Jump to content

The Myles Garrett incident


Webmaster

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Shanedorf said:

I can appreciate that.
It might be because you don't have a medical background  - and it doesn't fit with your previously posted beliefs
I'm asking you to change your mind on something you feel very strongly about.
When a male gets kicked in the nuts, it releases a cascade of neurotransmitters that will immediately activate the system. That's why you fall to the ground and are temporarily paralyzed after taking one to the gonads. So even if all of the previous battling didn't get him there, the nut shot would. And its instantaneous

Yes he would from a biological POV.  If you measured his pulse rate, blood pressure, pupil dilation and a host of other biomarkers - they would all still be quite elevated. But the imminent threat has been removed at that point and "normal" is in the process of being restored.

What they do with the Seals is they put them under water, rip off the breathing mask from their oxygen tank and tie the tube in a knot
Meanwhile they are being choked from behind by an instructor. Then the Seal has to fight off the attacker, untie the knot in the oxygen tank tube and put mouthpiece back together in time to save his life and continue the mission.

Taking away the ability to breathe instantly activates the fight/flight system, clouds their higher thinking and makes it nearly impossible to solve the problem
But after intense training, the ones who pass are able to overcome the panic factor. Its really quite remarkable and few can pull it off, especially on the 1st try

I do not have a medical background, so I have no problem changes beliefs when they are proven to be incorrect.  And I do believe that the fight or flight instinct can be reached, no question.  That is not in dispute.

You are asking me to change my opinion that Garrett did hit the fight or flight threshold, but there honestly isn't any evidence that he did.  If he had been hit in the gonads, would he not have then been temporarily paralyzed as you said?  Instead, he swung the helmet immediately.  And since he wasn't paralyzed and/or didn't fall to the ground, wouldn't that suggest that he didn't meet that threshold of instantaneous neurotransmitter cascade?

Once again, I'm not necessarily saying any of the biology you stated is not true.  Just that I don't think it took place here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

 If he had been hit in the gonads, would he not have then been temporarily paralyzed as you said?  Instead, he swung the helmet immediately.  And since he wasn't paralyzed and/or didn't fall to the ground, wouldn't that suggest that he didn't meet that threshold of instantaneous neurotransmitter cascade?

For someone supposedly hit in the manhood he sure didn't double over like 99.9% of us would.  Never really thought about that.  Manhood of steel there I guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, warfelg said:

For someone supposedly hit in the manhood he sure didn't double over like 99.9% of us would.  Never really thought about that.  Manhood of steel there I guess.

I mean, he's probably wearing a cup. 

Edit: actually probably not. You're probably right, don't think the shot landed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, theJ said:

I mean, he's probably wearing a cup. 

Eh, I never did at WR or playing Lacrosse even though in both sports it was "required".  Slowed me down too much.  I would guess he might not have.

 

Anyways, here's a reverse angle of the "grab":

EJdMjPsXYAAvUM2?format=png&name=small

That Nike glove is Mason's left hand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ragnarok said:

I'm approaching it from personal experience.  I have worked as a bouncer before and have been in some situations where I had to defend myself.  Including a couple of times where individuals who had to be removed from a bar were waiting outside afterwards.  

Even in those situations, there's a point where you make the choice to continue or escalate.  Suggesting otherwise removes culpability which is what I don't buy.  

Not everyone has the same capabilities there

A situation that was met with a cool calculated decision by a guy with bouncer experience might be a situation met with an automatic response by someone who is wired different

Edit: before its misunderstood... I’m not saying it’s an excuse, but I don’t know if you can be sure it wasn’t a reaction just because you wouldn’t have had that reaction (I don’t think that’s what you’re saying either, I’m just making it more explicit)

Edited by Dome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Eh, I never did at WR or playing Lacrosse even though in both sports it was "required".  Slowed me down too much.  I would guess he might not have.

 

This doesn’t matter at all but it is interesting you bring it up... I didn’t think any players wore cups? I thought they just toughed it out lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dome said:

This doesn’t matter at all but it is interesting you bring it up... I didn’t think any players wore cups? I thought they just toughed it out lol

I never wore a cup, even as a division one college baseball player that played primarily catcher once I got to college. 

I'd say a fair amount of baseball players wear them, but there we're a decent amount of guys on my team that played without them. So even when its suggested or a "rule" a lot of guys just refuse to wear them and it's usually looked at as if you catch a ball there and dont have a cup, that's on you lol. 

I'd assume its similar in high level football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

giphy.gif

Haha, yeah that's the response most people have to that, but in fairness I only took one or two foul tips/wild pitches square. I always thought it restricted my movement too much/was uncomfortable to crouch with on for long stretches. Coach Heller always said I'd adjust my thinking the first time I took one square. He underestimated how hard headed I am I suppose. 

I also boxed professionally after my baseball career for a while until the injuries piled up, but thats the one they really enforce the cup "rule" on lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mr Raider said:

I never wore a cup, even as a division one college baseball player that played primarily catcher once I got to college. 

I'd say a fair amount of baseball players wear them, but there we're a decent amount of guys on my team that played without them. So even when its suggested or a "rule" a lot of guys just refuse to wear them and it's usually looked at as if you catch a ball there and dont have a cup, that's on you lol. 

I'd assume its similar in high level football. 

I did the wear it while playing the field, but not when batting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dome said:

Not everyone has the same capabilities there

A situation that was met with a cool calculated decision by a guy with bouncer experience might be a situation met with an automatic response by someone who is wired different

Edit: before its misunderstood... I’m not saying it’s an excuse, but I don’t know if you can be sure it wasn’t a reaction just because you wouldn’t have had that reaction (I don’t think that’s what you’re saying either, I’m just making it more explicit)

That is true.  I'm not saying it is impossible.  Just that based on what I witnessed, I don't think him hitting Rudolph in the head was the result of fight or flight.  Could I be wrong?  Of course.  But I do think the facts make it more likely than not that he was not in fight or flight mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dome said:

This doesn’t matter at all but it is interesting you bring it up... I didn’t think any players wore cups? I thought they just toughed it out lol

I wrestled and played rugby in college, so I am ignorant to the frequency of cups in other sports.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

That is true.  I'm not saying it is impossible.  Just that based on what I witnessed, I don't think him hitting Rudolph in the head was the result of fight or flight.  Could I be wrong?  Of course.  But I do think the facts make it more likely than not that he was not in fight or flight mode.

IIRC the fight or flight issue tends to come up in life or death type situations.  Are we trying to say that either (1) Garrett thought Mason was going to kill him or (2) his fight or flight trigger is very low.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...