Bernard Pollard's Hit on Tom Brady Very Similar to Jared Allen on Matt Schaub

Text Size A A A

You guys remember Tom Brady, right?

Rather talented quarterback for the Patriots. Three-time Super Bowl champion. Holds the single-season record for touchdown passes. Led the Patriots to a 16-0 season last year. Dating Giselle Bunchen.

That guy. You know, the one who blew out his knee in Week One. Even though he isn't playing again this season, you should be reminded of Brady every time you watch New England play.

If not, just let the game announcers do it for you.

Remember when Brady was hit by the Chiefs' Bernard Pollard, and even though every New England fan on the planet was crying for the NFL to fine, suspend, ban, or shoot Pollard, the league immediately said Pollard was in the right?

And we here at FanHouse agreed?

I think there's also a consensus that what Jared Allen did to Matt Schaub wasn't right. The league Friday announced agreement with that consensus, fining Allen $50,000.

However, a review of video from Pollard's hit and Allen's hits could lead you to a different conclusion. View after the jump.

First off, I give you Allen's hits on Schaub. The league saw these as a clear violation, hence the large fine for Allen.

Now, please take a look at Pollard's hit from Week One.

Please put your team-colored glasses down for a second and watch them closely. I am a Packer fan, so I certainly have no reason to stick up for Jared Allen, and I have no love lost for the Patriots, either.

However, if you look objectively, it's clear that there isn't a terribly huge difference. If you want to split hairs, you could argue that Pollard was obviously forced to the ground by Sammy Morris. Allen went low, but it didn't appear that he was forced to the ground. It was more of a choice.

That said, isn't Allen's job to get to the quarterback and make a play? If we're going to start restricting the ability of defensive players to make such plays, why not just put the quarterback in a red "DON'T HIT ME" jersey and get it over with? Did he dive at Schaub's knees? Yes, but only because he had no other way to make a play on a quarterback who, in both cases, was still holding the ball as Allen made his final lunge.

(It's also worth noting that on one of the hits, Schaub was hit high as Allen hit him low. Looking at the replay, I'm not sure it's fair to crucify Allen for that, because I'm not sure he could have known Schuab was being hit high.)

I'm all for fining Allen, as I think the league has sent a very clear message. Defensive players are to stay away from a quarterback's knees. And I don't have a problem with protecting the quarterback, as long as we don't go too far in that.

But now that the standard has been set in 2008, I'm not sure I agree with letting Pollard off scot-free.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

11-08-2008 @ 12:14PM

FunHater said...

Trying to look at things objectively, I'd say the Pollard hit easily deserves a fine. His actions were no different than Allen's. He was low to the ground and still made a lunging effort to contact the quarterback. Brady steps into the hit a bit and his season is over. On the Allen hits (ignoring the biased commentary of the video editor), Allen is off balance and stumbling low as he attempts to hit the quarterback ie. he isn't gunning for the knees, he just isn't in position to hit Shaub in the acceptable region. Also, in both hits Shaub is pushed towards Allen as he lunges, making it that much hard to avoid helmet to leg contact. I have no problem with the fine because whether I disagree or not, the rule is in place. The rule, as we see from the Allen fine, is basically telling players that once they are near the ground they had better not be trying to tackle the quarterback unless the player is extremely careful. That's great, except that if Allen (or Pollard) doesn't try to make that hit, he's getting an earful from his coach.

11-08-2008 @ 12:46PM

754Boy said...

That second hit Allen did was just dirty. The ball was already gone before he even took a lunge at Schaub. On the other hand, Pollard was already in the act of tackling and hit Brady just as he released the ball. That was totally legal and not intentional. Personally, I hate all the teams involved but I think the NFL was right in their findings.

Lol, Jared Allen was cold-blooded for that lame hit. He clearly aimed for that guy's knee!!

11-08-2008 @ 12:47PM

meb said...

you guys need to take a closer look. pollard had no way to get to brady. try moving forward with 225+ pounds on your back. i dont think you will be able to get up to avoid hitting the QB low. as for allen, it looked to me as if he went low on his own nobody pushed him down or rode his back. two completley different instances.

11-08-2008 @ 1:32PM

Wayne said...

The first Allen hit was the cleanest of the three. He was essentially tripped by the offensive tackle, who whipped his leg out and Allen's momentum carried him down and towards Schaub.

The Pollard hit and the second Allen hit were both dirty. In both instances the player lunged, helmet first, from a low position to hit a QB in the process of throwing the ball. Pollard should have been fined.

11-08-2008 @ 1:56PM

Xetuoh said...

754boy is spot on! Brady was hit as he "released the ball', where Schaub had thrown the ball and THEN was hit, unimpeded, by a defensive player, leading with his helmet.
Clearly, in video #2, Allen violated the rules (law?) and aimed for is knee.

11-08-2008 @ 2:08PM

Martin said...

Trying to determine intent from video clips is ridiculous. You can't tell from a video clip whether Allen knew that Schaub had released the ball. This whole "fine" idea is inane as well. If a player intentionally injures another player, he should be suspended for 1 game plus an additional game for each game the injured player misses. All other transgressions should just be assessed as penalties on the playing field.

11-08-2008 @ 2:13PM

Bubba said...

Bruce Ciskie, your a whack O. Quit tryin to stir the pot on Pollard's hit. He clearly was driven into Bradys knee as he was already falling to the ground. Allen's hit was more intentional as he was going low to make a hit. Also, One can also make an arguement that Pollard was truely bothered and remorseful for what happened to Brady because of his tackle. Allen did not say one peep other than to keep quiet. One's pschy says alot of ones actions!!!

11-08-2008 @ 3:01PM

rj said...

so much for the carson palmer rule.

11-08-2008 @ 3:53PM

Chaz said...

As a Vikiings fan I'm trying to look at this without bias. But no matter how many times I see this I can't help but thinking that none of the plays are all that dirty. The closest hit to being dirty is the second hit by Allen but if you are on the field trying with every muscle in your body to get to the QB you may not noticed in the one second that you were looking down as you're slipping that he got rid of the ball. The other hits are clearly just players doing their jobs and should be left as penalties on the field if the refs so deem it.

11-08-2008 @ 5:13PM

Chaz ,well said, I agree with you 100%........

11-08-2008 @ 8:14PM

Tim said...

First of all, anybody saying that the quarterback did or did not have the ball when the hit or lunge was made, it doesn't matter. The quarterback can still have the ball in hand and if you go at his knees, it is a penalty. It doesn't matter if Allen had his head down and didn't know if Schaub had or had not thrown the ball.

Bruce you saying that Pollard being driven to the ground and Allen not is splitting hairs. Its not splitting hairs, its the point of the rule. The rule is set up to make that distinction. If possible, rushing defenders must make a conscious effort to avoid low hit on a quarterback. Pollard, even if he made a conscious effort to go higher, couldn't with somebody on his back. You can say that in Allen's first hit he lost his balance and had no control, but not the second. The second he was free of the blocker then changed direction and did not make the effort to stay away from the knees. If he takes another step or two and lunges he hits the body, not the knees.

11-09-2008 @ 1:46AM

Elsquare said...

There are cheap shot artists throughout the league who can inflict injury and and conceal malice and intent to injure so that severe injuries are made to look like accidental, "smash-mouth"football. Be that as it may, the fact is that the players are so large, so strong, and so fast in this age that even good equipment (especially helmets) just cannot protect a player from injury, especially concussions.Obviously, I do not recommend this; but, if the players had to play without helmets, there would be some very different ways to tackle. The point is that the human body just cannot be completely protected in this age with any kind of equipment. The League must make the price so high that the players themselves solve tjhe problem. How? One idea: When a player is injured by an illegal hit,and must leave the game, the player causing the injury must also leave the game and cannot return to plaly until the injured player can play again. No matter if it is one day or year or one life time. Illegal hits cost yards, downs dollars and careers. Injure another player, illegally and pay the price. None of this football is a rough game BS. Play by the rules, or pay the price.

11-09-2008 @ 5:59AM

K Smith said...

I'm a huge Pat's & Brady fan BUT I agree with Chaz & Bubba. Allen's second hit was a dirty play. The other two are just football being football.

11-09-2008 @ 10:06AM

F Hernandez said...

It sucks for Brady for sure. However, Pats are still competing for 1st place in the division. Sort of lets you know how stacked that team is.

11-11-2008 @ 8:29PM

pat c said...

Im a huge pats fan but i don't believe the hit on brady was intentional. Football injuries happen. I know every team in the league was cheering it on when brady got hurt but as for stacked? i think the pats winning (even with cassell in) is a perfect sign that their coaching is awesome.