Hunter2_1 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 Just now, marshawn lynch said: Well your question didn't make sense based off what he said. He is saying minimum one game for hit and more depending on result of injury I'm sure he can answer for himself. They have taken both into account (as far as I'm aware) and have come to a 1 game suspension. So, if White was NOT concussed, would people be OK with a lighter punishment? Given that concussion was (I believe) taken into account? Because i don't agree it should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apparition Posted December 4, 2017 Author Share Posted December 4, 2017 Just now, Packerraymond said: The Adams hit on TNF. Ahhh, yeah. Forgot that was Trevathan. I dunno, that seems like the type of hit the league was explicitly cracking down on, so I get why he got two games for that. It wasn't as clearly deliberate as what Gronk did, but the potential for Adams to be seriously injured was greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 1 minute ago, jrry32 said: Yes, I did. You asked what I thought. I told you what I thought. If you think the action AND result aren't considered in the real world, distinguish murder from attempted murder only looking at the actions. So they're both taken into consideration. And they came up with 1 game. Let's just say he got 2 games. IF White wasn't concussed, would you reduce it 1 game? (2 games because of injury.....1 game if not injured?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 Just now, Hunter2_1 said: I'm sure he can answer for himself. They have taken both into account (as far as I'm aware) and have come to a 1 game suspension. So, if White was NOT concussed, would people be OK with a lighter punishment? Given that concussion was (I believe) taken into account? Because i don't agree it should. Nobody knows what the NFL considers because they dish out arbitrary punishments. The rest of the world considers the action and the result. It makes no sense to do otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmart128 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said: I'm sure he can answer for himself. They have taken both into account (as far as I'm aware) and have come to a 1 game suspension. So, if White was NOT concussed, would people be OK with a lighter punishment? Given that concussion was (I believe) taken into account? Because i don't agree it should. Concussion wasn't taken into account. NFL just wants money. They only suspended him to make it look like they care about player safety. They didn't care if White got hurt or not.... Gronk is the money getter. Me and you both know NFL only cares about money. They didn't want to lose out on the bags of money.. especially with viewership down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 58 minutes ago, steadypimpin said: He concussed a guy, that should be more than 1 game no matter his good record. Suspensions cannot be subjective. They must be objective. What if Tre'Davious White plays this week? Should Gronkowski then be allowed to play? What you are asking for is highly subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 1 minute ago, Starless said: Ahhh, yeah. Forgot that was Trevathan. I dunno, that seems like the type of hit the league was explicitly cracking down on, so I get why he got two games for that. It wasn't as clearly deliberate as what Gronk did, but the potential for Adams to be seriously injured was greater. That's debatable. 1 minute ago, Hunter2_1 said: So they're both taken into consideration. And they came up with 1 game. Let's just say he got 2 games. IF White wasn't concussed, would you reduce it 1 game? (2 games because of injury.....1 game if not injured?). Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 1 minute ago, marshawn lynch said: Concussion wasn't taken into account. How do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apparition Posted December 4, 2017 Author Share Posted December 4, 2017 FWIW I hadn't been aware that White was concussed. I thought Gronk hit him in the upper back/shoulder pads. If he was going for his head, then yeah, he got off light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grubs10 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 Just now, Hunter2_1 said: I thought they do take it into account? That's what jrry just said. I understood him as saying in real life when someone is being levied a punishment by the justice system both their action and the result are taken into account in said punishment. It is clear by all accounts that the incident in a vaccum no matter who committed it deserved a suspension. Therefore the fact that he was only suspended one game seems to ignore the result of what happened. I don't think he is suggesting something silly like he should be suspended for how ever long White is out but moreso that the suspension should be more severe than just punishing the just the action because of the direct result caused by the action that was known before the punishment was levied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 Just now, jrry32 said: Yes. See, I wouldn't, because Gronk's intentions don't change. I guess I'm harsher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 1 minute ago, SteelKing728 said: Suspensions cannot be subjective. They must be objective. What if Tre'Davious White plays this week? Should Gronkowski then be allowed to play? What you are asking for is highly subjective. No, It's not. It simply considers the results of the wrongdoing, as the rest of the world does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apparition Posted December 4, 2017 Author Share Posted December 4, 2017 Just now, jrry32 said: That's debatable. Seems like simple physics to me. A body colliding with another body that's moving in the opposite direction will cause more damage than if only one of the bodies is moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Starless said: I hope he doesn't appeal. Just take the one game and be glad it wasn't more. Thank God it was caught on tape. He would have been in some real trouble if an investigation needed to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 Just now, Hunter2_1 said: See, I wouldn't, because Gronk's intentions don't change. I guess I'm harsher. Again, look at criminal law. The result matters as much as the conduct and intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.