Right. Which is dumb.
NFL Thread II
- Thread starter LuckyNumber7
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
Absolutely.
But kind of funny too.
But kind of funny too.
bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
It's my favorite NFL thing, honestly.
GirlsAloudFan
Blue Crack Addict
Myles Garrett might get suspended for the rest of the season. That was a wild scene, man.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
This whole league should be flushed down the toilet. As if the blacklisting of Kaepernick and the failure to acknowledge the truth about brain injuries aren't already good enough reasons.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
OP
OP
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
I would say a full 16 games that flows into nest season is warranted.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
a full 16 games is at least 8 games too many. antonio smith got 3 games for doing basically the same thing in 2013 (he just didn't connect with richie incognito's head unfortunately), and albert haynesworth stomping a guy's face with his cleats and giving him 30 stitches earned 5 games which is the longest suspension ever for a single on-field incident. giving garrett a suspension over 3x longer than the previous record would for sure be quickly appealed successfully by the NFLPA.
If you smack a QB in the helmet it's 15 yards. What is it if you smack a QB with his helmet?
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
rest of the season "at minimum" for garrett, 3 games for pouncey, 1 for ogunjobi. that seems about right to me.
OP
OP
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
Why does the past matter? This type of behavior isn’t acceptable, and it’s coming from someone who doesn’t have a clean record. That helmet hits Rudolph the right way and he’s in the hospital with an open head wound.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
of course precedent matters. you can't just give a guy a punishment that's more than triple as long as what's been given for similar acts in the past. especially not when the players are in a union and protected by a CBA.
a judge in a court of law can't just arbitrarily decide to throw someone in jail for 25 years for common assault if the precedent is that sentences for assault are around 18-36 months. this is not really any different.
a judge in a court of law can't just arbitrarily decide to throw someone in jail for 25 years for common assault if the precedent is that sentences for assault are around 18-36 months. this is not really any different.
You can.
It'll be overturned, but you can still do it. Then it's the court's fault and not the league's.
It's more symbolic than anything else.
I also think Antonio Smith missed, alas.
It'll be overturned, but you can still do it. Then it's the court's fault and not the league's.
It's more symbolic than anything else.
I also think Antonio Smith missed, alas.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
the commissioner handing out excessive suspensions in bad faith that go well beyond precedent that he knows are violations of the CBA and will be overturned is almost certainly illegal.
OP
OP
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
In bad faith? Precedence is not good reason to stick to the status quo. That’s why we have players who still beat their partners and precedence is why they’ll still get paid $20 million a season a year later.
Fuck precedence. If I wasn’t being realistic, I’d say ban him from the NFL. You don’t get a culture change by twiddling your thumbs and considering actions like this appropriate or acceptable. These players get paid a fuck ton of money to literally play a fucking game. Next man up, we don’t need that shit.
Fuck precedence. If I wasn’t being realistic, I’d say ban him from the NFL. You don’t get a culture change by twiddling your thumbs and considering actions like this appropriate or acceptable. These players get paid a fuck ton of money to literally play a fucking game. Next man up, we don’t need that shit.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
yes, in bad faith. issuing a punishment that you know full well is unfair and invalid is doing it in bad faith.
swing a helmet and don't connect = 3 game suspension
swing a helmet and connect = banned for life
regardless of how disgusted you are at his actions, that's blatantly unfair to player #2 and any judge in north america wouldn't need more than 5 seconds to reach that decision. you could argue that player #1 should have gotten more games which would allow player #2 to be suspended for longer, but the precedent has been set. you legally can't go from 3 games to infinity games for a similar act in one shot.
precedence is an important legal concept. it's what stops a judge from throwing you in jail for life on a petty shoplifting charge just because he doesn't like the colour of your hair or because he thinks you smell gross. yes it does lead to some people who do especially egregious things getting off lightly and that can be infuriating; there was a case here in toronto a couple years ago where a drunk driver killed an entire family of four - outside of a car that would be 4 automatic life sentences, but the guy ended up getting 10 years total because he was behind the wheel of a car when he murdered 3 young kids and their grandpa. not only that, but he is already eligible for full parole as of last week. outrageous, right? of course it is, but the judge had to sentence him this way due to the precedent that had been set for what kind of sentence you get for killing a person when you're driving drunk. a 40 year sentence, as deserved as it undoubtedly was, would have been appealed and thrown out in a heartbeat because that's not the kind of sentence you get for getting blind-drunk and murdering multiple people by driving a 2000-pound weapon into them at 100+ km/h.
none of this should be construed as a defense of garrett or any of the other players on the field last night who were involved. i would love it if he got at least a full year suspension and served as an example and this kind of nonsense was prevented from ever happening again. but you can't just do that because you're pissed and want to make an example, it has to be proportionate to what has been done for similar acts in the past. without having read the thing i can say for certain that there are provisions and clauses within the CBA to exactly this effect.
obviously this will be the longest suspension for one on-field incident ever, but the player's union will appeal and win this case in an instant if the punishment is something so out of whack with what's come down before. if goodell issues a huge suspension knowing that it'll be appealed successfully, that is only going to waste the NFL's time and money on lawyers for a case they know they're going to lose, for absolutely no clear benefit to the league as far as i can see (the tiny amount of positive PR it might generate is certainly not worth all that). it doesn't make any sense from the league's perspective.
swing a helmet and don't connect = 3 game suspension
swing a helmet and connect = banned for life
regardless of how disgusted you are at his actions, that's blatantly unfair to player #2 and any judge in north america wouldn't need more than 5 seconds to reach that decision. you could argue that player #1 should have gotten more games which would allow player #2 to be suspended for longer, but the precedent has been set. you legally can't go from 3 games to infinity games for a similar act in one shot.
precedence is an important legal concept. it's what stops a judge from throwing you in jail for life on a petty shoplifting charge just because he doesn't like the colour of your hair or because he thinks you smell gross. yes it does lead to some people who do especially egregious things getting off lightly and that can be infuriating; there was a case here in toronto a couple years ago where a drunk driver killed an entire family of four - outside of a car that would be 4 automatic life sentences, but the guy ended up getting 10 years total because he was behind the wheel of a car when he murdered 3 young kids and their grandpa. not only that, but he is already eligible for full parole as of last week. outrageous, right? of course it is, but the judge had to sentence him this way due to the precedent that had been set for what kind of sentence you get for killing a person when you're driving drunk. a 40 year sentence, as deserved as it undoubtedly was, would have been appealed and thrown out in a heartbeat because that's not the kind of sentence you get for getting blind-drunk and murdering multiple people by driving a 2000-pound weapon into them at 100+ km/h.
none of this should be construed as a defense of garrett or any of the other players on the field last night who were involved. i would love it if he got at least a full year suspension and served as an example and this kind of nonsense was prevented from ever happening again. but you can't just do that because you're pissed and want to make an example, it has to be proportionate to what has been done for similar acts in the past. without having read the thing i can say for certain that there are provisions and clauses within the CBA to exactly this effect.
obviously this will be the longest suspension for one on-field incident ever, but the player's union will appeal and win this case in an instant if the punishment is something so out of whack with what's come down before. if goodell issues a huge suspension knowing that it'll be appealed successfully, that is only going to waste the NFL's time and money on lawyers for a case they know they're going to lose, for absolutely no clear benefit to the league as far as i can see (the tiny amount of positive PR it might generate is certainly not worth all that). it doesn't make any sense from the league's perspective.
Last edited:
Except every time he suspends someone for anything people get pissed off that it's either too long or too short and ignore said precedence so who gives a turkey.
OP
OP
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
You’re focusing way too much on this being a court room setting. You sound like a conservative, m8. The NFL has every right to enact policy based upon the image it wants to have, and the rules it sets forward. The NFLPA has every right to fight back. Something that happened players used to wear fucking leather helmets, and it used to be legal to ram your head into a defenseless player’s head to take him out of the play and the game.
Times change. Rules change. Perception changes. Oh, and yes, swinging and missing is different from swinging and hitting. In a legal sense, too.
Times change. Rules change. Perception changes. Oh, and yes, swinging and missing is different from swinging and hitting. In a legal sense, too.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
i'm focusing on it being a court room setting because that's exactly where it's going to go if the NFL issues a long unprecedented suspension that the PA is obligated to appeal 
anyways i don't think a lifetime ban is justified but i do hope that he gets more than just the remainder of this season and that it sticks.
anyways i don't think a lifetime ban is justified but i do hope that he gets more than just the remainder of this season and that it sticks.
OP
OP
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
But you’re relating it to something criminal in nature. You think precedence matters here and I disagree. All the NFL has to do is say that they’ve been doing everything they can to make the game safer and that’s why they’re trying to be stricter on intent to injure.
Look at what the NHL did to Todd Bertuzzi and ask yourself if the NHL was better off or worse off because of it.
Look at what the NHL did to Todd Bertuzzi and ask yourself if the NHL was better off or worse off because of it.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
bertuzzi was suspended for less than a quarter of a season (20 of 82 games) whereas garrett is out for well over a third of this season (6 of 16), but i get your point.
vontaze burfict should get a lifetime ban before garrett does if we're getting into the business of handing them out (not to mention the various domestic abusers still taking snaps every week).
OP
OP
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
Todd Bertuzzi was also not reinstated for 17 months. Dont forget about the lockout. He was also banned internationally for the whole thing. He didn’t get paid until the NHL started up again, almost two years later.
Look at suspensions after Bertuzzi. It used to be 15 games for cross checks to the head, then 20 by the time of Bertuzzi, now like 30. Same deal with the classical Brashear stick to the head. The NHL has developed less and less tolerance for violent play as time has gone on.
And yes I agree to your latter bit, but you can’t change the past.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
not to say "i told you so" too much buuuut...
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...es-garrett-points-13-antonio-smith-ban-appeal
OP
OP
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
You told me so, what? He is using it as a defense. Sure. Will he be successful? I don’t know. If he is, you’re implying that the most a player can ever be suspended for is the most a player has ever been suspended for. True in conservative circles.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
one was reduced on precedent and the other one wasn't. neither of us are right or wrong 
OP
OP
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
Pouncey’s suspension was irrelevant to me.
K cool. Nobody was talking about Pouncey.one was reduced on precedent and the other one wasn't. neither of us are right or wrong
You can't say you weren't wrong because the suspension you weren't talking about got downgraded on precedent and the one you said absolutely would be downgraded due to precedent wasn't
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
my goodness i could not possibly give less of a shit about this anymore.
but ok sure i was wrong if you say so and you both can feel like winners. congrats boys.
but ok sure i was wrong if you say so and you both can feel like winners. congrats boys.
OP
OP
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
I won something!!! Fantasy football wasn’t going very well and neither was pick em. Eat it Dave, this is my one football victory.
- Status
Similar threads
