Brooks fined

Euphoria · 11-20-2013, 05:48 PM

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.

jlouhill · 11-20-2013, 07:12 PM

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.

I agree with this. I don't have a problem with the penalty but there was nothing malicious about the hit.

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.

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.

11-20-2013, 05:48 PM	#1
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	Re: Brooks fined 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. Boutte, Icomeinpeace and Marching like this.

11-20-2013, 07:12 PM	#2
jlouhill 500th Post Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Denton, Tx. Posts: 692	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. I agree with this. I don't have a problem with the penalty but there was nothing malicious about the hit. Icomeinpeace likes this.

11-21-2013, 08:03 AM	#3
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, 11:53 AM	#4
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.

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