i was wrong."...

because if wapo intends to make this into an opinion blog and not just reporting blog then someone has to hold the reporter accountable for his opinions. otherwise he'll just turn into a hack job. no one wants to admit they're wrong and certainly no one wants to read "...hey i told you so...i was right..." 10 times as much as "...i was wrong...skins were right.".

so if this is going to be an opinion blog and jasno and wapo have an opinion on everything skins. i want to know wether they support this move or not. if he will contribute or not. if you chose not to share an opinion on this right now i hope sincerely that you do not write anything negative of this move after the fact and certainly not an "i knew this would be a good move..."...because from everything i've read so far i haven't gotten a clear cut answer as to where jasno/wapo stands on this move.

Posted by: dealer1 | November 7, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I agree, the fine on Woodley is absurd. So was Tucks. Last time I checked, its TACKLE football. They might soon put flags on QB's for defensive players to grab at. And judging by the replay, JC fumbled reminiscent of Doug Williams Superbowl Fumble that never was.

Posted by: gregskins | November 7, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Good one Alex! Let's definitely start it over.

Posted by: Curzon417 | November 7, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Alright, here's a question for everyone...

Hall could step into our defense as CB from day 1 as long as he is playing press man-to-man. But how long will it take him to learn other coverages in our D schemes?

As a nickel or dime back, would he be in man-to-man, or zone coverage? Does anyone have a feel for how long it will take to get him on the field in the secondary?

I think he may field punts and play on Teams coverages right away, because that wouldn;t take as long to learn.

Posted by: frediefritz | November 7, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Lisa_R | November 7, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I don't get it was it a leagle hit? if not did the ref flag it? If not, can we flag it now, go back and start the game over?

Posted by: alex35332 | November 7, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse
I wondered at the time if the ref would call him for roughing. The league has differentiated on tackling QB's vs all other players, because so much has been invested in the QB position. Woodley didn't drive JC into the groung, but he really flung him while spinning him. Hard to explain. But I thought it was close to roughing.

Posted by: frediefritz | November 7, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Okay, now I know what hit you are talking about, I was not paying enough attention to who was doing it for the steelers to remember off hand.

Posted by: alex35332 | November 7, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I love all these tough guys who say, "Football is rough. People get hurt. Live with it." Like they're getting sacked at their desks or behind the service counters where they work.

Posted by: pilarcik2 | November 7, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

fred,

My sense is schemes aren't that complex for CBs. Cover 2,1 and press man are similiar. But the answer is it will take as long as it takes Blache to feel comfortable putting him on the field.

Posted by: Gweez | November 7, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

from Terrence Moore, the Atlanta Journal-Constitutions resident race-card player and the most negative reporter possible. You've maybe seen him making an *** out of himself on ESPN. Anyway, his quote on Hall :

"As a result, Hall’s often flapping tongue hides the fact that he is a harder worker than you think on and off the field. He loves football so much that he is a rarity among veterans. He attends everything from Senior Bowl practices to lowly events at the scouting combines each year. And, despite that flapping tongue, he isn’t a problem in the locker room, where he gives playful jabs and gets them back."

Posted by: TheTruth11 | November 7, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I love all these tough guys who say, "Football is rough. People get hurt. Live with it." Like they're getting sacked at their desks or behind the service counters where they work.

Posted by: pilarcik2

maybe where you work. And where I work but I am not assumeing that for everyone here, even in my own company I have a few co workers in war zones right now.

Posted by: alex35332 | November 7, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I thought he did get flagged and it kept the drive alive? I dunno, tho - I was drinkin' alot by that time...

...that and shouting "go for it, dammit, go for it..." and that was just the 1st quarter!

Posted by: DikShuttle | November 7, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"The league has differentiated on tackling QB's vs all other players, because so much has been invested in the QB position."

Posted by: frediefritz | November 7, 2008 4:27 PM

I believe this in itself is wrongheaded and has been from the day they decided to treat QBs differently than everyone else. By that logic, JC should be one of the least rule-protected players on the Redskins. Portis, Jansen, and Samuels for sure are more of an "investment" than JC is from a contract standpoint. If you don't want to get hurt playing tackle football, you shouldn't play tackle football. Simple as that.

Posted by: EpsteinsMothersDoctor | November 7, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"I love all these tough guys who say, "Football is rough. People get hurt. Live with it." Like they're getting sacked at their desks or behind the service counters where they work.

Posted by: pilarcik2"

HENCE WHY WE DON'T PLAY FOOTBALL

wtf

Posted by: TheTruth11 | November 7, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Man, I wish I could afford to throw away 5K because I wanted to wear some different socks. I hope that money goes to something useful.

Posted by: HighPlainsDrifter | November 7, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I should have been shouting:

Ei Di(gt) Vi = Pgt + Bgt Ei Di(gt+1) Vi - egt !!!!!!


http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/garber_greg/1453717.html

Posted by: DikShuttle | November 7, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"I love all these tough guys who say, 'Football is rough. People get hurt. Live with it.' Like they're getting sacked at their desks or behind the service counters where they work."

Posted by: pilarcik2 | November 7, 2008 4:29 PM

It's called knowingly and voluntarily accepting risk, and has nothing to do with where I happen to be sitting right now. Which, as you point out, is indeed at my desk.

Posted by: EpsteinsMothersDoctor | November 7, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Supposedly, all the fines go to charity. I don't see what the problem is.

If a player wants to donate that money to charity - go for it. Wear the socks, shoes, do the funny dance. Some kid with cancer will thank you.

What's the problem, really. Can't they deduct it anyway?!

Posted by: DikShuttle | November 7, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"I love all these tough guys who say, 'Football is rough. People get hurt. Live with it.' Like they're getting sacked at their desks or behind the service counters where they work."

Posted by: pilarcik2 | November 7, 2008 4:29 PM

"It's called knowingly and voluntarily accepting risk, and has nothing to do with where I happen to be sitting right now. Which, as you point out, is indeed at my desk. "

And most of these guys make huge money in exchange for the risks involved.

Posted by: HighPlainsDrifter | November 7, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Would've been nice if Smoot, instead of wearing different socks and worried about getting fined, would've worried about not getting burned on that deep pass.

Posted by: Poopy_McPoop | November 7, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"Supposedly, all the fines go to charity. I don't see what the problem is.

If a player wants to donate that money to charity - go for it. Wear the socks, shoes, do the funny dance. Some kid with cancer will thank you.

What's the problem, really. Can't they deduct it anyway?!

Posted by: DikShuttle | November 7, 2008 4:42 PM "

not sure about where the fines the NFL gets go, but Mark Cuban matches each fine he gets (which = a lot) with a donation to a charity.


just a random FYI

Posted by: TheTruth11 | November 7, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Well I am heading off, everyone have a great weekend, remember.
WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS ! WE WANT DALLAS !

Posted by: alex35332 | November 7, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Not doing backflips over the Hall acquisition, given that I like the character and chemistry of the D right now. But I'm telling you, this guy has to be better than Torrance, who singlehandedly gave the Rams game away on that bomb to Avery.

Posted by: RambleOn | November 7, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I was at the game and was shocked it was not a penalty. There are prety clear rules about driving a QB into the ground. He picked Campbell up and slung him to the ground, and drove him all the way down violently. You actually can't tackle anyone that way. The rule was made for just this type of hit. You have the guy wrapped up in your grasp. You simply drag him down or even drive forward and put him down, but you don't pick them up and sling them back down. Thats how serious concussions and neck injuries happen and it is excessive roughness. It was a bad non-call and the fine is justified. He was also fined because this is not the first time he has been warned for this.

Posted by: dbrine1261 | November 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I think we should fire jasno - he does not write exactly what everyone on this board wants him to write, therefore he should be fired.

And stoned to death.

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | November 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I'm tired of you JohnD!

Go back to Houston!

Posted by: TheTruth11 | November 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Tiki says they do & the players and coaches can deduct it (aired on Conan O'Brian show...), but it's not disclosed publicly - so hard to coroborrate.. it's also hard to spell corroborate..

Posted by: DikShuttle | November 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

beep beep

Posted by: CindyBoren | November 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

frediefritz, Washington only has 1 officially retired number, 33. However there is supposed to be a rule about Ring of Fame #'s, where you don't take one with out the concent of the guy whos in that ring. JC did requested it from Doug Williams and was totally class. I understand there was a big issue in the Spurrier years when Wurfel and Rosenfels were both wearing 9 & 7

Posted by: alex35332 | November 7, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

it was shane matthews who wanted to wear number 9, which i think sonny reluctantly agreed to but which was ultimately not handed to him, which was a no brainer. i dont think the numbers relate to hall of stars, but certainly there is overlap. recall bobby mitchell got bent out of shape when the issued 49 to some rookie a few years ago. of the top of my head, i can think of the following numbers that are not in circulation

7, 9, 21, 28, 33, 44, 47, 49, 81

am i missing any?

Posted by: dcsportsfan1 | November 7, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Wrong play to fine. It's not against the rules to "fling" a player to the ground. I'm sure JC found it excessive, but it was an unflagged and legal hit. In-bounds body slams are a part of the game and the quarterback is not excepted as long as he's still holding the ball.

The helmet to helmet contact on the late JC hit that was flagged and kept a drive alive IS against the rules and should have been the play that got the fine. I thought Tomlin was gonna have a conniption after that one because it looked like minor contact. The broadcasters called it 'questionable' but it's up to the defender to keep his helmet off the QB's helmet and he didn't make an effort to avoid the contact. Besides, the NFL finesmen are punishing ANY helmet to helmet contact this year to keep these dudes from getting paralyzed.

Posted by: oaxacavine | November 7, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The fines go to the United Way, which is the biggest waste in history. About 21 cents of every doallar donated actually makes it to a charity. The rest goes to "administrative fees". It is a big scam. The CEO of the United Way makes 7 million a year. It is criminal that they call it none profit, but of course we give enough for them to afford the best lawyers also. I run a CFC (Combined Federal Campaign) program. You can choose what charity your money goes too or simply put it in the general fund. We have a book showing all the charities and it also shows the percentage each uses for non charity uses or in other words "Administrative Overhead". It would shock you how little some well known charities actually give to the research ro kids, or whatever you think you are giving it to. Anyway, the fines go to the United Way general fund. Such a big opportunity wasted.

Posted by: dbrine1261 | November 7, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

umm Chris Cooley 47? Hello?

Posted by: dbrine1261 | November 7, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Who, other than Chris Cooley of course, was the untouchable #47? Also who was #49 that was good enough to not have his number worn?

Posted by: dbrine1261 | November 7, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I meant who did they let wear #49? Bobby Mitchell should have been upset.

I couldnt find a nother decent #47. I guess Dick James? He wasn't that good but must have done something to get in the ring of honor.

Posted by: dbrine1261 | November 7, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Both Tuck and Woodley calls borderline, hard to call..So the NFL sided on the side of caution to protect QB's who are uniquely vulnerable..The Texan QB injured by the Vike, possible career-threatening knee injury, like Brady..Bigger,stronger, faster players..Maybe QBs need to be more hardened to hits like this, hard hits are football, condition QB's for battle conditions!!

Posted by: frak | November 7, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

7, 9, 21, 28, 33, 44, 47, 49, 81

am i missing any?

7, 33, 49?

9 is Jurg, 21 - ST, 28 Darrell, 44 - Rigg, 81 - Monk

What about 42 C. Taylor?

Posted by: charley42 | November 7, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company