Dwight Anderson

I was asked to post the Dwight Anderson.....tackle.

So here it is


http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c335/ro1313/th_header.jpg

after watching that i totally disagree with him being ejected

he began to toss him just as the whistle began to go

he had no time to react

unless its just me....

IMHO the whistle has nothing to do with it. The forward progress was clearly stopped. It was way over the line. I think it was a good call.

lol.....so wat if forward progess has stopped but the whistle hasnt blown the players should just start walking away? u gotta keep going till the whistle is blown

in my opinion the whistle has the most to do with it

if the whistle hadnt gone yet then it would have been a regular tackle and their wouldnt have even been a penalty

I think, after watching it again, that the whistle went just as Anderson started the throw. Agree or disagree with the move, the ref's lateness with blowing the play dead was a definite mitigating factor in my mind. I hope the league takes that into account with any possible punishment.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not defending the throw. It may or may not have "crossed a line". Having said that, if someone could post the specific rule that was broken (other than deliberate attempt to injure, which I think could be applied to most tackling plays) I would appreciate it.

Hay The was German Suplex

The Kind a Former WWE Wrestling AND TNA Star did
Kurt Angle…

didnt someone from montreal do a similar tackle on charles roberts 3-4 weeks ago?

It is such a tough call to make. As a coach you want your players to play as hard as they can until the echo of the whistle.

I will admit, the tackle was a little excessive, but as a fan of the team, I would rather my defensive players play tough, especially in a game when they are trying to learn how to win, and send a message to the rest of the league.

I have no problem with the yardage portion of the penalty but was the ejection warranted? I don't know. But I think the fact that it had just happened to Charles Roberts a couple weeks before, certainly played a role in the decision.

  • paul

Actually it seems that the whistle is blown as Anderson was pulling him back, the throw wasn't in progress(Stoddard was still feet on the ground) when the whistle went, and he could have easily just let go of him.

i disagree jxp.....the whistle was blown just as he began to suplex stoddard....and couldnt have stopped himself

i think their should have been a penalty but no ejection....but like paullywood said....the fact that it happened to charles roberts earlier in the season, played a role in the decision

now you know why Hebert was set loose....if this kind of crap seems to you as a fair tackle...then you won 't mind when Hebert pile drives one of your key players....after all its a tough game...and wellllll you know....Stoddard will now be out of the line-up with a torn mcl strictly due to that 'intent to injure' crap....the league better stop it here... :thdn:

i dont think that hebert should have been tossed but i dont think that anderson should have been tossed either

but i do think that if you're gunna toss Anderson then they should have tossed Hebert as well for wat he did

On replays such as this, the "whistle" does not always line up correctly with the video. Or perhaps there was an earlier whistle not caught on tape. I could have sworn that live the whistle was earlier than the replay indicates. I do remember thinking that tackle was well after the whistle....

But regardless, suplexing a player should be treated as severely as helmet to helmet or spearing, both of which are penalties, both of which can get you ejected and both of which can result in fines and suspensions.
The point isn't "could he have let up after the whistle".
The point is, "a player can be severely injured by that type of play and so simply do not allow it".

I think the problem is these young players have grown up watching the spectacle of wrestling, and forget that when a guy gets suplexed there, it is a carefully choreographed and timed manouver--not that I am saying wrestling is fake.....

Bingo...you got it Right! :thup:

I agree with this. The whistle doesn’t matter. This was about the excessive use of force. He picked the person up and slammed him to the ground.

I don't have a problem for a flag for a Unnecesary Roughing call, but an ejection? Wow!

Thanks for posting the Dwight Anderson tackle.

It's just what I thought. He was a bit rough with the guy but it was just another tackle with the follow through being a wee bit later than it possibly should have been.

15 yards. Unnecessary roughness. A Tiger-Cat tradition. For good or ill, Winnipeg ball carriers will remember it for the next game.

the whistle was blown when stoddards feet were on the ground anyway, dwight could easily have let go, he was pulling him back, the whistle went then dwight decided to keep trying, pulled harder, then suplexed him

so the argument of the whistle being late to justify it is wrong

and i agree with the people who say its the intent to injure that should be looked at. stoddard is now out with a partially torn MCL because of that play. thank goodness roberts was not injured

If that is the case then the league should look at Hebert going after Pascal Cheron because he is now out with an injured knee resulting from a questionable hit.

Should Hebert be fined and/or suspended in hindsight?

Just playing devil's advocate ...

  • paul

Good question Paul.

It'll be interesting to see the response. "Intent to injure", anyone?

Ticat guard Pascal Cheron appears to be questionable for the Cats' next tilt Saturday night in Edmonton. Desjardins said Cheron reinjured his knee late in the contest when he was pushed by Bomber safety Kyries Hebert. It was the same knee that the burly blocker had off-season surgery on.

http://www.thespec.com/Sports/article/231000