Ravens' Suggs says Harrison has been 'red-flagged'
Terrell Suggs can't bring himself to feel bad for anybody who plays for the Steelers, but the Pro Bowl linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens can't help but feel that James Harrison is getting a raw deal from the NFL.
Suggs said during today's conference call with the Pittsburgh media that there has been injustice with Harrison when it comes to being fined by the league.
“Your guy over there, 92, I think he is red-flagged,” Suggs said. “The referees are kind of looking for him. Even if he breathes on a quarterback wrong, he might get a flag.”
Harrison was fined for the fourth time this season yesterday when he was fined $25,000 for a hit put on Buffalo quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick.
Harrison has been fined $125,000 so far this season.
“I think they are looking at him more closely than they are everybody else in the league,” Suggs said. “In the referee world, they kind of red-flagged him.”
Suggs also went on to say that quarterbacks like New England's Tom Brady and Indianapolis' Peyton Manning get preferential treatment over other quarterbacks in the league.
“The league has their favorites,” Suggs said. “One being in Indy and one being with that other team up north. Besides those two, everybody is fair game. Some quarterbacks are getting the calls right away. Some quarterbacks they don't care.
"Like I always said, Carson Palmer got hit in his knee in 2005 but there was no rule made. Then Tom Brady got hit in his knee and all of a sudden there is a rule and possible suspensions, excessive fines — it's just getting ridiculous.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.