Northy, I'm not a GB fan, Lions fan and only casually follow Suh after evaluating his college film for a college student friend who's going into coaching and for a listserv and website I post to. I have evaluated video on players and especially DL for the last 3 years and enjoy it.

My statements about this incident are about the incident, what preceded it, why it happened and what can be done about it so it doesn't happen again.

Now, Northy, if you really believe that GB guard Dietrich-Smith didn't in fact block down on a downed DL (Suh) while he had him hooked (the very definition of holding according to the NFL rules, I can post the rule if you need that) in such a fashion that could have caused a career-ending back injury, the kind of injury other than knee injuries that D linemen fear the most, then frankly, you either a) didn't see the full clip or b) are straight homering for GB and this really isn't a conversation. And please don't take the homering comment as a slam. If that's where you're coming from earnestly, then fine. It just means, though, that we aren't going to have a rational conversation about this. And if that's what it means, then... well, okay.

The actual film evaluation shows GB guard Dietrich-Smith holding Suh with a hooked arm as Suh goes down. Dietrich-Smith continues to block straight down on the downed Suh flexing his back into a very dangerous position.

Now, had Suh NOT retaliated, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect several things.

1) Holding call. That's textbook and inarguable. He held blatantly and continued to hold after the whistle.

2) Personal foul. The block down after the whistle put Suh in a very bad position and it can be argued after all the chippiness in that game that Dietrich-Smith was trying to harm Suh. More importantly, after the game, again, based on precedent, I would have expected Dietrich-Smith to receive a rather hefty fine. 15-25k if it were his first offense since his actions are hard to interpret as NOT trying to injure.

3) Delay of game. The hold on Suh continues until Suh spins out of the down block and then retaliates WELL after the play has ended. Inhibiting a player from returning to the huddle by holding from the bottom or by remaining on top of a player is to be called a foul, delay of game. Again, if you need the rule citation, it can be provided.

My point here is that 1) Suh was wrong. Irrespective of the provocation, he simply cannot lash out in that way. I can understand his frustration. He was held or doubly held at various points in that game and one clip showed some really henky actions by the GB line. It was a VERY unsportsmanlike game on BOTH sides. I dunno that anyone would question that. I mean, there had already been a GB player thrown out for throwing punches. The field was heated.

Which leads me to point two, 2) the Refs really dropped the ball. They needed to be in there right away after the Dietrich-Smith block down put Suh in that bad place. After each whistle, they needed to be right in there and they weren't. With the game progressing as it had, they couldn't afford to let that stuff go, but they did. And then, they ONLY punish the reactor, not the instigator.

I think letting the instigator off is just BS. Further, it is patently ridiculous to call him a "victim". Right before Dietrich-Smith gets his arm stomped on, he blocks down on Suh in a way after the whistle has already blown that could have ended his career. So, he's HARDLY a victim.

This stuff wouldn't happen at all if refs called this stuff that they see and know is going on. The problem is and has been for YEARS that the NFL want's games to only last a certain period of time. So the reason you don't see 4 hour games anymore (and don't tell me teams just foul less than they used to) is that the NFL simply decided to stop calling SOME fouls. They are still fouls on the books, but they just don't call them in order to keep the games within their time slots so as not to screw up the TV times.

What that means for both OL and DL is that BOTH sides can take abuse they wouldn't ordinarily take and BOTH sides get away with stuff they shouldn't get away with. All so the game can stay around 3hrs to 3hrs and 15 minutes.

I'd rather the games be called straight up and if a game goes 4 hours, then so be it. Then again, I'm more of a purist that way.

If someone wants to root for the Packers or any other team, fine. And, I've said that I thought the Pack would have won that game WITH Suh playing. So this isn't about me thinking that this event changed the outcome of the game. I don't think that.

I think it's a shame that the Pack or the Patriots (Super Bowl 36 was the most egregious example of this and the NFL changed a good number of rules due to how the Pats abused the "don't throw flags in the SB" issue) or any team uses any strat that doesn't solely rely on scheme, skill, execution and desire to win. But like I said, I'm a purist.