Gronk suspended 1 game for elbow drop

[bluemushrooms]

2 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

That's debatable.

Yes.

 

I think the suspension would be reduced from 2 to 1 if that were the case.  

 

Mostly because it's harder to judge the severity/"dirtiness" of the hit if there is less consequence.  

E.g. facemask penalty with no lasting consequence to victim versus facemask penalty resulting in a player with a sprained neck.  Causing the injury makes the facemasking seem more severe which will likely lead to bigger fine or suspension.  Is someone who commits a facemask penalty on Takeo Spikes really going to get the same treatment as someone who facemasks Palmer equally hard?  Probably not because Takeo Spike's neck can melt steel beams and he won't get injured whereas Glasson Palmer might sprain his neck in which case we would probably all agree to give the Palmer facemasker a suspension and the Spike facemasker a smaller fine/penalty.

[AZ_Eaglesfan]

One game is light, but reasonable imo. He is obviously going to appeal it as there is no reason he shouldn't. 

[cddolphin]

1 minute ago, Starless said:

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.

So it went from not dirty --> pretty mild considering it was a retaliatory act (wouldn't a retaliatory act be 'dirty' by definition, i.e. intentionally going above and beyond what is allowed??)

Gotcha

Maybe some Buffalo players will have some "pretty mild" actions in mind for their next meeting with Gronk.

[Apparition]

Just now, cddolphin said:

So it went from not dirty --> pretty mild considering it was a retaliatory act (wouldn't a retaliatory act be 'dirty' by definition, i.e. intentionally going above and beyond what is allowed??)

Gotcha

Maybe some Buffalo players will have some "pretty mild" actions in mind for their next meeting with Gronk.

No, I still think it wasn't dirty. It was a football play that went past the whistle. I see nothing wrong with that, and I also think that it was pretty well justified under the circumstances.

[cddolphin]

Just now, Starless said:

No, I still think it wasn't dirty. It was a football play that went past the whistle. I see nothing wrong with that, and I also think that it was pretty well justified under the circumstances.

Very well.

[Hunter2_1]

2 minutes ago, cddolphin said:

So it went from not dirty --> pretty mild considering it was a retaliatory act (wouldn't a retaliatory act be 'dirty' by definition, i.e. intentionally going above and beyond what is allowed??)

Gotcha

Maybe some Buffalo players will have some "pretty mild" actions in mind for their next meeting with Gronk.

It was dirty, but I think the "no history" refers to suspension history. I can't see the adjudicators pulling out that footage and thinking "this was dirty, lets use this to build our case". 

By the way, hope you were this upset with your own players handing out punishment a week ago at Gillette.

[jrry32]

6 minutes ago, bluemushrooms said:

 

I think the suspension would be reduced from 2 to 1 if that were the case.  

 

Mostly because it's harder to judge the severity/"dirtiness" of the hit if there is less consequence.  

E.g. facemask penalty with no lasting consequence to victim versus facemask penalty resulting in a player with a sprained neck.  Causing the injury makes the facemasking seem more severe which will likely lead to bigger fine or suspension.  Is someone who commits a facemask penalty on Takeo Spikes really going to get the same treatment as someone who facemasks Palmer equally hard?  Probably not because Takeo Spike's neck can melt steel beams and he won't get injured whereas Glasson Palmer might sprain his neck in which case we would probably all agree to give the Palmer facemasker a suspension and the Spike facemasker a smaller fine/penalty.

That's the risk you take when you violate the rules. It's how it works in real life too.

[cddolphin]

2 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

By the way, hope you were this upset with your own players handing out punishment a week ago at Gillette.

Bobby? He deserved to be tossed and I have no complaint about it. My only bias here would be what Bobby McCain did was while already prone on the ground, not nearly having the same amount of force, and he's 5'9" and under 200lbs. I understand that you can't dole out different punishments for differently sized players but there's simply more of a risk when Gronk puts his weight behind a blow compared to a guy my size so my level of 'outrage' isn't going to be equivalent.

I was also the only one on this forum, as far as I remember, who called for DE William Hayes to be suspended for his blatant, violent eye-gouge from early in the season. It was never even raised as a possibility nor was he even fined, which I felt was a massive oversight.

[TheKillerNacho]

He definitely deserved something. I would've actually said two.

[lancerman]

19 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Again, look at criminal law. The result matters as much as the conduct and intent.

The thing is in criminal law if the result could actually change the charge which effectively changes the conduct. Like if you assault someone and it results in a murder, the charge gets bumped to murder. The NFL doesn't have a system where you say oh unsportsmanlike like conduct gets bumped up to concussion if you give the player a concussion. 

[bluemushrooms]

3 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

That's the risk you take when you violate the rules. It's how it works in real life too.

Yup. 

My post was mostly just a comment agreeing that if White didn't get concussed, Gronk would have been penalized less (assuming 2 game suspension w/concussion).  

[Hunter2_1]

@bluemushrooms Also with the facemask example, a lesser tug might result in a worse outcome. The neck is a strange/sensitive area, and it's not as linear as "harder tug = more pain/increased chance of injury". I'd say it's likely, but not a given. So now you're into realms that it might just be easier to make all punishment the same, regardless of outcome. Just a thought. 

[jrry32]

7 minutes ago, lancerman said:

The thing is in criminal law if the result could actually change the charge which effectively changes the conduct. Like if you assault someone and it results in a murder, the charge gets bumped to murder. The NFL doesn't have a system where you say oh unsportsmanlike like conduct gets bumped up to concussion if you give the player a concussion. 

Semantics. And this ignores the realities of sentencing.

[SammyBradwater]

One game is a joke, honestly. Should be four at least.

Reminds me of Charles Martin picking up McMahon and slamming him into the ground back in 86.  Dirty, no excuse, incredibly dangerous.

 

Remember kids, smoke a little marijuana and you'll be banned, but pull some garbage like Gronk and you only get a game!

[Hunter2_1]

3 minutes ago, SammyBradwater said:

One game is a joke, honestly. Should be four at least.

Reminds me of Charles Martin picking up McMahon and slamming him into the ground back in 86.  Dirty, no excuse, incredibly dangerous.

 

Remember kids, smoke a little marijuana and you'll be banned, but pull some garbage like Gronk and you only get a game!

Hysterical. It shouldn't be a minimum of 4.