Gronk suspended 1 game for elbow drop

[cddolphin]

12 minutes ago, Starless said:

Putting overzealous blocking in the same category as putting an elbow drop on a guy while he's down is a bit of a stretch.

So is saying Gronk is a "first-timer" when he's been penalized for going over-the-top in the past.

[Kmart128]

Just now, Hunter2_1 said:

How do you know?

Because the precedent shows it. Evans got hit with 1 game for a shove from behind. So that means that Gronk should have gotten 1 for hit from behind and at least another for the hit to head resulting in concussion

[Hunter2_1]

1 minute ago, grubs10 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.

Yeah, it could be more of a harsh punishment, that's not the issue I have. I just don't think whether White being concussed or not should change the punishment either way. But I guess you're both right with regards to criminal punishment. attempted is lighter than actual, for example. I guess it's like pulling the trigger and the gun jams (but you still wanted to kill) vs actually killing.

[Packerraymond]

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.

The chance for injury definitely was greater for Adams, but there's definite intent on the part of Gronk. 

Also what the hell is wrong with the Bills players? He got a light shove for that. Are they afraid to stand up for their guy? Especially when it's a division rival no less. If the Vikings/Bears/Lions did that to a Packers DB, Matthews or Daniels would never let that fly.

[Apparition]

Just now, cddolphin said:

So is saying Gronk has "no history" when he's been penalized for going over-the-top in the past.

No history of actual dirty plays... If you think throwing a guy out of the club (or blocking past the whistle in general) is a dirty play, then I guess that's just a difference of opinion.

[SteelKing728]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

No, It's not. It simply considers the results of the wrongdoing, as the rest of the world does.

What if then the suspension was fully objective and then based on the results, he gets fined?

The hit leads to suspension and 1 paycheck lost.

The concussion leads to 1 additional paycheck lost (2 total).

Is that fair?

[Apparition]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

The chance for injury definitely was greater for Adams, but there's definite intent on the part of Gronk. 

Also what the hell is wrong with the Bills players? He got a light shove for that. Are they afraid to stand up for their guy? Especially when it's a division rival no less. If the Vikings/Bears/Lions did that to a Packers DB, Matthews or Daniels would never let that fly.

I'd say the Bills were smart not to escalate the situation and risk ejections/fines/suspensions on their end.

[Hunter2_1]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

The chance for injury definitely was greater for Adams, but there's definite intent on the part of Gronk. 

Also what the hell is wrong with the Bills players? He got a light shove for that. Are they afraid to stand up for their guy? Especially when it's a division rival no less. If the Vikings/Bears/Lions did that to a Packers DB, Matthews or Daniels would never let that fly.

They prefer going after coaches in the pregame? (last season). 

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, Starless said:

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.

It's not simple physics. White was in a more vulnerable position. He was laying on the ground with his head looking up. Gronk could have seriously damaged the kid's neck and aimed right for his neck and head.

[Hunter2_1]

1 minute ago, Starless said:

No history of actual dirty plays... If you think throwing a guy out of the club (or blocking past the whistle in general) is a dirty play, then I guess that's just a difference of opinion.

he has not suspension history, that's what they probably look at.

[jrry32]

2 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

What if then the suspension was fully objective and then based on the results, he gets fined?

The hit leads to suspension and 1 paycheck lost.

The concussion leads to 1 additional paycheck lost (2 total).

Is that fair?

Only if he's being suspended. A fine doesn't cut it for a play like that. But I'm fine with objective criteria.

6 minutes ago, grubs10 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.

Exactly.

[Apparition]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

It's not simple physics. White was in a more vulnerable position. He was laying on the ground with his head looking up. Gronk could have seriously damaged the kid's neck and aimed right for his neck and head.

...Anyone know John Brenkus' number? Might need him to settle this.

[Kmart128]

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

The chance for injury definitely was greater for Adams, but there's definite intent on the part of Gronk. 

Also what the hell is wrong with the Bills players? He got a light shove for that. Are they afraid to stand up for their guy? Especially when it's a division rival no less. If the Vikings/Bears/Lions did that to a Packers DB, Matthews or Daniels would never let that fly.

Don't think anyone saw forearm to head until replays. They knew it was a late hit and asked for penalty but no one saw that forearm hit his head

[cddolphin]

2 minutes ago, Starless said:

No history of actual dirty plays... If you think throwing a guy out of the club (or blocking past the whistle in general) is a dirty play, then I guess that's just a difference of opinion.

Season the stew how you want to I guess.. but he blocked him full effort well past the whistle (in fact passing right by a ref giving the TD signal, clearly in his view) to the point where he drove him head-first backwards into camera equipment:

If that's not dirty, it's damned close enough that it could be argued.

[Apparition]

2 minutes ago, cddolphin said:

Season the stew how you want to I guess.. but he blocked him full effort well past the whistle (in fact passing right by a ref giving the TD signal, clearly in his view) to the point where he drove him head-first backwards into camera equipment:

If that's not dirty, it's damned close enough that it could be argued.

Considering the history those two had, it was pretty mild as far as retaliatory acts in the NFL go. We see guys throwing punches all the time over stuff like that.