Jim and Cyd were wrong in today's Jock Talk to dismiss Sapp's cheap shot on Chad Clifton: "Sapp said (correctly) the hit was clean and was unapologetic." There was nothing "clean" about it -- and to top it off, he displayed -- as Sherman (correctly) defined it -- "joviality". It may have been legal, but it was cheap -- and career threatening. Clifton was way on the other side of the field -- totally out of the play -- when Sapp hit him. No excuses. It was wrong. Sherman was right to confront him.

Chucky must have brought the dirty player coaching with him to T.B. from the Raiders.

Sapp: "I betcha coach Sherman had a problem with the ass-whipping he took, too." No doubt about it. But if the Bucs lose a few more-- playing at N.O. and vs. Hotlanta, and Sapp will be fearing the ass-whipping he'll take either against Philly or in the Frozen Tundra come January.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

Sorry, Bucky. I love the Pack and wanted them to win, but what Sapp did was well within the rules of the game. My guess is that Sherman realizes he overreacted and looked like an idiot in confronting a player. A coach needs to be above that.

It might be technically within the rules but it was ABSOLUTELY a cheap shot. He didn't have to run hard--and then leave his feet--to deliver that shot at a guy who was far away from the play and appeared to be jogging.

The "joviality" afterward is just typical of today's NFL players: obnoxious showboating jerks.

I don't know how things will play out, but I'd love for the Eagles to get yet another shot at shutting up Warren Sapp.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

[quote]Originally posted by Jim at Outsports:
Sorry, Bucky. I love the Pack and wanted them to win, but what Sapp did was well within the rules of the game. My guess is that Sherman realizes he overreacted and looked like an idiot in confronting a player. A coach needs to be above that.

---

Wow, that's a disappointing sentiment. I'm surprised; Jim and Cyd are usually much more grounded than that. I think the hit may have been within the rules, but there's no doubt what the intent was and what the result could have been. Sapp clearly was trying to do bodily harm; there's no other reason to hurl yourself at someone who is not involved in the play and is not even aware that they're in the line of fire. It was a dangerous thing for sapp to do, and I'm glad Sherman called him on it.

For another view, and one making me pause in my earlier exoneration of Sapp. From Don Banks of Sports Illustrated:

Here's the one problem I had with Sapp's blindside block of Packers offensive lineman Chad Clifton: He left his feet to land it. Whether or not you think it was very classy of Sapp to seek out a defenseless, far-from-the-action player to hit, you do see those kind of blocks on interceptions fairly often. But for Sapp to launch all 303 pounds of himself at Clifton, literally jumping at the chance to level a guy who wasn't looking and wasn't involved in the play, that's cheap in my book. And, yes, a hit can still be "legal" and be cheap.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jim at Outsports ]

A Packers' assistant says that although they won't do anything illegal, they'll be out for payback the next time they face Warren Sapp...

ESPN article

There's all this talk about Sapp being "jovial" and taunting the injured player etc. Has anyone actually seen clips of this (on SportsCenter on Sunday, they didn't show any) or is that just Sherman's take on it? I was in another room watching Malcolm in the Middle, so I didn't see the incident "live", only on replays. I'm just curious because without visual evidence, it's Sherman's take on it that is carrying the weight of the argument.

The NFL declined to fine either party, which is amazing considering how much the No Fun League like to hand out fines.

Apparently the celebration was only seen on the stadium's video screens, not on the telecast.

Sapp's hit was technically legal, but still cheap - leveling a player 35 yards away from the ball? Give me a break.

After reading all week, I have changed my mind: Sapp's hit, while legal, was cheap. He didn't have to leave his feet, and the tackle was totally defenseless.

Plus, the more I read about Sapp, the less I like him. Seems like a thug whose shtick is wearing really thin. I hope the Bucs lose the rest of their games.

Call the play cheap or whatever, but it was legal in all considerations. Come on guys, this type of tackling often takes place, especially following a turnover return and the defense become the blockers. It was just the loud and sassy Sapp this time and he was unexpectedly confronted by Sherman at the end which made all this damn drama. Add to the fact that Sapp is probably the most passionate, focused, and emotional players I've ever witnessed. . . . and it shows in almost every play (whether he's playing or watching from the sidelines). When the man is on, he's on. Who knew at the time where the return guy was going be on the field. . . but since he didn't end up near the Sapp tackle, it's now called cheap??

Sherman is the one that brought all the attention and ugliness out here. He was a complete unprofessional jerk that got carried away with his emotions coming off a key loss. . . .and had to take his frustrations out on a rival player. And he's the Packers Leader acting like that??Talk about cheap and unprofessional. Guaranteed that this issue would not be discussed here or elsewhere if Sherman would not have acted up this confrontation from the beginning.

I think the bigger issue here is that Sapp is hated. He talks a lot of smack, that's for sure. But you know, he can back it up and the defense of the Bucs can definately back the talk up. As a long, long suffering Bucs fan since 1979, I'm finally now getting to see when a team starts getting really good, that the hate mongers come out. . . I guess it's a compliment in the big picture! GO SAPP - GO BUCS. . . . .and Joe in Philly, you keep wishing for a Bucs rematch and you just might get one. But in Tampa where the outcome will likely be much different.

[ January 15, 2003: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]