Lynch fined $75K for hit

[jjakq27]

I've never been a big fan of this guy. He always seemed to push what is acceptable and what is malicious. I am glad to see him get slapped down a little. However, from the article, he doesn't seem to have any remorse.

http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/8067576

Broncos' Lynch fined for hit on Clark

NFL.com wire reports

DENVER (Jan. 4, 2005) -- Broncos safety John Lynch was fined $75,000 by the NFL for his helmet-to-helmet hit on Colts tight end Dallas Clark on Jan. 2.

A league spokesman said Lynch, a 12-year veteran with a reputation as a hard hitter, received the harsh penalty because this was his fourth fine for unnecessary roughness since 2001. The first three all cost him $7,500.

The hit came in the first quarter Sunday.

Clark made a catch and Lynch leveled him just as he turned around. A flag went flying, the ball came loose, it was scooped up by Colts receiver Reggie Wayne, but he then fumbled and Broncos cornerback Kelly Herndon picked it up and ran for a touchdown. Because the hit didn't result in a tackle, officials picked up the flag.

On review, however, officials ruled the pass was incomplete and reinstated the personal foul.

The Broncos were off Jan. 4 and Lynch was unavailable for comment. After the game, though, the safety said he had no regrets about the hit and insisted it would send a message for the rematch between the teams Jan. 9 in the first round of the playoffs.

"They're great players," Lynch said. "You've got to find something to slow them down. The only way I think people have found is to be physical with them."

The hit knocked Clark out of the game with a concussion. He looked dazed on the sideline and had some blood inside his mouth. Approached by a teammate, he could be seen mouthing the words "I fumbled?" when told of the result of the play.

Lynch talked at length about the hit after the game, and even joked a little, relaying a conversation he had with officials: "I told the ref, `You're killing me. I've got three kids to send to school,"' Lynch said.

The NFL spokesman said the fine had nothing to do with Lynch's comments, only his actions on the field.

This was the second $75,000 fine the NFL has levied in two weeks. The league fined Donovin Darius of the Jaguars for a clothesline hit that temporarily paralyzed Packers receiver Robert Ferguson.

Lynch was the first player to be fined this season -- a $7,500 penalty for a hard hit just below Chiefs receiver Dante Hall's chin in the season opener. Upon receiving that fine, Lynch criticized the league.

"If you make the highlights these days, you're going to get fined," he said. "That's pretty much what it comes down to. It's kind of hypocritical. They put it on their 'Greatest Hits,' but they'll fine you for it, too."

This week, knowing a fine was probably coming, Lynch didn't seem as concerned.

"I think it sparked the team," he said. "Regardless of what happens, people will remember it."

[BengalszoneBilly]

And what's so shocking is that he's a Bronco! How uncharacteric, don't you think?

(Sorry oldschooler, I had to fix the "sarcasm switch" for this post! )

[denverbengal]

I've never been a big fan of this guy.  He always seemed to push what is acceptable and what is malicious.  I am glad to see him get slapped down a little.  However, from the article, he doesn't seem to have any remorse.

None whatsoever. In fact he held a little press conference yesterday to cry and complain about how unfairly he's being treated.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...2637425,00.html

"Throughout my career I was taught to play hard and I think I have throughout my career," Lynch said. "I think my reputation has preceded me in terms of playing hard and playing physically, but also I've taken great pride in playing within the rules. We have a difference of opinion with the league on this particular situation."

I guess leading with your helmet is now within the rules.

I've had a lot of calls and support throughout," Lynch said. "Guys that I didn't even know knew me, in the last couple days calling me and saying, 'Hey, keep playing the way you're playing. You play hard, but you're a clean player.' That's important coming from my peers. That's really important. I understand that people in Indy probably don't think that's the case."

I wonder why John?

And just when I thought I couldn't possibly hate the donkeys anymore than I already do, chump provides reason #8,752 (and still counting).

"(Clark) took two or three steps and he was facing John," Bailey said. "Was he really defenseless or is it that he can't take a lick?"

Can't take a lick? Is he serious? The dude had a concussion! Are you listening Colts?

All Bronco hatred aside, I really don't know what they're putting in the water here to make these guys think this kind of play is clean. Maybe it's the lack of oxygen.

[UKstripes]

Ok, I guess you have all watched this particular hit just like I have in the highlights? If that is a penalisable hit, or a hit worthy of a fine, it shouldn't be. I know I only play in a college league in england but as a player I didn't see anything wrong with it. Lynch came from the front, Clark had the ball, what's the problem?

And Lynch was right earlier this year when he pointed out that hits like that make it onto the highlights tapes. Ever wondered why?

[Kirkendall]

UK - the NFL has developed a bad habit of authorizing types of tackles, hits, or putting a red jersey on the QB and when he gets touched, penalty and fine galore.

The fact of the matter is Indy's WR's needed to get drilled to make them a little more hesitant going over the middle. Now, two things will happen because of that hit:

1. The colts WR have something to prove they are not soft and have record breaking performances or...

2. Denver makes this game close to the very end.

Sorry, but while I think Lynch didn't do anything to purposely hurt anyone, he did use it as a form of strategy.

[jjakq27]

It's funny. I can think of two hits this year that were similar to Lynch's but the outcomes were different in all three instances. One was a hit by Madieu against the Steelers (I think) when he was flagged for leading with his head or leaving his feet, etc. He was penalized but I don't think he was fined. THen the hit on TJ against NE was maybe a little worse than Lynch's hit and I know there was no penalty and I don't think he was fined.

Perhaps the league needs to clearly define these types of hits by using videos of these incidents as a guide. That way the players and refs have a better idea of what will be called.

And again I am not defending Lynch at all here, because I've always thought of him as a pile jumper and a guy who seems to push it.

[denverbengal]

The thing that stands out about this hit was that it was helmet to helmet. Clark wound up with a concussion because he was hit in the head by Lynch's helmet. I don't have a problem with DB's trying to intimidate receivers by hitting them hard and making them think about getting hit again, but you can't lead with your head. It's too dangerous (Lynch also left his feet).

UK, if you see the highlight again, watch the way Clark's head recoils after Lynch hits him. He clearly took a hard shot to the head.

Lynch does have a point about hard hitting plays making highlight tapes, but who is it that puts together those highlights? Is it the NFL? Or ratings hungry sports networks looking to up their viewership?

[Kirkendall]

Seems to me this is another case of someone getting hurt THEN the NFL does something about it. This reminds me of the Warren Sapp issue last season when he clocked Clifton many yards away from the play. Even though players drilling others during every play, Sapp's was so controversial, because Clifton was out for the season -- but if he were never hurt, perhaps this never comes to light.

My problem isn't Lynch nor Sapp, rather it's the choice fines the NFL hands out that could be used for a very broad definition of violations.

Personally, I'd like the NFL to remove from their pre-madonna mindset and go back into the hellhole football is meant to be. The NFL is still great, but I'll bet tackles around the shoulder pads, blocks below the hips, and any action post-whistle will all be punishable by fines and (or) suspensions. Whether or not they should or shouldn't be is in the eye of the beholder, but at least the NFL should be consistent about it. They shouldn't fine Lynch just because he's playing against the league's brightest teams.

[jjakq27]

http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/8077683

NFL stands by ejection threat to Lynch

NFL.com wire reports

DENVER (Jan. 7, 2005) -- The NFL refused to retract wording in a letter to Broncos safety John Lynch that warned he could be ejected for making another illegal hit like the one that knocked Colts tight end Dallas Clark out of the regular-season finale.

The league fined Lynch $75,000 for the helmet-to-helmet hit on the Colts tight end.

Along with the fine, NFL disciplinarian Gene Washington sent a letter reprimanding Lynch for the hit and informing him that officials for the playoff rematch at Indianapolis on Jan. 9 have been alerted to keep an eye on Lynch and to eject him if warranted.

Lynch's attorney, Harvey Steinberg, responded with a letter to the NFL appealing the fine and demanding that language threatening ejection be rescinded.

"We fear that the integrity of this contest will be impacted adversely here by the influence on the impartiality of the officiating crew," Steinberg wrote in a letter first obtained by The Denver Post.

On Jan. 7, a league spokesman said Art Shell, the NFL's senior vice president of football operations, sent a reply to Steinberg.

"He reviewed his points, believes Gene Washington's letter is appropriate, and therefore will not be making a retraction," the spokesman said.

Union president Gene Upshaw, who received a copy of the letter, had said he wouldn't be surprised if the NFL declined to rescind the language. He was also pessimistic about the chances of having the fine reduced, based on some of the inflammatory comments Lynch made about the hit after the game.

"Some of the clips that came out with John saying 'We were sending a message about next week and I'd do it again' -- that didn't help me on my appeal, I can tell you that," Upshaw said.

After the game, Lynch was anything but apologetic for the hit that bloodied Clark's mouth and left him with a concussion. He said one of the few ways to stop a team as athletic and fast as the Colts was to be physical with them.

"I don't know about the rest of the guys, but I still think we sent a message today," Lynch said then. "We got some stuff done."

After practice Jan. 7, Lynch declined comment, saying "It's time to concentrate on football."

Shortly after, however, he went on Jim Rome's syndicated radio show and reiterated comments he made earlier in the week, when he said he felt the league was tarnishing his reputation by fining him and singling him out. He said the most disturbing part of the letter was the section warning of his possible ejection.

"I think it's unprecedented in this league," Lynch said. "It's never been done. And I think it's real dangerous when you're taking something that is supposed to be the most impartial part of the game and now, all of the sudden, you're instructing officials to look for someone."

Coach Mike Shanahan said he thought the Colts were partaking in gamesmanship by calling the league after the game and urging Lynch's suspension.

In fact, both teams have been playing the game within the game all week. Broncos defensive backs said this week they would continue to hit hard, just as they always have.

"We're going to go after them," cornerback Champ Bailey told the Post. "We're not worried about any fine. We'll play punch-them-in-the-mouth football. I know Lynch, he's not going to shy away from anything. That's his game. He's a hitter."

Presented with the array of comments -- from Lynch, Bailey and safety Kenoy Kennedy -- the Colts challenged the Broncos to bring it on.

Upshaw said he told Lynch that as long as he uses his shoulder to tackle, not the crown of his helmet, he can hit as hard as he wants "and they aren't going to say a word."

Upshaw said the appeal on the fine will likely be determined after the Super Bowl, probably at league meetings, where Lynch will have a chance to attend and state his case.

A key part of the appeal is based on the fact that officials initially picked up the flag they had thrown when it appeared Lynch's hit had resulted in a fumble. Upon review, however, the pass to Clark was ruled incomplete and the penalty was reinstated.

Upshaw said a conversation he had with commissioner Paul Tagliabue led him to believe Lynch has hurt his chances of winning an appeal.

"Paul brought up comments that John made after the game," Upshaw said. "I guarantee you, that's not helping my case."

Steinberg said he didn't anticipate any ruling on the fine before Jan. 9.

"All I can tell you is I'm hoping he has a big game Sunday, and we'll worry about what to do next after that," he said.