Brooks fined

ScottF · 11-21-2013, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

I am all for the penalty on the play... but a fine, that is just ridiculous.

It had no malicious intent. If he did then the other hand wouldn't have came around to protect Brees some from being slammed to the ground. It was a move to tackle that was just a little high otherwise it would have been fair play.

Fines are getting ridiculous. Penalty was enough in this case.

how is it not malicious? He swung his arm at Brees' neck/head. A good football play would've been to lower the shoulder and drive it into the QB's back, but he chose to go high instead. And it cost him.

Euphoria · 11-21-2013, 08:13 AM

kicking someone in the balls sure fine but playing football and making an innocent mistake is something other. Where are the fines for holding?

Euphoria · 11-21-2013, 08:21 AM

how is it not malicious? He swung his arm at Brees' neck/head. A good football play would've been to lower the shoulder and drive it into the QB's back, but he chose to go high instead. And it cost him.

You need to look at the clip. His arm didn't swing, he purposely put it out and grabbed Bree's. He also used his other arm as he came around to brace and protect brees so Bree WASN't Slammed down to the ground. That to me would have be malicious intent. Punching Brees in the balls that is malicious intent... not making a football play that went wrong.

SaintsBro · 11-21-2013, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

I am all for the penalty on the play... but a fine, that is just ridiculous.

It had no malicious intent. If he did then the other hand wouldn't have came around to protect Brees some from being slammed to the ground. It was a move to tackle that was just a little high otherwise it would have been fair play.

Fines are getting ridiculous. Penalty was enough in this case.

His other hand came around to "protect" Brees? LOL. I'm sorry, but that's just crazy talk. Your explanation is so convoluted, it's not even making any sense.

SloMotion · 11-21-2013, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by TheOak

Au contraire mon frere

I was traumatized.... emotionally scarred brother. I have had to completely rethink my personality as the soft kitten like Oak was just to vulnerable. Way too much Mr. nice guy ... huge boobed women brought me 100% agreement ...

Well, if it's any consolation, I've always thought of you as kind of a "Cat Vader" ... and darn it! I musta' missed the large-chested-woman one ... probably too busy agreeing with you,

.

11-21-2013, 08:03 AM	#31
ScottF 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 6,324	Re: Brooks fined Originally Posted by Euphoria I am all for the penalty on the play... but a fine, that is just ridiculous. It had no malicious intent. If he did then the other hand wouldn't have came around to protect Brees some from being slammed to the ground. It was a move to tackle that was just a little high otherwise it would have been fair play. Fines are getting ridiculous. Penalty was enough in this case. how is it not malicious? He swung his arm at Brees' neck/head. A good football play would've been to lower the shoulder and drive it into the QB's back, but he chose to go high instead. And it cost him.

11-21-2013, 08:13 AM	#32
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	Re: Brooks fined kicking someone in the balls sure fine but playing football and making an innocent mistake is something other. Where are the fines for holding?

11-21-2013, 08:21 AM	#33
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	Re: Brooks fined how is it not malicious? He swung his arm at Brees' neck/head. A good football play would've been to lower the shoulder and drive it into the QB's back, but he chose to go high instead. And it cost him. You need to look at the clip. His arm didn't swing, he purposely put it out and grabbed Bree's. He also used his other arm as he came around to brace and protect brees so Bree WASN't Slammed down to the ground. That to me would have be malicious intent. Punching Brees in the balls that is malicious intent... not making a football play that went wrong. lsutigerfan and jlouhill like this.
	E U P H O R I A

11-21-2013, 11:53 AM	#34
SaintsBro Site Donor Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: in line with my ridiculous CLEAR PLASTIC BAG Posts: 3,650 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Brooks fined Originally Posted by Euphoria I am all for the penalty on the play... but a fine, that is just ridiculous. It had no malicious intent. If he did then the other hand wouldn't have came around to protect Brees some from being slammed to the ground. It was a move to tackle that was just a little high otherwise it would have been fair play. Fines are getting ridiculous. Penalty was enough in this case. His other hand came around to "protect" Brees? LOL. I'm sorry, but that's just crazy talk. Your explanation is so convoluted, it's not even making any sense.

11-21-2013, 01:04 PM	#35
SloMotion 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 6,776 Blog Entries: 15	Re: Brooks fined Originally Posted by TheOak Au contraire mon frere I was traumatized.... emotionally scarred brother. I have had to completely rethink my personality as the soft kitten like Oak was just to vulnerable. Way too much Mr. nice guy ... huge boobed women brought me 100% agreement ... Well, if it's any consolation, I've always thought of you as kind of a "Cat Vader" ... and darn it! I musta' missed the large-chested-woman one ... probably too busy agreeing with you, .

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/62122-brooks-fined.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
The Latest New Orleans Saints News \| SportSpyder	This thread	Refback	11-20-2013 02:41 PM	1
Brooks fined	This thread	Refback	11-20-2013 01:43 PM	4