Bears in first place, 9-3!

[dogsrus]

Sorry, but once the qb comes out of the pocket he is fair game. I don't care if he actually used the forearm, (which I don't think he did) or not! The bears are lucky to beat the lions twice this season! As the saying goes....better to be lucky than good!

I agree.... but like it or not a forearm to the back of the head...even a glancing blow to ANYBODY, is a pentalty, stoopid and totally unneeded. But thank you for the lack of discipline.

Heres a thought Suh...tackle the guy. He's down..no flag.

[BradleyJD]

I agree.... but like it or not a forearm to the back of the head...even a glancing blow to ANYBODY, is a pentalty, stoopid and totally unneeded. But thank you for the lack of discipline.

Heres a thought Suh...tackle the guy. He's down..no flag.

Every postgame show has said the same thing.....It shouldn't have been a penalty

[Fetz86]

Agree, open palms of hands on shoulder pads, should not have been a penalty. . . but I'll take it, Go Bears!!!!!!!!!

[bigdaddystuck]

Should have been no penalty...but I'd take it too.

[dogsrus]

The ex official that, if you have been watching all year has done a great independent job commenting on calls, emphatically agreed it should have been (and was) flagged.

Sure some will claim bias but he's working for CBS NOT the NFL and has told it like it is all year long often not afraid to side against officials.

Either way my question is why a forearm even close to the back of the head when the guy was 2/3rds down allready when you could have simply tackled him.

Also IF someone claims he was just pushing him down why the forearm...wouldn't an extended arm reach the players body first IF that was you goal to simply take him down.

A forearm was, in the very least a stoopid way to tackle the runner and more likely an attempt to hurt him and not needed.

Yeah football is tough and hits happen but you got to be smart and tough and he wasn't......thanks.

[tornado]

the only people saying it should have been no penalty all have one thing in common..
they are not refs....
In case anyone has missed it (and I am not sure how they could) there has been an endless amount of talk and action this season about STRICT penalties for violent
and unnnecessary and excessive hard hits...

Given all this, how can the guy not know if he uses that extra forearm shiver when the man is going down anyway, that he risks a penalty...
it has nothing to do with being a quarterback and nobody ever said it did...
the refs called it, and all unnecessary roughness penalties are pure judgement calls...all of them...so I guess we could debate every one of them if our judgement differs
from or is better than the refs who are right there inches from the play.

[dogsrus]

the only people saying it should have been no penalty all have one thing in common..
they are not refs....
In case anyone has missed it (and I am not sure how they could) there has been an endless amount of talk and action this season about STRICT penalties for violent
and unnnecessary and excessive hard hits...

Given all this, how can the guy not know if he uses that extra forearm shiver when the man is going down anyway, that he risks a penalty...
it has nothing to do with being a quarterback and nobody ever said it did...
the refs called it, and all unnecessary roughness penalties are pure judgement calls...all of them...so I guess we could debate every one of them if our judgement differs
from or is better than the refs who are right there inches from the play.

Agree and disagree...bottom line is football IS indeed a violent and rough sport but its violent and rough enough without adding attempt to injure or by doing things unnecessary which is EXACTLY what Suh did and what the refs called.

A simple tackle or two handed push brings the runner down

[BU RICK]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-1206-bears-brite-1-suh--20101205,0,2254380.story