Ben Says 49ers Targeted His Ankle

Ben Roethlisberger played on a gimpy ankle in Pittsburgh's Week 15 clash against the San Francisco 49ers, and he did not play particularly well. He hobbled his way to a three-interception, two-fumble performance in a game that the Steelers lost 20-3. That Roethlisberger should have sat out was a widely held opinion among Steelers fans at the time.

Hindsight being what it is, that opinion looks more valid now than ever. The Steelers were thumped anyway, and Ben Roethlisberger also says that the 49ers attempted to further injure his gimpy ankle.


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/ben-roethlisberger-49ers-targeted-ankle-154506012.html

I didn't see this posted yet. Just saw it this morning. It doesn't surprise me. After all there is a Harbaugh behind it and he's probably "glad they did it"!!!

It may not be popular opinion, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with a team targeting an injury of an opposing player as long as it was done legally and between the whistles. That's just smart football in my eyes. I'm not saying they should be out to permanently injure someone, but if the injured player puts themselves at risk by playing hurt, then we can't cry about spilled milk if they are further injured. If I knew an opposing player was hurting, I'd bang away at that injury as often as possible (legally) in hopes of that player leaving the game, thus increasing my team's chances of winning.

No harm, no foul IMHO.

Buddha Bus wrote:

It may not be popular opinion, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with a team targeting an injury of an opposing player as long as it was done legally and between the whistles. That's just smart football in my eyes. I'm not saying they should be out to permanently injure someone, but if the injured player puts themselves at risk by playing hurt, then we can't cry about spilled milk if they are further injured. If I knew an opposing player was hurting, I'd bang away at that injury as often as possible (legally) in hopes of that player leaving the game, thus increasing my team's chances of winning.

No harm, no foul IMHO.

But to hit a QB below the knees (when he's in the pocket) is already against the rules. Of course Ben likes to move around a lot so who knows when and where they targeted his ankle.

stlrtruck wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

It may not be popular opinion, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with a team targeting an injury of an opposing player as long as it was done legally and between the whistles. That's just smart football in my eyes. I'm not saying they should be out to permanently injure someone, but if the injured player puts themselves at risk by playing hurt, then we can't cry about spilled milk if they are further injured. If I knew an opposing player was hurting, I'd bang away at that injury as often as possible (legally) in hopes of that player leaving the game, thus increasing my team's chances of winning.

No harm, no foul IMHO.

But to hit a QB below the knees (when he's in the pocket) is already against the rules. Of course Ben likes to move around a lot so who knows when and where they targeted his ankle.

I read an article that stated someone analyzed the game film from that game and found no evidence of anyone targeting Ben's ankle. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it's outside of the pocket or running downfield. Anything against the rules should be punished, but I doubt there's any evidence to substantiate the claims. Probably more of Ben's "drama king" antics. That or he was just overly sensitive to a bad injury and it SEEMED like every hit was an intentional hit to the injury.

stlrtruck wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

It may not be popular opinion, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with a team targeting an injury of an opposing player as long as it was done legally and between the whistles. That's just smart football in my eyes. I'm not saying they should be out to permanently injure someone, but if the injured player puts themselves at risk by playing hurt, then we can't cry about spilled milk if they are further injured. If I knew an opposing player was hurting, I'd bang away at that injury as often as possible (legally) in hopes of that player leaving the game, thus increasing my team's chances of winning.

No harm, no foul IMHO.

But to hit a QB below the knees (when he's in the pocket) is already against the rules. Of course Ben likes to move around a lot so who knows when and where they targeted his ankle.

You guys are right. This morning NFL network showed some replays and I saw a hit or 2 below the knees but nothing that looked like they were trying to snap his ankle. Plus you go for the weakest link. A few of us thought Ben should have sat out that game and in hindsight he should have. My reference to Harbaugh was really aimed at his a-hole brother who said he was glad Haluki Nada broke Ben's nose. To me that is outside the lines IMHO.

what a crybaby

This coming from a fan of a team who's head coach is a big crybaby

JonM229 wrote:

what a crybaby

This coming from a fan of a team who's head coach is a big crybaby

Yeah but my crybaby has won 2 SB's, what has your crybaby won?

Let's see, 2 premature gatorade baths, multiple early exits from the playoffs (2 of which have come at the hands of my crybaby)

VS.


Will this game be played at Whinez Field or M&T Crank Stadium?

Buddha Bus wrote:

VS.


Will this game be played at Whinez Field or EMPTY BANK Stadium?

Fixed it.

stlrtruck wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

It may not be popular opinion, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with a team targeting an injury of an opposing player as long as it was done legally and between the whistles. That's just smart football in my eyes. I'm not saying they should be out to permanently injure someone, but if the injured player puts themselves at risk by playing hurt, then we can't cry about spilled milk if they are further injured. If I knew an opposing player was hurting, I'd bang away at that injury as often as possible (legally) in hopes of that player leaving the game, thus increasing my team's chances of winning.

No harm, no foul IMHO.

But to hit a QB below the knees (when he's in the pocket) is already against the rules. Of course Ben likes to move around a lot so who knows when and where they targeted his ankle.

He wasn't talking about during play though...he was talking about after the whistle, while everyone is in a pile, they would target his ankle. This article is just stating the obvious though, of course your injuries are going to be targeted by the opposing team if they can get away with it.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I read an article that stated someone analyzed the game film from that game and found no evidence of anyone targeting Ben's ankle. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it's outside of the pocket or running downfield. Anything against the rules should be punished, but I doubt there's any evidence to substantiate the claims. Probably more of Ben's "drama king" antics. That or he was just overly sensitive to a bad injury and it SEEMED like every hit was an intentional hit to the injury.

Exactly.

I watched the game and didn't notice anyone going after his ankle. And if they did, that's a part of football. That's why it's not a good idea for players to talk about their injuries. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I remember last season there was some controversy because Arian Foster tweeted something about an injury he had, telling specifically where the injury was on his leg. If I remember correctly, the controversy was now teams would be targeting that area on his leg. Quite honestly though, Ben shouldn't have been playing in that game to begin with.

Wallace108 wrote:

Quite honestly though, Ben shouldn't have been playing in that game to begin with.

Exactamundo! We would have at least had a puncher's chance in that game if we'd have just fielded Batch or Dixon instead. Not saying we'd have won, but Ben was an obvious hindrance in that game. He had nothing to give though I admired his toughness and desire to play.