Jump to content

Week 11 Non Vikings Games


SemperFeist

Recommended Posts

Just now, SemperFeist said:

Right where a player LITERALLY used an inanimate object as a weapon.

Dude, if you can’t see that then i guess there is no helping you. You’re judgement is ridiculously flawed.  

At what point did I say that I was supportive of what he did? My judgement is not flawed.

My point THE ENTIRE TIME has been that the NFL and sports networks are disingenuous at best, and are clutching their pearls like fights have never happened in the NFL or players have never swung helmets before. Haynesworth got 5 games for stomping on someone's head and causing a player to get 30 stitches. Now Garrett has been suspended indefinitely. The fake outrage over this is a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TENINCH said:

Got my wife that way. Smacked her over the head with a helmet and she was mine! Maybe Garrett loves Rudolph.

Really? I get it's a joke, but adding a domestic violence joke to an already disgusting situation is pretty poor.

Glad to see the NFL quickly suspending. Not even sure they were thorough enough. Absolutely embarrassed to be a football fan after that. Need to get this crap OUT of the game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, eaganfootball4 said:

Really? I get it's a joke, but adding a domestic violence joke to an already disgusting situation is pretty poor.

Glad to see the NFL quickly suspending. Not even sure they were thorough enough. Absolutely embarrassed to be a football fan after that. Need to get this crap OUT of the game.

I'm not sure I want to live on this planet anymore

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not defending Garrett or his actions. I would like to once again make that perfectly clear. I'm not sure why anyone felt the need to suggest that I need "help", or question my personal judgement.

Media reaction to this has been ridiculous with pundits worrying about their children seeing this on TV. The NFL's reaction to this has been disproportionate to the punishments that they have handed out in the past. Mason Rudolph tried to take off Garrett's helmet, kicked Garrett in the balls, then got up and chased after Garrett when he took his helmet off. Not to mention Pouncey's involvement. These guys are all culpable in a fight that was a bad look for the NFL. The NFL once again, has been reactionary and arbitrary. That's my problem with this. NFL - take your time and figure out what actually happened and then hand out punishments. ESPN, NFLN, Fox Sports, stop acting like you are shocked that something like this could happen in the NFL. Fake outrage just blows this up and prolongs the drama.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SemperFeist said:

There is a big difference between playing a violent sport, and assaulting another player on the field. 

This goes beyond “heat of the moment”. Garrett was trying to hurt Rudolph long after the play was over. He lost his composure and struck a helmetless  player in head with said helmet. If the NFL were serious about player safety, this should be a career ending offense for Garrett.

When you think about it, the NFL was very lucky it was not worse.  It's possible Garrett could have killed Rudolph if he had been holding the helmet in a different position and hit him right on the top of the head with it.  That could have been a HUGE disaster for the league as a whole.  They need to make sure this never happens again and make an example out of Garrett and also give Rudolph a long suspension as well because he was trying to pull Garrett's helmet off first.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wcblack34 said:

No. It is not. It is part of the game. That happens. It is a risk the players assume. This was an intentional act. The intent was not related to the game. It was an intent to cause bodily harm outside the bounds of game. You can try to conflate the two. They are not the same. 

And I say this as a lawyer.

But launching oneself, Sendejo style, at another player with the crown of the helmet colliding with the head of the other player, is an intentional act to hurt someone else, who may be defenseless.  I think it is the very definition of criminal behavior as it goes way beyond the boundaries of the games' rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Virginia Viking said:

But launching oneself, Sendejo style, at another player with the crown of the helmet colliding with the head of the other player, is an intentional act to hurt someone else, who may be defenseless.  I think it is the very definition of criminal behavior as it goes way beyond the boundaries of the games' rules.

Absolutely disagree. It is not intent to injure. It is intent to break up a play. And even so, football players assume the risk that they will be hit in that manner. They in no way assume the risk that they will be beaten with their own helmet after a play is over. They simply are not equal or comparable offenses; not legally, and not in reality. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...