Gronk suspended 1 game for elbow drop

[childofpudding]

14 minutes ago, bluemushrooms said:

So Vontaze Burfict got carted off the field after Juju destroyed him with an illegal crack block.  Don't see anyone calling for Juju to get suspended here.

Personally, I think Juju's hit was a little more reasonable than Gronk's but, it looks like Burfict got concussed from the blind hit.  Neither Gronk or Juju were intentionally trying to give their opponents CTE here...but they were both pretty salty and decided to take it out on the field however they could.

So, for everyone that posted and is calling for Gronk's head or a 4+ game suspension, you're either a Pats/Gronk hater or you should be on a soap box calling for similar punishments for Juju.  

If I got to make the call, I'd put a 2 game suspension on Gronk and then a 1 gamer + heavy fine on Juju

What JuJu did was actually during the play, however, so it's different. Standing over him afterward is what's bad.

[Kmart128]

26 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

 

Calling what Evans did a shove or a push basically delegitimizes the rest of your argument. What Evans did was a full-speed elbow to the back, leaving his feet in the process, well after the play was over. It was a very dangerous play. Gronk hitting the head is also very dangerous. Bottom line, if Evans got one game, then one game for Gronk seems about right.

Funny how this thread is filled with people crying that Gronk got off light and that he's appealing, while the Evans thread is pretty quiet on both those fronts.

 

At least he didn't target the head of the player. The NFL stresses head shots but apparently and elbow to the back is the same as a elbow to the head. And only one of these resulted in an injury... If the NFL is really concerned with solving CTE then they have to get penalize hits the head more than a hit to the back.

[Kmart128]

44 minutes ago, bluemushrooms said:

So Vontaze Burfict got carted off the field after Juju destroyed him with an illegal crack block.  Don't see anyone calling for Juju to get suspended here.

 

Personally, I think Juju's hit was a little more reasonable than Gronk's but, it looks like Burfict got concussed from the blind hit.  Neither Gronk or Juju were intentionally trying to give their opponents CTE here...but they were both pretty salty and decided to take it out on the field however they could.

 

So, for everyone that posted and is calling for Gronk's head or a 4+ game suspension, you're either a Pats/Gronk hater or you should be on a soap box calling for similar punishments for Juju.  

 

If I got to make the call, I'd put a 2 game suspension on Gronk and then a 1 gamer + heavy fine on Juju

Terrible comparison there bro. Gronks hit was after the play and made it a cheap shot. JuJu was blocking during the play and it wasn't an illegal crack block... It was a very legal block that got flagged for the taunting and standing over the player afterwards.

[childofpudding]

9 minutes ago, marshawn lynch said:

At least he didn't target the head of the player. The NFL stresses head shots but apparently and elbow to the back is the same as a elbow to the head. And only one of these resulted in an injury... If the NFL is really concerned with solving CTE then they have to get penalize hits the head more than a hit to the back.

He launched himself at the guy's spine well after the play was over, and you called it a shove. Move along now.

[jrry32]

57 minutes ago, bluemushrooms said:

So Vontaze Burfict got carted off the field after Juju destroyed him with an illegal crack block.  Don't see anyone calling for Juju to get suspended here.

 

Personally, I think Juju's hit was a little more reasonable than Gronk's but, it looks like Burfict got concussed from the blind hit.  Neither Gronk or Juju were intentionally trying to give their opponents CTE here...but they were both pretty salty and decided to take it out on the field however they could.

 

So, for everyone that posted and is calling for Gronk's head or a 4+ game suspension, you're either a Pats/Gronk hater or you should be on a soap box calling for similar punishments for Juju.  

 

If I got to make the call, I'd put a 2 game suspension on Gronk and then a 1 gamer + heavy fine on Juju

I concur.

[bluemushrooms]

59 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

What JuJu did was actually during the play, however, so it's different. Standing over him afterward is what's bad.

That's why I'd give Juju a more lenient penalty than Gronk.  That said, Juju + Gronk's actions can easily have the same outcomes (concussion) so they both need to be addressed

[VigilantZombie]

After actually seeing the Gronkowski hit, 1 game isn't enough.  Having said that, the Tampa Bay thing posted above deserves a few suspensions too.

[Kmart128]

1 hour ago, childofpudding said:

He launched himself at the guy's spine well after the play was over, and you called it a shove. Move along now.

I mean it was a shove. A running viscous shove but it is still a shove... Just cause you launch yourself doesn't mean it wasn't a shove... Definition of shove is to push roughly... He pushed the back roughly with his forearm... No idea the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that wasn't a rough push in his back?

[Deadpulse]

9 minutes ago, tonyto36 said:

In a perfect world with perfect morals, Gronk should probably miss a season.  It was disgusting behavior.  But that's not what the rules or precedent dictate the punishment should be.  

precedent doesnt have much to do with most NFL decision. I think it mores comes down to the fact that the league would dwindle rather quickly. No Gronk, Mike Evans, Aqib Talib, Michael Crabtree, Marcus Peters, etc etc. 

[VigilantZombie]

1 hour ago, tonyto36 said:

One game was appropriate or too much.  It was on the borderline between fine and 1 game.

There is absolutely no way it was worth multiple games given the standards the NFL have set.

 

In a perfect world with perfect morals, Gronk should probably miss a season.  It was disgusting behavior.  But that's not what the rules or precedent dictate the punishment should be.  

You MUST be a NE fan.  Are you kidding me?  One game might be too much?  It wasn't even a "late hit" it was a lengthy time (relative to football) after the play was over and the player was on his stomach on the ground.  It was blatant, intentional, and the apologize was for show.  It was as dirty as dirty gets.  It was blatant, he got off easy.  Because he's a Patriot, it wouldn't shock me at all if he wins his appeal.

[lancerman]

25 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

You MUST be a NE fan.  Are you kidding me?  One game might be too much?  It wasn't even a "late hit" it was a lengthy time (relative to football) after the play was over and the player was on his stomach on the ground.  It was blatant, intentional, and the apologize was for show.  It was as dirty as dirty gets.  It was blatant, he got off easy.  Because he's a Patriot, it wouldn't shock me at all if he wins his appeal.

I love the idea that the league somehow goes easy on the Patriots. 

[VigilantZombie]

17 minutes ago, lancerman said:

I love the idea that the league somehow goes easy on the Patriots. 

Really it's not so much that, as much as it is gross inconsistency.

There's just no rational logic to defend the reality that Gronk deserves a much more severe punishment.

 

[Hunter2_1]

3 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

Really it's not so much that, as much as it is gross inconsistency.

There's just no rational logic to defend the reality that Gronk deserves a much more severe punishment.

 

So why did you specifically mention the team, if it's "not that"?

[lancerman]

Just now, wwhickok said:

Really it's not so much that, as much as it is gross inconsistency.

There's just no rational logic to defend the reality that Gronk deserves a much more severe punishment.

 

There is absolutely rational logic.. literally if you go by how the penalties for violating this rule have been handled (especially in recent years) it's absolutely consistent. That's before taking into account that Gronk really doesn't have much of a track record here. I'm sure there are some outliers, but the ruling on Gronk was very consistent in this case. If you want to argue that the rule as a whole should yield higher penalties, that's another argument. But the way it is now, Gronk got about what he deserved or should have gotten. 

[VigilantZombie]

8 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

So why did you specifically mention the team, if it's "not that"?

Are you asking me if I do think there's Patriot bias in the NFL and media?  HELL YES I do.