 |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
Reactions Fans sound off on Sapp, Sherman and 'the hit'Posted: Monday November 25, 2002 3:31 PM
Tampa Bay beat Green Bay 21-7 on Sunday in a meeting of teams with the top records in the NFL, however the hottest topic of discussion was what happened when Buccaneers DT Warren Sapp and Packers head coach Mike Sherman met during a obscenity-laced postgame exchange. Here are what users had to say after Sherman confronted Sapp, who had hit Green Bay lineman Chad Clifton during a third-quarter interception return by Tampa Bay's Brian Kelly:
Whether or not Sapp's hit on Clifton was legal or a "cheap shot" is something for the league to look into, although it appeared to be "overkill" as far as I can see on the tape. What bothered me the most, though, was his smart-mouth jerk of an attitude when he and Sherman got into it after the game. Sapp should have just walked away. But, instead, his behavior proved him to be nothing more than an overpaid bad-attitude jock who thinks he can do anything he wants.
It was a legal block, but not necessary. Clifton was a good 20 yards away from the play, and Kelley was running out of bounds at the time of the hit. The adrenalin might have been pumping, but as a player, you need to show some self-restraint. If Sapp wouldn't have hit Clifton, there is absolutely no way Clifton, a 300-pound offensive lineman, would have ever caught up to Kelley.
Why does Sapp act like an idiot every chance he gets? Maybe it's because of the way the media follows his every move on the field or off. He just feels since he is in the limelight he needs to put on a show. I have to tell you that I am personally tired of seeing his stupid ass when I tune in to watch a football game. If I want to watch that kind of bull I will turn it to the Cartoon Network where the characters are supposed to act like attention-starved children.
It's always scary to see any player on the ground injured. And I hope that the player is OK and can come back to play another day. With that said, the hit by Sapp was perfectly legit. The only reason anything is being made of it is because of Sherman's reaction after the game -- not because of the play itself!
The shot was legal but behind the play and unnecessary; it was the same as one earlier in the year by Ray Lewis. Legal is not the same as within the intent of the rules. Warren should expect the same in return; no one will win in this. Did the coach have the right to say something? You bet he did -- and he should have.
There is absolutely no justification for the hit and there was absolutely nothing against the rules. Therein lies the definition of a bad guy. Meaningless play and overaction by Sapp. Jack Tatum has spent his whole life trying to justify his hit on Darryl Stingley. Fairly or unfairly, he cannot change everyone's perception of him. You have to have the bad guy in you to take a shot like that. Plain and simple, Sapp took an opportunity within the rules to hurt a guy, and he did. The good guys don't.
Legal hit but completely unnecessary and unrelated to the play, so it was a cheap shot. To top it off, to have Sapp celebrate while the player is hurt (ala Philly fans cheering Michael Irvin's neck injury), then challenge an older, smaller man to a fight for simply standing up for one of his players was a classless act by a classless player.
I see nothing wrong with it. Look where Clifton is (when Sapp blocks him) and where (Kelly) is. It looks like Clifton could still easily tackle the interceptor. Like Sapp said, he didn't hit him below the waist, the block wasn't from behind and there was no flag. This is a contact sport, like Sapp also said. I was always taught never to give up on a play, and aren't both these guys (Sapp and Clifton) doing just that?
It was an obvious cheap shot by Sapp, but that's not what bothers me the most. Sapp's tirade after the game was just another example of why the NFL continues to get worse each year. Games are boring, players get more money for less talent and more showboating ... and to my surprise, the media and league support it!
If there was a similar situation where Brett Favre threw the block on Sapp and knocked him out of the game, everybody would have been dancing around and hooting and hollering with smiles on their faces, including Sherman!
The fact that the hit was legal doesn't begin to explain why Sapp took that vicious cheap shot on a defenseless player who was nowhere near the action. He showed everyone what kind of animal he is with that sucker punch. In case anyone didn't get it, he showed what kind of animal he is again after the game by telling coach Sherman to put on a jersey. Why? So Sapp can get a 10-yard head start and fly into him at full speed while he's not looking? Somewhere in Sapp's mind, he probably considers that the fair thing to do. Hopefully someone, somewhere in this league will take a "fair" shot at Sapp.
The hit was legal, just as the hit Ray Lewis put on the Denver Bronco during the return for a score. Mike Shanahan didn't call out Lewis did he? As for Sapp's jovial celebration, chalk that up to the speed of the game. Sapp isn't going to jaw with a guy who is hurt. Sherman should be beside himself after the way he sought Sapp out, and make a national apology for taking away from the Bucs' big win.
Sapp launched himself to throw the block on a player at least 25 yards away from the play. Since it is illegal to leave your feet to throw a block, it was an illegal play and deserved a penalty. The fact that Sapp wasn't penalized is not surprising; the officials probably did not see it. The fact that Sapp did it to a player who was 25 yards out of the play is the definition of cheap shot. When Ray Lewis took out a player on the field-goal try earlier this year, the player who was blocked was in the area of the player returning the ball. In fact Lewis' block was essential to the play being successful. Sapp's block was totally inconsequential to the play. That, in my book, is the definition of a cheap play by a cheap loud mouth -- but very good player. Sherman was justified in saying something to Sapp, but not if it was profane. Sherman can lodge a complaint with the NFL about the play, but now his credibility is damaged. As far as standing up for his players, I think that Sherman was justified in challenging Sapp.
Sherman was way out of line. Sure, I understand that he had a lineman get carted off the field with no feeling in his legs, but that does not justify him accosting Sapp at the end of the game. His confrontation would not accomplish anything. Why not try and communicate with him away from the glare of the camera when he could see if Sapp had all of the facts? Instead, he just looks like a poor loser.
Sapp is an outstanding player, but I've lost a great deal of respect for him. I have not seen the hit since the game Sunday, but when it happened I saw him leave his feet and blindside Clifton. Clifton was not going to make the tackle. Afterward, Sapp could have admitted that he did not have to do what he did. He could have said that he was sorry that Clifton was in the hospital. Instead, Sapp challenged a coach and spoke of how he would have accosted Sherman if Sapp had not been such a mature, rational man.
What a poor sport Sherman is. Nobody wants a player to get hurt, but the hit by Sapp was legal, and that's the kind of hit all coaches want to see their players dish out! If it was his player nailing a Buc, you better believe he would have loved it.
While the block may have been legal, it was uncalled for and had a vicious intent. I have been watching Sapp play against the Packers now for six or seven years and though I do not consider him to be a dirty player, he is somewhat of fat blowhard who often does not show up for big games. He has done this before and there should be a fine involved. While some may argue that Sherman's behavior was inappropriate, I thought he had addressed the issue calmly. It was fat man who blew up.
That this is being called a "cheap shot" is insulting. Week after week, we listen to announcers glorify devastating pancake blocks, we see them replayed in slow motion, and are told about what great fundamental football it is. Granted, Clifton never saw Sapp coming, but Clifton was pursuing on the play and Sapp hit him cleanly. The only fault here was that Clifton probably realized that he had been outrun by Kelly on the interception, that he probably would not make the play and thus wasn't paying full attention. If the league elects to hand down any sort of penalty arising from this incident, it should be related to Sherman's unsportsmanlike conduct after the game, in the face of the media.
I think the only thing Sapp excels at, more than football, is making an ass of himself by running off at the mouth. He is a great football player, who in this circumstance, made a bad decision worse by cursing out an NFL coach. His hit on Clifton was totally uncalled for, and I'm sure after watching film he will see things differently. Don't get me wrong -- he won't let the public know that, but he himself will know what he did was wrong.
I'd like to answer Sapp's question, What's the problem? "The problem" is that, while the hit looks perfectly clean and legal, it also looks totally unnecessary. There's nothing wrong with playing with intensity. But good form and sportsmanship also need to prevail. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should.
The thing that bothered me about the hit was that I believe Sapp knew that the play was far removed from the action, that he could have made the tackle without launching from his feet, and that he considered it a "free" hit and took it without considering the consequences. I spent years watching Lawrence Taylor hit hard, and I don't remember him ever hitting someone outside the flow of a play. What I do remember is how upset he was after what happened to Joe Theismann. What a difference from what I saw Sunday. Bottom line: This was a viscous hit against a guy who was not aware of the danger, because even though he was running, he knew he was not to be a part of the play.
Sapp was right about the hit being legal. It was 100 percent legal. But it was completely unnecessary. And if Clifton had not been injured on the hit, none of this would be an issue. Instead it would be on all the highlight reels as a great bone-crunching hit. What bothers me the most about it is that there was never once any bit of remorse on Sapp's part for injuring a player, during the game or after. Sherman probably crossed the line in his confrontation. The only reason that he should not have confronted Sapp like that was because he was not removed enough from the situation. He was still on the field, after a frustrating loss, and he was too emotional to approach Sapp at that time. But on the other hand, you can't blame him because he cares about his players and he wants to be able to do something about it. It also didn't help that Sapp immediately started egging him on after the comment was made. |
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
