Jeremy Jarmon fined $5000 for hit on Rodgers

[servumtuum]

It has been reported on both Redskins Journal on Fredricksburg.com and the website of the Green Bay Gazette that Jeremy Jarmon has been fined $5000 by the NFL for his helmet-to-helmet hit on Aaron Rodgers in overtime in Sunday's game.

DE Jeremy Jarmon was fined $5,000 this week for his helmet-to-helmet hit on Green Bay QB Aaron Rodgers in overtime of last Sunday’s win. Although Jarmon was not penalized on the play, the league ruled that he “unnecessarily struck the quarterback in the head area.” Rodgers suffered a concussion on the play.

***

http://blogs.fredericksburg.com/redskinsjournal/2010/10/15/redskins-notes-quotes-and-observations-fri-1015/

Redskins’ Jarmon Fined For Hit On Rodgers
Posted by Rob Demovsky October 15th, 2010, 3:15 pm
So apparently it should have been a penalty.
The NFL fined Redskins DE Jeremy Jarmon $5,000 for the unflagged hit on quarterback Aaron Rodgers on his overtime interception that helped set up Washington’s game-winning field goal.
A league spokesman said “for roughing the passer (unnecessarily struck QB in head area).”
Had a penalty been called, the Packers would have had an automatic first down on the Redskins 39-yard line.
Also, Packers safety Derrick Martin was fined $2,500 for a chop block on a special teams play. Martin, who is now on injured reserve, was penalized on the play.
– Rob Demovsky, rdemovsk@greenbaypressgazette.com

http://blogs.greenbaypressgazette.com/blogs/gpg/insider/2010/10/15/redskins-jarmon-fined-for-hit-on-rodgers/

 

[Boone]

I thought it should have been flagged too when I saw it happen. So can't really argue with the NFL levying a fine on Jarmon for it.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I haven't seen the play (stupid Sunday weddings...) - was it intentional? So much of this stuff is heat of the moment stuff, I just hate fining for it.

 

[Goaldeje]

I haven't seen the play (stupid Sunday weddings...) - was it intentional? So much of this stuff is heat of the moment stuff, I just hate fining for it.

Gonna need your man card, dude. Hand it over.


Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Gonna need your man card, dude. Hand it over.


Posted via BGO Mobile Device

I know, I know...I did watch the first half and barely made the wedding, if that counts for anything.

Goaldeje: YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE!

 

[riggins44]

We were very lucky there was no flag on the play. I was wondering if Jarmon would be fined. Not surprised.

 

[Goaldeje]

I know, I know...I did watch the first half and barely made the wedding, if that counts for anything.

Goaldeje: YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE!

Ok, i haven't laughed that hard in a long time, thanks Lanky.

Funny thing is, the year that commercial came out, something similar happened to one of the guys in my other league. I think we drafted Vinatieri in the fifth for him.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Elephant]

I haven't seen the play (stupid Sunday weddings...) - was it intentional? So much of this stuff is heat of the moment stuff, I just hate fining for it.

Rodgers was being pressured. Just as he released the would be INT to Landry, it appeared Jarmon stuck his hands up knowing he could not stop his motion and the hit was going to occur. It just seemed like he wanted to minimize severity of the hit by pulling his hands back. If it were just that, there would likely be no fine.

But what it looked like to me, was that at the last second with his hands in the air, Jarmon pushes his head forward, almost like a head butt. Everyone is correct. It should have been called. I don't see anything undeserved here.

This rule is well intended and this is a case where it should probably have been called. But I don't like this helmet to helmet rule. There was already a rule in place to cover it, unnecessary roughness. In more serious cases it should get called, but if you look at 75% of all tackles in the NFL there is some sort of helmet touching helmet involved that could be called.

 

[Boone]

I think you nail the issue on the head E - there are too many instances where refs make ticky-tack use of that particular call, where there was only incidental contact to the QBs head, in most cases apparently totally unintentional. Although I know its tough for officials to judge intent, I think most viewers can recognize when a blow to the head or helmet-to-helmet hit was intentional or put the QB at risk.

Sometimes I think, in the effort to take human 'judgment' out of the equation, we end up creating situations where officials have to throw flags for 'infractions' that had zero impact on a play. In this case, we got away with one we probably shouldn't have.