Gronk suspended 1 game for elbow drop

[Hunter2_1]

Right, that's all I've got for this thread.

[BAConrad]

Pats fans should be kissing the ground and doing jumping jacks right now. I honestly thought Gronk was going to get suspended for 3 games, which would be completely fair. 

I mean come on. Even Bill Simmons, who is openly a massive Boston homer, was like "Yeah, I can't defend Gronk whatsoever. What he did was disgusting".  

There's nothing about what he did that can be interpreted as anything other than exactly what happened. This wasn't something that happened during the play. This wasn't a " football " play, where you can sit there and break down things like momentum or intent, like the Barr -Rodgers play. 

It happened after the play was 100% over. Gronkowski had time to think about what he was going to do. He thought about it, and he acted on it by elbow dropping a player that is 5-6 inches shorter and 40+ lbs lighter than he is, who was on his stomach on the ground. Not only that, but he AIMED for White's neck\head area. 

For EFF sakes, he gave the dude a concussion. What he did was closer to assault than it was to a football play. Seriously. If the NFL really cares about player safety and the CTE problem, then they would throw the book down on Gronk. 

If one of my teams players did this, I'd be saying the same thing. Whether it was someone with zero record or not. 

 

[lancerman]

3 minutes ago, BAConrad said:

Pats fans should be kissing the ground and doing jumping jacks right now. I honestly thought Gronk was going to get suspended for 3 games, which would be completely fair. 

I mean come on. Even Bill Simmons, who is openly a massive Boston homer, was like "Yeah, I can't defend Gronk whatsoever. What he did was disgusting".  

There's nothing about what he did that can be interpreted as anything other than exactly what happened. This wasn't something that happened during the play. This wasn't a " football " play, where you can sit there and break down things like momentum or intent, like the Barr -Rodgers play. 

It happened after the play was 100% over. Gronkowski had time to think about what he was going to do. He thought about it, and he acted on it by elbow dropping a player that is 5-6 inches shorter and 40+ lbs lighter than he is, who was on his stomach on the ground. Not only that, but he AIMED for White's neck\head area. 

For EFF sakes, he gave the dude a concussion. What he did was closer to assault than it was to a football play. Seriously. If the NFL really cares about player safety and the CTE problem, then they would throw the book down on Gronk. 

If one of my teams players did this, I'd be saying the same thing. Whether it was someone with zero record or not. 

 

Not really I pretty much expected exactly what happened. Gronk messed up, but the NFL has been consistent that these by and large get about a fine to a game. Like I said earlier Adam Jones literally had a guy on the ground after a play and started smashing his head over his helmet. It got a fine. 

Nobody said Gronk was right, but he got what the most consistent and appropriate response was. The NFL was in a bind because if they said this was extraordinary you'd have another public relations bit of people pointing to the Jones play or Suh and Burficts long history and then it turns into "NFL over punished Patriots player again". 

[VigilantZombie]

1 hour ago, tonyto36 said:

I've already said it was awful and disgusting behavior. 

That doesn't change the precedent and rules the NFL has set makes it so Gronk - a guy with no history, who didn't punch or swing, shouldn't have gotten a game.  It took Crabtree and Talib a 3 minute long brawl where they ran around swinging at each others heads for them to get a one game suspension.  The league just does not suspend guys for fights unless it's a repeat offense.  

Again, I'm not saying that's what it should be or if that's fair or smart, but that's what the rule is.  Just like the tuck rule was probably a legitimately stupid rule that shouldn't have existed, that's what the rule was and the refs called it in the Patriots favor in 2001 (just like they did against them in the Jets game where they lost because of it).  

And the idea that because he's a Patriot the NFL office will give him special treatment is pretty laughably stupid and exposes you for your bias.

Not at all does it expose my bias.  Do you think that Gronk's suspension length had nothing to do with ratings?  Does the NFL really want Gronk to miss the Steelers game? I think not.

[Pats#1]

On 12/4/2017 at 3:57 PM, marshawn lynch said:

I don't think Gronk would care much. They are gonna have a bye week if we win or don't. Not saying send all guys after him but if he catches ball then don't be surprised at all if Poyer makes a hard tackle at the knee

That's pretty much what everybody does when tackling Gronk 

[Pats#1]

23 hours ago, SilverNBlackFan said:

This was worse than Crabtree vs Talib, worse than Mike Evans push, worse than AJ Green vs Ramsey, worse then Danny Trevathan's hit.

And he only got one game. And he's appealing it? Freaking garbage. If this was done outside of a football stadium, Gronkowski is not only arrested for assault but he's also getting sued for millions. 

IDGAD if he's a first time offender, that shouldn't matter. First time murders don't get shown leniency, neither should Gronk. A minimum of 3 games and a huge fine.

Frankly, if the Patriots don't step in and suspend him for at least an additional game, it will look bad on their part. This is bogus.

If any football player simply tackled someone in a completely legal (in game) way outside of a football stadium they'd be arrested for assault and sued for millions. 

I agree the punishment could have been more....but the hyperbole is getting ridiculous. 

[TXsteeler]

1 hour ago, tonyto36 said:

I've already said it was awful and disgusting behavior. 

That doesn't change the precedent and rules the NFL has set makes it so Gronk - a guy with no history, who didn't punch or swing, shouldn't have gotten a game.  It took Crabtree and Talib a 3 minute long brawl where they ran around swinging at each others heads for them to get a one game suspension.  The league just does not suspend guys for fights unless it's a repeat offense.  

Again, I'm not saying that's what it should be or if that's fair or smart, but that's what the rule is.  Just like the tuck rule was probably a legitimately stupid rule that shouldn't have existed, that's what the rule was and the refs called it in the Patriots favor in 2001 (just like they did against them in the Jets game where they lost because of it).  

And the idea that because he's a Patriot the NFL office will give him special treatment is pretty laughably stupid and exposes you for your bias.

Imo, hitting a guy like Gronk did is essentially purposefully trying to injure someone. It's worse than fighting because at least in a fight the other guy is fighting back and has a chance to defend himself, but Gronk just came down on a dude lying on the ground. I'm pretty sure the local police could arrest him for something like that if they wanted to because it is assault as far as the law is concerned.

I don't see how things like the Gronk hit or stomping on guys doesn't get you a huge suspension, regardless of history. It should be something like first offense 4 games, second offense 1 year, third offense lifetime suspension.

[SilverNBlackFan]

5 minutes ago, Pats#1 said:

If any football player simply tackled someone in a completely legal (in game) way outside of a football stadium they'd be arrested for assault and sued for millions. 

I agree the punishment could have been more....but the hyperbole is getting ridiculous. 

What Gronkowski did was downright criminal behavior. Cowardly criminal behavior.

And when he inevitably gets hurt again, I won't feel quite as bad.

[Pats#1]

1 minute ago, SilverNBlackFan said:

What Gronkowski did was downright criminal behavior. Cowardly criminal behavior.

And when he inevitably gets hurt again, I won't feel quite as bad.

Whatever makes you feel better

[ninjapirate]

Dude should have assault charges filed on him for that one not just be suspended. Jesus. 

[43M]

I just dont get how Juju and Gronk get the same exact punishment.    

Now, perhaps Juju standing over Burfict taunting him did him in, but the actual hit he was suspended for was pretty clearly incidental helmet to helmet DURING THE PLAY.   And even if you wanted to attempt to argue Juju's hit was intentional, there is no way to prove CLEAR intent on that play.

With Gronk, he dove at a players head, sitting on the ground, out of bounds, AFTER the whistle.   There is no way you can argue that he did not have malicious intent.    And yes, I would be saying the same thing if it were a Steeler player who did that....in fact, I have.   A few years ago, Chris Kemoeatu did something similar, and I argued he shouldve been suspended....even though it never happened.

Bottom line....if you want to act like Juju's hit was worth a game, fine....but Gronk shouldve gotten 2 more games than Juju for the "clear intent".   Instead, the NFL wants to continue to pretend it cares about player safety and not look at these as individual cases where one was clearly intention and one wasnt.

[Stevein2012]

How could the NFL think Danny Trevathans hit on Davante Adams was worth 2 games but the Gronk hit is only worth 1?  I don't get the logic with that, both were bad and looked bad but at least Trevathan's hit happened during the play.

[Pats#1]

After being reminded of and seeing the Mike Evans full speed hit from behind after the play and him getting 1 game...I don't see why anyone is surprised by it being the same amount.

[lancerman]

4 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

I just dont get how Juju and Gronk get the same exact punishment.    

Now, perhaps Juju standing over Burfict taunting him did him in, but the actual hit he was suspended for was pretty clearly incidental helmet to helmet DURING THE PLAY.   And even if you wanted to attempt to argue Juju's hit was intentional, there is no way to prove CLEAR intent on that play.

With Gronk, he dove at a players head, sitting on the ground, out of bounds, AFTER the whistle.   There is no way you can argue that he did not have malicious intent.    And yes, I would be saying the same thing if it were a Steeler player who did that....in fact, I have.   A few years ago, Chris Kemoeatu did something similar, and I argued he shouldve been suspended....even though it never happened.

Bottom line....if you want to act like Juju's hit was worth a game, fine....but Gronk shouldve gotten 2 more games than Juju for the "clear intent".   Instead, the NFL wants to continue to pretend it cares about player safety and not look at these as individual cases where one was clearly intention and one wasnt.

Because people here are doing this intellectually dishonest thing where instead of looking how the vast majority of the penalties are handed across the board for this type of infracture, they are singling out lower end one's and saying "omg how can you say this is comparable to Gronk". When you could easily look at the Mike Evans hit and say well that's similar, and it got one game. Or you can look at Adam Jones basically using his helmet as a weapon and say well that got less than Gronk. Or you can look at Talib and Crabtree having an extended brawl and it ultimately after appeal yielding one game. 

So yeah you can look at the Juju hit and say Gronk deserves more because his was worse. But as soon as you go to two or three games all of a sudden you can look at multiple other instances and say well then Gronk's get overpunished based off all these other instances. Generally this is a one or two game suspension. Like you said Kemoeatu didn't get a suspension. 

So it's pretty clear how the NFL rules on these, so none of this should be a surprise. We can have the discussion that the NFL should place more emphasis on the context and result of the violation, but realistically that's a conversation for next off season when the rules committee can get involved, players can get notification, and a new precedent can be sent. 

 

[Deadpulse]

5 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

I just dont get how Juju and Gronk get the same exact punishment.    

Now, perhaps Juju standing over Burfict taunting him did him in, but the actual hit he was suspended for was pretty clearly incidental helmet to helmet DURING THE PLAY.   And even if you wanted to attempt to argue Juju's hit was intentional, there is no way to prove CLEAR intent on that play.

With Gronk, he dove at a players head, sitting on the ground, out of bounds, AFTER the whistle.   There is no way you can argue that he did not have malicious intent.    And yes, I would be saying the same thing if it were a Steeler player who did that....in fact, I have.   A few years ago, Chris Kemoeatu did something similar, and I argued he shouldve been suspended....even though it never happened.

Bottom line....if you want to act like Juju's hit was worth a game, fine....but Gronk shouldve gotten 2 more games than Juju for the "clear intent".   Instead, the NFL wants to continue to pretend it cares about player safety and not look at these as individual cases where one was clearly intention and one wasnt.

The NFL knows Pats/Steelers is a big game and they want the teams at full strength to maximize revenue potential.