Skip to content

NFL fines Charles Woodson $10,000 for punch

Donald Driver AP

Packers cornerback Charles Woodson got off easy when he wasn’t ejected from Thursday night’s game after punching Saints tight end David Thomas. Now he’s gotten off easy again with a lower-than-expected fine.

The NFL has fined Woodson $10,000 for the punch, ESPN’s Adam Schefter reports.

The $10,000 fine seems low, particularly compared to the $25,000 that Andre Johnson, Cortland Finnegan and Richard Seymour all got fined for throwing punches last season. The fine is also a pittance relative to Woodson’s salary, which tops $10 million a year.

So Woodson did something that’s indisputably unacceptable — punching an opponent — and got fined 0.1 percent of his salary. Jaguars practice squad linebacker Mike Lockley did something that’s at least arguably acceptable — a borderline hit while trying to break up a pass — and got fined more than 20 percent of his salary.

Something is wrong with that picture.

Permalink 123 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Green Bay Packers, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
123 Responses to “NFL fines Charles Woodson $10,000 for punch”
  1. homelanddefense says: Sep 14, 2011 4:21 PM

    something is wrong? Everything has been wrong with NFL fines since Godell took over. It seems like fine amounts, and what is suspendable and what is not is completely arbitrary now.

  2. stairwayto7 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:24 PM

    If he was still on Raiders or a Steeler, $100,000 fine and a suspension! Goodell is a closest Packer fan so nothing!

  3. meeky1985 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:28 PM

    yeah the NFL front office is inconsistent… and in other news the earth is round

  4. ilovefoolsball says: Sep 14, 2011 4:28 PM

    It’s because he hit a no name tight end for the Saints at the end of a play, and he is who he is.
    I wonder if Thomas would’ve gotten the same fine if the roles were reversed.

  5. glac1 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:28 PM

    He’s lucky to get off with a slap on the wrist.

  6. mdd913 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:29 PM

    Something is wrong here.

    I have nothing against Woodson, in fact I admire him a great deal, but he should be fined the full $25,000 and suspended for at least one half of football.

  7. mustbejealousof6 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:30 PM

    Then you turn around and fine a Steeler x7 more for playing football. This is why we’re starting our own league. This is ridiculous.

  8. terrellblowens says: Sep 14, 2011 4:32 PM

    I honestly cannot stand the NFL’s inconsistent fines and flags these days. An inadvertent facemask is 5K more than a sucker punch, what the heck?

  9. thephantomstranger says: Sep 14, 2011 4:32 PM

    What a joke. The Packers have the NFL in their back pocket.

  10. bayoubauer says: Sep 14, 2011 4:32 PM

    10 mil a year? I thought TT was smart.

  11. golfballwackerguy says: Sep 14, 2011 4:33 PM

    Who really cares!?!?!!?

  12. scoops1 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:33 PM

    the guy will just donate that $10k to hospital charity

  13. cakemixa says: Sep 14, 2011 4:34 PM

    You can take the player out of Oakland, but you can’t take the Oakland out of the player.

  14. boisestatewhodat says: Sep 14, 2011 4:35 PM

    If he would have punched anyone else from any other team he would have had the book thrown at him. However, because it was the Saints and a player no one knows…he’s got it made. Its okay though, we’ll take care of him in the playoffs just like we did Favre!

  15. scudbot says: Sep 14, 2011 4:35 PM

    The refs should have been fined for ignoring the holding that triggered the punch.

  16. dexterismyhero says: Sep 14, 2011 4:36 PM

    @stairwayto7 says:
    Sep 14, 2011 4:24 PM
    If he was still on Raiders or a Steeler, $100,000 fine and a suspension! Goodell is a closest Packer fan so nothing!
    ===================================

    But he is not on those teams so STFU and he is not a closet Packer fan.
    Maybe your name should be 35-stairwayto7 after the way your team got punked by the Ravens Sunday you big freaking crybaby.

  17. Soulman45 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:37 PM

    What wrong with you people he won the
    SUPER BOWL you can’t touch this break it down
    Soulman45 time.

  18. tubs4560 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:37 PM

    The whole system is ridiculous. Goodell Has WAY too much power. There are no checks and balances, just Goodell’s terrible decision making. Fines need to be based on salary percentage, not a flat rate for all players. A $10,000 fine is pocket change to Charles Woodson. Even the $100,000 James Harrison was fined last season didn’t put a dent in his pocket book. That’s why you hear players like Suggs and Suh say they’d rather take the penatly and fine then let up. Not so much from guys being paid the league minimum.

  19. medtxpack says: Sep 14, 2011 4:39 PM

    first time offense. being a steeler in general means you start at tier 2….

  20. mjs2012 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:40 PM

    I think the difference in fine compared to Andre Johnson is that in one case, the punch was directed to the head and in the other case, the stomach. Not saying it’s right, but I honestly think that was the factor.

    Also, the comments saying that the NFL is favoring the Packers are rediculous. Whether Charles pays $10,000 or $100,000 gives the Packers no competitive advantage.

  21. scudbot says: Sep 14, 2011 4:41 PM

    mdd913 says: …”suspended for at least one half of football.” It doesn’t even require ejection/suspension for one game via NFL rules. The irrationality of some fans is scary.

  22. duece5 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:41 PM

    Complete robbery….what does TT have on you Goodell.

    If it has something to do with guys, back alleys, and…….eecch.

    Good Lord, I don’t even want to know.

  23. kibawib says: Sep 14, 2011 4:45 PM

    The relatively low fine is truly a gift from the front office. But what is more of a concern to me is the fact Woodson was neither thrown out of the game nor suspended for throwing a punch. On the replay, you can see the ref is 10 feet away and staring right at Woodson when the punch is thrown. Search for “Charles Woodson punches a Saints player” on YouTube and fast forward to the 1:14 mark. The fact Woodson got off with only a fine is truly a gift from the league. I doubt Woodson would have received such favorable treatment had he still been playing for the Raiders. Now, will this finaly put an end to packer fans’ incessant whining about poor calls going against their team? Pretty please?

  24. minnesconsin says: Sep 14, 2011 4:45 PM

    so you’re saying the NFL should adopt affirmative action then? You’re missing the point, MDS. The problem is not that a $10k fine is a bigger hit to an undrafted rookie’s salary than it is to big-name veteran’s. The problem is that Goodell & Co are incredibly inconsistent in their very definition and application of the “rules.”

    For what it’s worth, I agree the fine is low compared to what Johnson and Finnegan got for “similar” on-field behavior. But in reality, David Thomas should’ve been flagged on the play as well. The notion of a suspension is flat out laughable.

  25. kibawib says: Sep 14, 2011 4:48 PM

    scudbot–”The refs should have been fined for ignoring the holding that triggered the punch.”–Now THAT’S an irrational post (and inaccurate). I guess Charles Johnson should just smack Clifton up side the head on Sunday if he thinks he’s being held, right? Brilliant logic.

  26. mdd913 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:49 PM

    It doesn’t even require ejection/suspension for one game via NFL rules.

    ————————————————————–

    Actually, it does. By rule, Woodson should have been ejected for the remainder of the game. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

    Since he was not ejected, it only follows that he should be suspended for the appropriate amount of time in the next game.

    Nothing irrational about that.

  27. snnyjcbs says: Sep 14, 2011 4:50 PM

    It is the New NFL, change the Rules making them so grey that they can be called any way the NFL likes depending on what Team they would like to help nudge one way or the other. Hell Coaches do not even know what or is not Legal any more.

    Also go Obama in picking Winners and Losers with Fines and Punishment. What others have built these Fools will destroy.

  28. tougie1 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:53 PM

    “Something is wrong with that picture.”

    ***********************************************

    Sure is…he should have more Super Bowl rings in that picture. So now fines should be based on salary? That’s stupid.

  29. scudbot says: Sep 14, 2011 4:55 PM

    scoops1 says: “the guy will just donate that $10k to hospital charity.” No doubt. Woodson has donated $millions to various medical facilities in Michigan.

  30. welzy says: Sep 14, 2011 4:55 PM

    Did any of you actually see that “punch”? It was less severe than pinching a zit. Calling for a suspension is amazing.

  31. scudbot says: Sep 14, 2011 4:57 PM

    STRIKING, KICKING, OR KNEEING OPPONENT

    Article 1 All players are prohibited from:

    (a) striking with the fists;

    (b) kicking or kneeing; or

    (c) striking, swinging, or clubbing to the head, neck, or face with the heel, back, or side of the hand, wrist, arm, elbow, or clasped hands. See 12-2-3.

    (d) grabbing the inside collar of the back of the shoulder pads or jersey, or the inside collar of the side of the shoulder pads or jersey, and immediately pulling down the runner. This does not apply to a runner who is in the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket.

    Note: It is not necessary for a player to pull the runner completely to the ground in order for the act to be illegal. If his knees are buckled by the action, it is a foul, even if the runner is not pulled completely to the ground.

    Penalty: For fouls in a, b, c, and d: Loss of 15 yards. If any of the above acts is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant, the offender may be disqualified as long as the entire action is observed by the official(s).

  32. kayotiicdat says: Sep 14, 2011 4:57 PM

    $10,000 because he plays for Green Bay.. if it was from a Steelers player it would’ve been $25k… I’m a Saints fan and was livid when he didn’t get ejected, he got called on it but not ejected. BECAUSE HE PLAYS FOR THE PACKERS! Goodell you sir need to sir a doctor you are screwed in the head.

  33. mvp43 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:58 PM

    Now if the NFL really wants to make some money they’ll investigate what gets grabbed and punched at the bottom of a fumble pile…………

  34. stellarperformance says: Sep 14, 2011 5:03 PM

    I think the reason he was fined so little is because the punch was so weak. He threw it, but didn’t make much of a connection. This is different than a head shot with your helmet. Much ado about nothin’.

  35. descendency says: Sep 14, 2011 5:04 PM

    Only? Seriously???

  36. smoothjimmyapollo says: Sep 14, 2011 5:04 PM

    “Actually, it does. By rule, Woodson should have been ejected for the remainder of the game. Look it up if you don’t believe me.”

    Here you go mdd913 from ESPN’s Kevin Seifert:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/30955/dirty-laundry-charles-woodsons-punch

    “Referee Clete Blakeman’s crew assessed a 15-yard penalty but decided against ejection, helping us clear up a common misconception. NFL rules do not mandate an automatic ejection for a punch. In fact, here is how Section 2 of Rule 12 reads:

    STRIKING, KICKING, OR KNEEING OPPONENT

    Article 1 All players are prohibited from:

    (a) striking with the fists;

    (b) kicking or kneeing; or

    (c) striking, swinging, or clubbing to the head, neck, or face with the heel, back, or side of the hand, wrist, arm, elbow, or clasped hands. See 12-2-3.

    (d) grabbing the inside collar of the back of the shoulder pads or jersey, or the inside collar of the side of the shoulder pads or jersey, and immediately pulling down the runner. This does not apply to a runner who is in the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket.

    Note: It is not necessary for a player to pull the runner completely to the ground in order for the act to be illegal. If his knees are buckled by the action, it is a foul, even if the runner is not pulled completely to the ground.

    Penalty: For fouls in a, b, c, and d: Loss of 15 yards. If any of the above acts is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant, the offender may be disqualified as long as the entire action is observed by the official(s).

    The key sentence is the final one. Blakeman had two standards to meet if he wanted to eject Woodson. First, he needed to judge the punch to be “flagrant.” Then, he had to ensure that at least one member of his crew saw “the entire action.”

    That second step is important because it is intended to protect a player who was baited, or retaliated, from being ejected while his antagonizer goes unpunished. It’s reasonable to expect that at least one of the game’s seven officials saw the “entire action,” but Woodson implied afterwards that more happened than a single punch.”

  37. polishrod says: Sep 14, 2011 5:04 PM

    mjs2012 says:
    Sep 14, 2011 4:40 PM
    I think the difference in fine compared to Andre Johnson is that in one case, the punch was directed to the head and in the other case, the stomach. Not saying it’s right, but I honestly think that was the factor.

    Also, the comments saying that the NFL is favoring the Packers are rediculous. Whether Charles pays $10,000 or $100,000 gives the Packers no competitive advantage.

    —————-

    Yes it does, he should have been thrown out of the game and/or suspended.

    There is no precedence for giving a player leniancy on any fines…. until now.

    Woodson should be suspended and fined $25,000. Any statements to the contrary are coming out of the mouths of morons or Packer fans. Who are one in the same anyway

    Hopefully Karma sends Woodson home for the season in an air cast

  38. scudbot says: Sep 14, 2011 5:04 PM

    Nice. A thumbs down for posting the NFL rule that applies. That’s rational.

  39. tougie1 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:05 PM

    kayotiicdat says: Sep 14, 2011 4:57 PM

    $10,000 because he plays for Green Bay.. if it was from a Steelers player it would’ve been $25k… I’m a Saints fan and was livid when he didn’t get ejected, he got called on it but not ejected. BECAUSE HE PLAYS FOR THE PACKERS! Goodell you sir need to sir a doctor you are screwed in the head.

    *************************************************

    Please…that’s like me saying the Saints won the Super Bowl two years ago because the NFL wanted to help New Orleans heal from Katrina.

  40. tdk24 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:06 PM

    Wow, he is grossly overpaid.

  41. alaricsrevenge says: Sep 14, 2011 5:06 PM

    Because God said the fine should only be 10K.

  42. welzy says: Sep 14, 2011 5:08 PM

    Goodell you sir need to sir a doctor you are screwed in the head.
    ————————————–
    What?

  43. deepseabreeze says: Sep 14, 2011 5:08 PM

    looks like legarette blount is not the only person who likes to punch tight ends..

  44. mdd913 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:09 PM

    smoothjimmyapollo says some stuff Sep 14, 2011 5:04 PM

    ————————————————————-

    If that is the case then how come Mike Perrera said on air at the time of the offense that he should have been ejected?

    And if that is not “flagrant” I’d sure like to know what your idea of flagrant is. Woodson is just lucky he hit David Thomas (who might be the nicest guy in America) instead of somebody like Carl Nicks who would’ve knocked his head off.

  45. pappysarcasm says: Sep 14, 2011 5:10 PM

    Maybe it’s because he doesnt have a history of being a turd, and the league office realized that he was indeed being held repeatedly b Thomas, who is a turd!

    For thso who disagree; One, two, three…BIG WAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

  46. scudbot says: Sep 14, 2011 5:10 PM

    So, polishrod, if you were the Commish you’d ignore the rules and apply whatever fine/suspension you felt like applying. Hypocrite.

  47. mdd913 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:11 PM

    scudbot says: Sep 14, 2011 5:04 PM

    Nice. A thumbs down for posting the NFL rule that applies. That’s rational.

    ——————————————————————

    The only person being irrational here are the ones defending an outright sucker punch. You need to adjust your perspective.

  48. kibawib says: Sep 14, 2011 5:11 PM

    smoothjimmyapollo–”The key sentence is the final one. Blakeman had two standards to meet if he wanted to eject Woodson. First, he needed to judge the punch to be “flagrant.” Then, he had to ensure that at least one member of his crew saw “the entire action.”–Yes, and if you watch the video, the ref is staring right at Woodson wen he closes his fist and punches the Saints player in the stomach. The second requirement in the rule is satisfied (on video, the ref throws the flag moments after Woodson lands the sucker punch). So if you’re saying Woodson shouldn’t have been ejected, then you don’t think a punch to the stomach is flagrant? Then what is? Running after the lineman with a chainsaw? Give me a break.

  49. Deb says: Sep 14, 2011 5:13 PM

    Calls are to be made during games. At least this time the refs hit Green Bay with the 15-yarder. Woodson should have been ejected because that is the rule when a punch is thrown. However, since officials failed to do their job, I don’t believe he should be fined–anymore than you’d fine a guy for holding if the ref failed to call it. There’s no point penalizing players after the game is over. Fines should be saved for something monstrous–like deliberately stepping on another player’s face with your cleats.

    As to the amount of the fine–the NFLPA were fools to allow Goodell the freedom to set fines willy-nilly. The man has no moral compass. Yeah, I like Woodson better than Finegan–and obviously Goodell does, too. But a punch is a punch. If one is worth $25,000, they’re all worth $25,000. He has no right to keep playing favorites. Why should any player respect this man’s authority considering the way he abuses it?

  50. kibawib says: Sep 14, 2011 5:14 PM

    The only hypocrites posting here are packer apologists who think their player shouldn’t have been ejected because throwing a closed fist sucker punch to the stomach isn’t “flagrant.”

  51. mjs2012 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:14 PM

    Yes it does, he should have been thrown out of the game and/or suspended.

    There is no precedence for giving a player leniancy on any fines…. until now.

    Woodson should be suspended and fined $25,000. Any statements to the contrary are coming out of the mouths of morons or Packer fans. Who are one in the same anyway

    Hopefully Karma sends Woodson home for the season in an air cast

    ———————————————-

    The last sentence was completely uncalled for and negates any point made in your first two paragraphs.

    And if you’re saying that the Packers have been given a competitive advantage, well then so were the Texans and Raiders last year when Johnson and Seymour weren’t ejected/suspended….

    Oh wait…You all can’t play the “Packers are favored by the NFL” card anymore?

  52. welzy says: Sep 14, 2011 5:14 PM

    Hopefully Karma sends Woodson home for the season in an air cast
    ——————————————-
    polishrod – karma sends you home with severe disappointment. This obviously happens a lot.

  53. turk2875 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:14 PM

    Just ask yourself “what if he had punched Brees instead.” Uhmmmmmmmmmmmm……… he’s out for atleast a game. Goodell all I ask for is some consistency with these fines and suspensions. That is all.

  54. vikescry1 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:15 PM

    the saints tight end should be fined 10,000 for impersonating a champ! ( rodgers belt) all kidding a side woods fine should have been more, but maybe they looked at the tape and saw Graham holding and messing with charles in charge? just sayin…

  55. kibawib says: Sep 14, 2011 5:15 PM

    pappysarcasm–”Maybe it’s because he doesnt [sic] have a history of being a turd, and the league office realized that he was indeed being held repeatedly b [sic] Thomas, who is a turd!”–Thanks for proving our point, pappy (see md913 post). Hypocrite.

  56. scudbot says: Sep 14, 2011 5:16 PM

    He got fined $10k. The refs either didn’t see the entire incident (likely, since the hold wasn’t penalized) which prevents an ejection or did see it and decided not to eject him. Within the rules.

  57. thejuddstir says: Sep 14, 2011 5:17 PM

    Hey, why should the treatment of Woodson be any different now than it has been for his entire career. He has made a name for himself by grabbing on and holding any receiver that gets close to him and the flags never fly……….this latest “fine” is laughable. Anyone else would’ve been ejected from the game and fined a minimum of 25-50G and had it been a Steeler, Raider or…..Jaguar Mike Lockley, he would’ve been fined half his annual salary. I don’t know what it is, but the entire Packer’s organization seems to get away with whatever they want on the field or off the field. Countless other teams get tested more often than do the pack for drugs and all you have to do is look at matthews or hawk to see that they have “barry bonds” heads but yet they continue to play while on roids’

  58. citizenstrange says: Sep 14, 2011 5:18 PM

    Life sucks. The guy speeding in the $200 jalopy gets the same ticket as the guy speeding in the $200k Mercedes Benz.

  59. rexismybff says: Sep 14, 2011 5:20 PM

    Goodell is the new David Stern – marketable stars get protection, not punishment, while favored teams (Packers, Pats, Colts) get favored status and favored treatment.

  60. scudbot says: Sep 14, 2011 5:20 PM

    “The only person being irrational here are the ones defending an outright sucker punch.” Nobody has defended the punch. Not even Woodson. Get a grip.

  61. polishrod says: Sep 14, 2011 5:21 PM

    scudbot says:
    Sep 14, 2011 5:10 PM
    So, polishrod, if you were the Commish you’d ignore the rules and apply whatever fine/suspension you felt like applying. Hypocrite.

    ——-

    Did you not read the article above…. or are you just another Pack fan who posts anytime they mention your team in an article.

    The precedence for any punch being thrown is $25,000 AND ejection if the ref sees it.

    The hypocrite here is you, Chief, who would have demanded Dave Thomas be thrown out of the league if he punched Woodson instead of the other way around.

    Charles Woodson, the most overrated dirty player since Rodney Harrison.

  62. PackersHome.com says: Sep 14, 2011 5:22 PM

    Charles Woodson shouldn’t miss an entire half. The incident occurred with 5+ minutes left in the third quarter.

    He should have been ejected, no question.

    I thought for sure it would have been more than $25,000, but then again, it was his first offense. And unlike Andre Johnson, this wasn’t a constant battle between two players that carried over the season before.

    Granted, I can make an excuse or reason with the lower fine, I still feel it should have been $25,000.

    The NFL has too many rules and too many gray areas. A punch is a punch, fine the same amount regardless. If it’s the 2nd or greater offense, increase it consistently.

  63. phillyj112 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:22 PM

    Why do they even fine players 10k? C Wood could care less about 10k. I saw this guy out in Milwaukee at the Chop House and he dropped 5800 for lunch for him and his crew. Str8 Cash Hommie!

  64. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: Sep 14, 2011 5:23 PM

    While a one-game suspension is not warranted in this case, Packers CB Charles Woodson should have been ejected from that game, just as Richard Seymour was ejected for striking Ben Roethlisberger in 2010 with an “open-handed punch.” Evidently, the official didn’t judge the punch to be “flagrant.” But if the same act was done to Aaron Rodgers, would the offending player have been disqualified? What say you, Packers fans?

  65. dfeltz says: Sep 14, 2011 5:24 PM

    10k is a joke. Anytime a punch is thrown, let alone landed, its malicious. The ref’s should be eliminated from playoff duty and Goodell clearly doesn’t get it. Defensive players get fined when their hand brushes the qbs helemt, regardless of force, when attempting to bat down a pass. Woodson states in his Friday interview that he got frustrated and everyone saw him throw a punch when the play was over. 10k? I’m not screaming for a suspension, but 1ok is not even a deterrent to a guy making 10 mil.

  66. welzy says: Sep 14, 2011 5:26 PM

    Suh got $20K and no suspension for tackling a QB by his UNHELMETED HEAD! And it was his third major offense! You want more than that for a tap from Woodson? Really? And people wonder about football wussification.

  67. rpiotr01 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:32 PM

    mdd913 says: Sep 14, 2011 4:49 PM

    Actually, it does. By rule, Woodson should have been ejected for the remainder of the game. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

    Since he was not ejected, it only follows that he should be suspended for the appropriate amount of time in the next game.

    Nothing irrational about that.

    __________________________

    You are absolutely wrong. The rule says that a 15 yard penalty will be given to that player, which Woodson did receive. If a ref sees the entire event, that ref can use his discretion to hand out a game ejection.

    I think Woodson was lucky that the refs were feeling lenient that game, because no one would have blamed them if they tossed him for the punch. However, to claim that it’s an automatic ejection is flat out wrong. You’re mimicking the incorrect info given out by the broadcasters during the game.

  68. richmondhokie says: Sep 14, 2011 5:36 PM

    I’m a Green Bay fan, and even I think Woodson got off light. Not classy, Charles.

  69. kibawib says: Sep 14, 2011 5:37 PM

    scudbot–”Nobody has defended the punch. Not even Woodson. Get a grip.”–Really? Here was your first post, when you attempted to justify Woodson throwing a punch by saying it was ok because you say he was being held–”The refs should have been fined for ignoring the holding that triggered the punch.”

  70. scudbot says: Sep 14, 2011 5:40 PM

    kibawib, why don’t you start a petition to have Woodson and the refs who saw the incident suspended? It’ll be more fun than watching the putrid Vikings.

  71. kibawib says: Sep 14, 2011 5:40 PM

    rpiotro1–”If a ref sees the entire event, that ref can use his discretion to hand out a game ejection.”–But the ref did see the punch. He was standing 10 feet from Woodson when it was thrown. Search for “Charles Woodson punches a Saints player” on YouTube and fast forward to the 1:14 mark. The ref is staring right at Woodson when he lands the closed fist sucker punch.

  72. kibawib says: Sep 14, 2011 5:42 PM

    No holding, either. Again, the film doesn’t lie.

  73. gdeli says: Sep 14, 2011 5:44 PM

    give it to me, I need the cash! ha

  74. jessethegreat says: Sep 14, 2011 5:46 PM

    boisestatewhodat says:
    Sep 14, 2011 4:35 PM
    If he would have punched anyone else from any other team he would have had the book thrown at him. However, because it was the Saints and a player no one knows…he’s got it made. Its okay though, we’ll take care of him in the playoffs just like we did Favre!

    Just like you did Marshawn Lynch and the 7-9 Seahawks?

    And to say you handled Favre, you’re completely out of left field there. I’m not by any means a Viking homer, but the Vikings gave you that game. Without them shooting themselves in the foot over and over and over, you and all your Aints homeys would still have bags over your heads.

  75. bucsfan5000 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:47 PM

    He’d get fined $250,000 for punching Tom Brady and suspended too.

  76. bigbrad184 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:48 PM

    I hate Roger Goodell. Plain and simple. That guy has been a horrible commissioner. I think he tends to play favorites at times.

  77. richm2256 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:52 PM

    I’m sick of this crap about a fine being relative to a player’s salary.

    Where are we, Russia?

    If two players commit the same infraction, the fine should be the same, regardless if one guy makes twice as much as the other. If a rookie making the minimum has a hard time paying his fine, then maybe he shouldn’t have committed the foul!

    If the league decided that Woodson’s incident was different than Seymour’s, then the fine should be different. Should be based on consistancy, not by income.

    What’s next, writing up speeders in BMW’s for twice that of those in Fords????

  78. kayotiicdat says: Sep 14, 2011 5:52 PM

    @tougie1

    Thats a dumb comment and if that were t be true we would’ve won the year after Katrina.. But it’s the truth, if a Steelers player did that he’s be fined 25k and would’ve been thrown out that game. Everyone knows it, stop fooling yourself kid.

  79. kibawib says: Sep 14, 2011 5:53 PM

    Take a look at the YouTube video of Woodson at the 1:35 mark. The watch clearly sees Woodson throw the punch. I wouldn’t have a reason to post here if packer fans would simply acknowledge they caught a huge break in the Saints game and were handed a gift this week by the Goodell.

  80. raiderlyfe510 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:54 PM

    What’s 10 racks to my boy Charles Woodson? #StraightCashHomie.

  81. MossMoon2Packers says: Sep 14, 2011 6:02 PM

    I find it very amusing that all the Saints fans complaining about the terrible call by the ref on the Woodson punch are the same Saints fans who applauded the refs when they made 7 or 8 terrible/biased calls in favor of the Saints or against the Vikings in the 2009 NFC title game that enabled the Saints to squeak through to the SB. Hypocrisy and double-standard, thy name is a Saints fan.

  82. Deb says: Sep 14, 2011 6:04 PM

    The rule called for Woodson to be ejected and the ref blew it. That’s no different than the ref blowing a pass-interference call. Bad call and the game is over–so you forget it. The game is supposed to be played–and penalized–on the FIELD, not in the commissioner’s office. The people calling for Woodson to be suspended are out of their minds. And they’d be squealing like a litter of piglets if someone suggested suspending one of their players over something so innocuous.

    And no, I’m anything but a Packers fan. I was just blessed with a rational sense of perspective.

  83. smoothjimmyapollo says: Sep 14, 2011 6:09 PM

    ‘”If a ref sees the entire event, that ref can use his discretion to hand out a game ejection.”’–But the ref did see the punch”

    Read “the entire event” part. Did they see what led up to it? Was the ref focused on those two players the whole time or were his eyes elsewhere? We don’t know. Refs miss stuff in front of them all the time. That’s in their referee DNA. It’s the ref’s discretion about whether or not an action warrants an ejection.

    Don’t act like Thomas was just standing around minding his own business. Observe the extra little shove he gives when the play is over before Woodson hits him? They’re about 5 yards from the play, the play is over around the 1:08 mark of your video, Thomas shoves Woodson around 1:11. If you watch the beginning of the video, it’s faster, but still well after (and far away) from the actual play.

    Read my quote of Kevin Seifert’s analysis of the rule. The “entire event” part is there to protect the player if he’s retaliating from something the other guy had done. Certainly Woodson was retaliating – even if it was in an inappropriate way.

  84. MossMoon2Packers says: Sep 14, 2011 6:16 PM

    @richm2256 said: I’m sick of this crap about a fine being relative to a player’s salary. Where are we, Russia? If two players commit the same infraction, the fine should be the same…

    I have news for you, buddy. This is America. Here, lip service is paid to the rule of law (equal punishment for equal crimes, irrespective of who committed the crime), but the reality is quite different. In America, the rich and powerful almost always avoid paying, or pay much less than you or I, for their crimes.

    As Exhibit 1, I give you the corrupt chickenhawks Bush and Cheney. They lied about weapons of mass destruction, stained America’s name by declaring an illegal war on Iraq, destroyed a large part of Iraq, sacrificed the lives of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis (but none of Bush and Cheney’s family or friends) and wasted hundreds of billions of Americans’ hard-earned taxes, all for the benefit of Bush and Cheney’s oil-patch buddies. And, you can bet your last dollar that Bush and Cheney will suffer no adverse consequence for doing so.

  85. scudbot says: Sep 14, 2011 6:18 PM

    kibawib, there’s a difference in meaning between “reason” and “defense”. I know your expert analysis of a YouTube clip takes precedence over what the refs actually saw and heard, but to say that the punch occurred because of a particular reason isn’t the same as saying it was justified. You could look it up in any competent dictionary of the English language.

  86. halfie6 says: Sep 14, 2011 6:23 PM

    I am not a Packers’ fan. Don’t like them one bit.

    However, you cannot insist that Woodson should have been ejected because you cannot know whether the official saw “the entire action.”

    That said, the fine was shockingly low. Intentional punching should have huge fines attached, measured as a percentage of salary.

  87. greenbay4ever says: Sep 14, 2011 6:27 PM

    Who cares? Stars of the game always get better treatment. That’s how it is in the NFL and how it is all over the world. Honestly that is how it should be. Why would I want to be rich and famous if I did not wanted to be treated differently or treated better than everyone else. If I worked somewhere 15 years longer than someone else, albeit a hard worker why shouldn’t I be treated differently.

  88. gpack17 says: Sep 14, 2011 6:34 PM

    mdd913 says:
    Sep 14, 2011 5:09 PM
    smoothjimmyapollo says some stuff Sep 14, 2011 5:04 PM

    ————————————————————-

    If that is the case then how come Mike Perrera said on air at the time of the offense that he should have been ejected?

    Weird that he said that on air. Since the game wad on NBC and he works for Fox.

  89. skeletaldrawing says: Sep 14, 2011 6:49 PM

    First of all, as a Packer fan I’m extremely disappointed in Woodson. I would not have objected if he had been ejected from the game, nor if he’d received a stiffer fine.

    That said, there are a LOT of knuckleheads posting in this thread, so let’s try to get the facts in order:

    1) The NFL rules do NOT require an automatic ejection. I agree that it looked like the official saw the whole thing (though we can’t say for sure what he was looking at), but regardless the officials decided not to eject him. Continuing to claim that the rules require an objection demonstrates an inability to admit when you’ve been misinformed (in this case by the announcers during the game). Please get over it.

    2) Since there is NO rule requiring an ejection, asking for a suspension is moronic. If you disagree with the officials’ call on the field, fine. I don’t even really disagree, but that in no way justifies making up a new rule that would require a suspension now.

    3) $10,000 really isn’t shockingly low (although I wouldn’t have been surprised if it had been higher). Yes, throwing a punch of any kind is wrong, but all of the cases whined about above involve players/teams with multiple infractions, and usually shots to the head. That doesn’t mean the NFL doesn’t need to be more consistent, but for a first time offense on what was not a hard punch (not that it was ok) the base fine doesn’t seem like a good poster-child for the case.

    4) Finally, I agree that this is a trivial fine compared with Woodson’s income. Maybe the NFL should switch to making all fines a percent of salary rather than putting them in absolute terms. That would certaintly have made Woodson’s fine bigger. Doing this might create its own PR headaches (“Why should a probowler have to pay a fine 10X higher than a rookie???”) but it would probably be more fair.

    TL:DR – Woodson was wrong, and an objection would have been fine. It was NOT required, and asking for a suspension for it not happening is one of the higher tiers of stupidity. The fine was low, but not shockingly so.

  90. hoochbcs says: Sep 14, 2011 6:50 PM

    thejuddstir says: Sep 14, 2011 5:17 PM……..
    Countless other teams get tested more often than do the pack for drugs and all you have to do is look at matthews or hawk to see that they have “barry bonds” heads but yet they continue to play while on roids’
    *****************************************

    You are speaking in absolutes here which could lead to trouble. You really should google “libel on message boards” after you pull your head out of your ass.

  91. skeletaldrawing says: Sep 14, 2011 6:51 PM

    I should note this is his second offense. Woodson was fined $7,500 in a previous season.

  92. andyreidisfat says: Sep 14, 2011 7:15 PM

    I hate to back Pitt but man do they have to be pissed. They get huge fines for basically football plays and Woodson gets less of a fine an doesnt even get ejected.

    I’m sorry but once again Goodall proves how partial he is to certain teams and players.

    I like Woodson as a player but the guy clearly should get the same fine as the other guys who did the same thing an he should also be suspended for a game since the refs did not do their job and eject him

  93. infectorman says: Sep 14, 2011 7:35 PM

    10 k for him and nothing for Suh punch on Mankins?

    guess the $ fines in the preseason are as fake as the games themselves

  94. rpiotr01 says: Sep 14, 2011 7:46 PM

    kibawib says:
    Sep 14, 2011 5:40 PM
    rpiotro1–”If a ref sees the entire event, that ref can use his discretion to hand out a game ejection.”–But the ref did see the punch. He was standing 10 feet from Woodson when it was thrown. Search for “Charles Woodson punches a Saints player” on YouTube and fast forward to the 1:14 mark. The ref is staring right at Woodson when he lands the closed fist sucker punch.

    _____________________

    I know a ref was there and saw it. That’s why I said in my post that Woodson got off easy, that no one could have complained if he did get tossed. And the fine should have been $25K.

    My point was that the refs aren’t obligated to toss the offending player. That is NOT the rule. My objection was to those saying that the refs botched the play because the ejection should have been automatic. That’s not the case.

  95. lnfinite says: Sep 14, 2011 7:48 PM

    So much for justice in the NFL…………..

  96. dd393 says: Sep 14, 2011 7:53 PM

    All he needs to do to cover the fine is to sell a case or two of his wine.

  97. hendeeze says: Sep 14, 2011 7:57 PM

    Why does he get fined less then the practice squad guy?

  98. paulharghis says: Sep 14, 2011 8:00 PM

    I think it’s just great that the rest of the NFL teams fanbases are getting a good look at what a homerisitic fan base GB really has. Us fans of other NFC North teams have known this for YEARS.

    Loudmouth, inane, know nothing fans.
    GB has the worst fans of any pro sports team- bar none.

    Woodson should have been fined and tossed.

    The reason he wasn’t tossed is because the game was in Lambeau. I’m sure they feared getting out safely if they threw him out.
    As for the fine, I couldn’t tell you why it was so low. Most likely if it was higher, people would have been asking why he wasn’t tossed.

  99. pappysarcasm says: Sep 14, 2011 8:25 PM

    I agree with Deb! Someone get kibawib a pacifier! ;)

  100. mdd913 says: Sep 14, 2011 8:29 PM

    I find it very amusing that all the Saints fans complaining about the terrible call by the ref on the Woodson punch are the same Saints fans who applauded the refs when they made 7 or 8 terrible/biased calls in favor of the Saints or against the Vikings in the 2009 NFC title game that enabled the Saints to squeak through to the SB. Hypocrisy and double-standard, thy name is a Saints fan.

    ——————————————————

    The difference is, we’ll be over this after next Sunday. You’ll still be crying over your poor lost NFC Championship game 5 years from now. Pathetic.

  101. scudbot says: Sep 14, 2011 8:33 PM

    paulharghis!!! “GB has the worst fans of any pro sports team- bar none.” Whatever, Vikings dork.

  102. obithejedi says: Sep 14, 2011 8:55 PM

    I’m a Saints fan and I saw the play when it happened. I also, like may others, saw the replay. I agree with the way it was handled, a penlaty was good enough during the game.

  103. halfie6 says: Sep 14, 2011 9:18 PM

    @skeletaldrawing

    Excellent post and I agree with much of it. Just want to respond, briefly, to your point that $10,000 isn’t shockingly low since I was the one who used that term.

    I should clarify that I didn’t mean that $10,000 is low relative to the nature of the offense and what other “first offenders” have received. I agree with you on that point.

    What I meant was that I think the NFL should sharply increase the fines for fighting or punching. These fines are supposed to be a deterrent and — unlike fines related to hard hits during play which can be accidental — throwing a punch is never an accident. The NFL should make fines for fighting so onerous that we never have to see a punch thrown in a game again.

    Thanks again for the well-balanced and thoughtful post.

  104. Deb says: Sep 14, 2011 9:27 PM

    @skeletaldrawing …

    You sound like a rational person. To reiterate, my position is that whatever needed to be done should have been done on the field. Once the game is over, that’s the end of it. I don’t believe in post-game fines unless something egregious (much more than a punch) occurred. And nothing happened to warrant a suspension.

    But I’m curious about why you’re saying the rule doesn’t require an ejection. I thought anytime a player was seen throwing a punch (as opposed to an open-handed swat), the rules called for an automatic ejection. Thought that had been the rule for years. Is that incorrect?

  105. halfie6 says: Sep 14, 2011 9:42 PM

    @Deb

    The rule is excerpted in several posts above, but essentially two factors are required for ejection. The referee both has to “observe the entire action” and he has to determine that the punch/kick/etc was flagrant.

    So it’s definitely not automatic, but subject to referee discretion on both points.

  106. lugubriosoman says: Sep 14, 2011 10:36 PM

    Yes, there is obviously something wrong with this picture – it’s Donald Driver in the picture, not Charles Woodson. Cute.

  107. Deb says: Sep 14, 2011 10:56 PM

    @halfie6 …

    Thank you. It goes without saying that he’d have to observe it to call it. But I’m not sure I’m comfortable with refs having discretion to determine whether a punch is flagrant. A punch is a punch is a punch. And some officials act as though they’ve been punched too many times to be given responsibility for using their own discretion on anything.

  108. halfie6 says: Sep 14, 2011 11:20 PM

    @Deb

    You’re welcome. Just to clarify, though, the rule goes beyond merely observing the punch. The use of the phrase “observe the entire action” means that the referee must feel that he’s seen both the punch and the context for it.

    Essentially, the NFL is saying that it doesn’t want players disqualified unless it’s obvious that they should be. You and I may disagree with that standard, but it is the way the rule is written.

    All of us who thought that throwing a punch was an automatic DQ have been misinformed.

  109. axespray says: Sep 14, 2011 11:53 PM

    Considering Suh didn’t get Fined a Nickle for Throwing Punches…..

    You’re sitting here ripping on Woodson…
    Then again, I forgot that on PFT we’ll let the players of losing teams slide and all gain up on Players of Winning Teams.

  110. axespray says: Sep 15, 2011 12:08 AM

    paulharghis says:Sep 14, 2011 8:00 PM
    “I think it’s just great that the rest of the NFL teams fanbases are getting a good look at what a homerisitic fan base GB really has. Us fans of other NFC North teams have known this for YEARS.
    Loudmouth, inane, know nothing fans.
    GB has the worst fans of any pro sports team- bar none.”

    Says the guy who’s a fan of a team that can’t even sell out, calling out another team’s fanbase for being “passionate” ?….
    okay then, you sure owned us. Seriously dude, chill.

  111. shaggytoodle says: Sep 15, 2011 12:11 AM

    The NFL didn’t fine him more, because they have seen harder punches in the WWE.

    If the dude fromt he Saints, falls over and rolls around, they would have looked at the tape.

  112. packerbacker12 says: Sep 15, 2011 12:33 AM

    Haha I find it hilarious that Viking fans think Packer players are treated like royalty. If I recall, your William sisters got off easy for 2 YEARS for taking an illegal substance. They were too big of babies to take their punishment like men. But the upside to that is those babies fit right in with the Viking fanbase.

  113. packerbacker12 says: Sep 15, 2011 12:35 AM

    @paulharghis….did you lose your pacifier? Better go find it so you could shut the hell up.

  114. childressrulz says: Sep 15, 2011 2:11 AM

    tdk24 says: Sep 14, 2011 5:06 PM

    Wow, he is grossly overpaid.
    ____________________________
    Yeah, you are right. I mean who wants a player that can play LB, safety, and CB. Not to mention was a pretty good punt returner. He is also the only defensive player in NFL history to win the Heisman, defensive POY, and the Superbowl. But no your right he is overpaid. Who wants to pay that for one of the most instinctive players in NFL history? tdk24, you need to grow up. Do you know anything about football?

  115. pigskinswag says: Sep 15, 2011 11:26 AM

    The way things work in Papa Goodell’s NFL, Aqib Talib could pistol whip someone in pass coverage and get a $5,000 fine while someone getting a roughing the passer penalty will get fined a whole game check.

  116. suhisabeast90 says: Sep 15, 2011 2:43 PM

    Turd watch in Carolina……Woodson in town with PMS and he’s gonna slap someone. Hope that Beast Stewert leaves a foot print on his chest. Can’t wait till he has to cover Steve Smith. HaHa two old guys running down the feild, too bad Smith could jog past Woodson. Just to remind you Packer fans, SUH is coming for you and he doesn’t mind a fine or two!!!!

  117. paulharghis says: Sep 15, 2011 5:32 PM

    axespray says:
    Sep 15, 2011 12:08 AM
    paulharghis says:Sep 14, 2011 8:00 PM
    “I think it’s just great that the rest of the NFL teams fanbases are getting a good look at what a homerisitic fan base GB really has. Us fans of other NFC North teams have known this for YEARS.
    Loudmouth, inane, know nothing fans.
    GB has the worst fans of any pro sports team- bar none.”

    Says the guy who’s a fan of a team that can’t even sell out, calling out another team’s fanbase for being “passionate” ?….
    okay then, you sure owned us. Seriously dude, chill.

    =================================
    I never said you weren’t passionate.
    You are passionate, inane, loudmouth, know nothing fans- feel better?

  118. paulharghis says: Sep 15, 2011 5:37 PM

    shaggytoodle says:
    Sep 15, 2011 12:11 AM
    The NFL didn’t fine him more, because they have seen harder punches in the WWE.

    ——————————————
    Sorry, the rules don’t specify types of punches.

    A punch is a punch. Way to try and justify the action though- typical Packer fan thought process.

    Or there is this defense:
    packerbacker12 says:
    Sep 15, 2011 12:33 AM
    Haha I find it hilarious that Viking fans think Packer players are treated like royalty. If I recall, your William sisters got off easy for 2 YEARS for taking an illegal substance. They were too big of babies to take their punishment like men. But the upside to that is those babies fit right in with the Viking fanbase.

    ================================
    Try ti deflect the Packers faults and shortcomings into something Viking.

    Uff. WHy can’t your turds just admit he was wrong? pathetic.

    By the way:
    packerbacker12 says:
    Sep 15, 2011 12:35 AM
    @paulharghis….did you lose your pacifier? Better go find it so you could shut the hell up.

    =================================
    If that’s all you got – it’s best you pack up and go home- you are in way over your head.

  119. packerbacker12 says: Sep 16, 2011 1:41 AM

    “If that’s all you got – it’s best you pack up and go home- you are in way over your head.”

    I wouldn’t be talking, pal. You post the same “Packers fanbase is the worse fanbase’ crap in every Packer story.

  120. packerbacker12 says: Sep 16, 2011 1:44 AM

    “Try ti deflect the Packers faults and shortcomings into something Viking.”

    Probably wouldn’t have happen if you weren’t once again trolling on another Packer story.

  121. paulharghis says: Sep 16, 2011 7:46 PM

    I wouldn’t be talking, pal. You post the same “Packers fanbase is the worse fanbase’ crap in every Packer story.

    ==============================
    It’s not “crap” if it’s the truth.
    —————————————-
    Probably wouldn’t have happen if you weren’t once again trolling on another Packer story.

    ================================
    No, it would happen. Because anyone that doesn’t agree with a Packer fan is automatically pegged a Viking fan- whether they speak th truth, or not.
    Face it, you tools are infatuated with a “terrible” team.

    I see you turds are still trying to justify Woodson’s actions on the Steeler thread too.

    Give it up. Why can’t you guys just admit what he did was wrong? This is why you are hated as fans.

    Loudmouth, inane, blowhard fans- worst pro sports fans-bar none.

  122. stellarperformance says: Sep 17, 2011 11:46 AM

    paulharghis says:
    Sep 16, 2011 7:46 PM
    Loudmouth, inane, blowhard fans- worst pro sports fans-bar none.
    ——————————————-

    I spoke with a conga-line dancing umbrella-holding Saints fan AFTER the game last week and asked him how he was treated during his visit to Lambeau..and I quote:

    “This is the best time we have ever had at an away game, and we go to a lot. These people treated us like we were their next door neighbors. I would love to come back.”

    This would seem to be in direct contrast to your single-minded solitary opinion.

  123. paulharghis says: Sep 17, 2011 3:17 PM

    stellarperformance says:
    Sep 17, 2011 11:46 AM
    paulharghis says:
    Sep 16, 2011 7:46 PM
    Loudmouth, inane, blowhard fans- worst pro sports fans-bar none.
    ——————————————-

    I spoke with a conga-line dancing umbrella-holding Saints fan AFTER the game last week and asked him how he was treated during his visit to Lambeau..and I quote:

    “This is the best time we have ever had at an away game, and we go to a lot. These people treated us like we were their next door neighbors. I would love to come back.”

    This would seem to be in direct contrast to your single-minded solitary opinion.

    ================================
    Ok Stellar, I’m game:

    In the 1st line of the post- you make fun of a Saints fan by calling him a “conga line dancing umbrella holding fan.” Why would you preface his remarks about the wonderful time he had by belittiling him?

    I’m sure said fan would not have had such a great time had the packers lost- drunken packer fans that are pissed off that their team lost are much different to opposing teams fans after they lose at hme.

    Furthermore, you found one fan ONE, that enjoyed their time around you turds?

    Look around at your fellow Packer fans on here, then, look in the mirror. I’ve seen thousands of idiot packer fans- at stadiums, bars and on TV.

    Your high handedness and supposed superiority that you used on this Saints fan well Junior that equals blowhard/loudmouth.

    The point you are trying but failing to make=inane.

    Your posting history? You got it- you prove over and over again that you = know nothing.

    Thank you for proving my point.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!