Discussion in 'Sports Talk' started by Timsup2nothin, Sep 2, 2019.
Myles Garrett is a dumbass and he deserves a suspension if he gets one.
He'll be lucky if he doesn't get criminal charges, but ultimately this was just another day in the history of the Browns and Steelers. By the time they go through all the film there's probably a half dozen players who earned suspensions.
I guess the Ravens benefit from that the most.
The Ravens are far enough ahead of both teams to not give a damn. Teams like the Raiders, the Bills; whoever else is thinking wild card, they benefit. TV ratings when they play again in two weeks will benefit.
Probably only because they're playing each other this week. Hype.
And Yeah, Garret won't be playing for the rest of this year. I always feel a bit bad about the lineman that rush to a fellow players defense getting suspensions though.
If the league suspends Garrett without giving Rudolph a similar suspension, the league has no credibility.
Watching the video in slow motion, there's no getting around this sequence of events:
Garrett makes a relatively tame, debatable-if-late tackle on Rudolph. He does not drive him into ground/hit him illegally, and this is not flagged.
Rudolph first grabs Garrett's helmet and attempts to rip it off, nearly immediately after hitting the ground.
Garrett pulls a "uno reverse" and instead rips off Rudolph's helmet in response.
Steelers lineman get between Garrett and Rudolph, pushing Garrett away. Garrett is backpedaling.
Despite two teammates pushing Garrett away, Rudolph runs at Garrett as he's backing away.
Garrett hits Rudolph in the head with the helmet he ripped off.
Garrett gets pushed to the ground and punched by multiple Steelers linemen. As this is happening, a Browns defender runs up and knocks Rudolph to the ground.
Calling *Garrett* criminal in this context is a farce. He did not initiate the conflict, and could not possibly have hit Rudolph if the latter wasn't still actively attacking him.
Reasonable response to this scenario:
Garrett is out for season.
Rudolph is out for season.
Linemen throwing punches get a shorter suspension.
Browns defender knocking Rudolph down gets a shorter suspension.
Disciplining Garrett alone in this situation would be a joke. While there was only 8 seconds left, it's already a joke that Rudolph wasn't among the people thrown out of the game (his lineman was but not him? Seriously?). Given **** boy Goodell's track record it wouldn't surprise me, but it would be indicative of yet another openly dishonest move by the league. I'm frankly amazed at the media/popular reaction to this. Rudolph started that fight, and he kept pursuing it. You can make a case the helmet swing was excessive force, but ultimately Rudolph earned that hit to the dome and the risks associated. If you don't want consequences of a fight, don't fight people.
Agree 100%. I was just about to post exactly this but I saw you already covered it. I will add that a still shot of part of the initial attack by Rudolph, sent to me by my brother, (full disclosure, a lifelong Browns fan) seems to show Rudolph sticking his hand inside Garrett's facemask, possibly going for his eyes. If Rudolph was eye-gouging Garrett, it would certainly make Garrett's reaction even more understandable, still certainly not excusable.
Bullcrap; we don't make excuses for assault with a deadly weapon. In a rational world Garett would be charged and jailed but the NFL is not gonna let that happen. He's a monster and shouldn't see a football field again unless he pulls a Vick level transformation.
Hard disagree. Mason should be disciplined, but the idea they deserve equal punishment is absurd.
Ripping a player's helmet off really hasn't been punished that badly over the years. Going back to what I can think off of the top of my head, Kyle Turley didn't get suspended. Andre Johnson and Cortland Innegan ripped each other's helmets off before Johnson beat the F out of him and neither one got suspended.Antonio Smith ripped Richie Incognito's helmet off then smacked him with it and got suspended two preseason games + the season opener, but that was different for a few reasons: it was sort of a reflexive quick swing that was nothing like what Garrett did, it was in the heat of a play where Richie had almost pushed Smith's helmet off while blocking him then slapped him twice upside the head, there was no fight afterwards, and it was Richie Incognito).
FFS PACMAN JONES didn't get suspended for ripping Amari Cooper's helmet off and that man got suspended as a hobby.
Up until Garrett swung that helmet, nothing either player did was suspension worthy. You see that kind of crap happen almost every Sunday (unless there was an eye poke which I have not seen footage showing).
You sure can make a case it was excessive force because, you know, he swung a goddamn helmet into a guy's head. There's a reason we don't have many things to compare this to, because it's very rare anyone is stupid enough to do it.
No. I reject the premise that a man can initiate a fight TWICE and then ***** when he gets smacked. If Rudolph doesn't charge someone already backing off + being pushed by two linemen, he doesn't get/can't be hit.
A guy who had already tried to rip his helmet off, groin punched him. A guy who was actively chasing him despite ~600 pounds favoring the attacker between them.
Rudolph persistently went for Garrett. If Garrett had put a fist in his face rather than swinging the helmet I'd have been mostly fine with Garrett's conduct. Swinging the helmet went too far.
Rudolph not being suspended even one game despite his own center being suspended 3 is a complete joke.
In a "rational" world, Garrett was being assaulted. A second time, after disengaging. I'd vote not guilty on that crap in a hearbeat. Rudolph wanted a fight and he got more than he bargained for. Throwing charges at that after the fact is weak.
These sound like things that should also have seen suspensions.
Bullcrap in return. NFL players have sufficient strength that they are deadly bare-handed. If we're going to talk strict legal definitions, Garrett was also assaulted, and by > 800 total pounds of people simultaneously. If this were "on the street" rather than an NFL game, as people seem to want to bring up, a helmet is an insufficient force multiplier, not an excessive one.
It's not worth discussing if you honestly think using a weapon is not a clear escalation of force. He literally took something with the weight of a small bowling ball and cracked open a guys head with it; nothing else matters nor is worth considering legally or morally. Garrett is lucky he didn't kill him or he'd be in jail for life, the fact that you can't see that is on you.
"It's not worth discussing" is a line used by people who can't back up their arguments with discussion.
Having 800 pounds of people coming at you, one of them running, is somehow not an "escalation of force"? There's supposedly no legal or moral consideration for the facts of "who initiated the violence" or "who was perpetuating the violence/continuing to assault the other person"? Really?
Let's consider a similar scenario:
I'm punching someone, he punches back.
My friends push us apart.
After my friends push us apart, he brandishes a knife.
I attack him again, regardless, and get stabbed.
Per your stated logic, the person I punched and attacked is so much more in the wrong than me that it's not even worth discussing. And if I die from the stabbing, the person defending himself gets a life sentence, supposedly.
I hold that repeatedly assaulting someone does, in fact, reduce the "moral crime" of responding with an escalation of force. And that such is exactly what happened on the field yesterday. Rudolph started that fight, twice, and pretending that isn't relevant is dishonest.
I literally do no know what you're talking about. There's no initiation of violence or whatever bull you're talking about because nothing that happened before the throw was worth either a fine nor suspension nor does it matter when Garrett used a weapon. He escalated the conflict from normal maybe flag worthy conduct to an assault charge. The actors don't matter in who's involved in a crime there was no criminal activity before the throw even if they are football players that's not relevant; you have the right to defend yourself only with the maximum force required to diffuse the situation. In Garrets case that was none because he still had the most obvious solution available too him. WALK AWAY. You're example doesn't work since that's a literal life and death situation. This was a ******* football game. We have precedent of charging people in sports who bring things too far never in NFL football but Hockey a couple times always it's been due to turning a piece of equipment into a weapon. Exactly what Garrett did. He need to go to jail end of story.
Edit: And if we're really gonna play the stupid game of who started it. It's Garrett anyway. He's the one who hit the QB 3 full seconds after the play was dead. 8 seconds left and you commit a blatant dirty hit like that and somehow you're the victim?
Every word in that sentence you just said is wrong. A football helmet weighs about 4 pounds. The lightest/smallest ones are under 3 pounds and the largest are 5 to 6 pounds max. Bowling balls are 10 to 12 pounds with the largest weighing 16 pounds and the lightest weighing about 8 pounds. Plus a football helmet is hollow and designed precisely to diffuse and distribute force to minimize impacts while a bowling ball is dense, uniformly solid and designed precisely to maximize force. The two things are nothing alike and the comparison is completely invalid. Only a person who knows nothing about football helmets would compare them to bowling balls.
As hard as it looked like Garrett hit Rudolph its clear from the video that Rudolph wasn't even hurt in the slightest. If he had been hit with a bowling ball like that he would have certainly been knocked unconscious. It's not "lucky" that Rudolph wasn't killed, it's precisely the design of football helmets that such a hit wouldn't even hurt, let alone kill someone.
And Rudolph's head wasn't "cracked open", that's just blatant hyperbole. It wasn't even cracked. He wasn't concussed. He wasn't even hurt. It looked bad, and it was terrible behaviour by Garrett, a complete loss of control and inexcusable. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that in the heat of the moment he wanted to punch Rudolph and forgot that he was still clutching the mask of the helmet in his fist. In any case there's no excuse, but make no mistake...Rudolph started that fight and it is completely unfair that he was not also penalized in some way.
Not only did he start the fight by intentionally twisting Garrett's neck and helmet and possibly trying to gouge his eyes, he then attacked Garrett again, over the shoulders of his linemen, after they were already completely separated. So to the extent folks want to make assault allegations against Garrett, he (Garrett) certainly has a self-defense claim against Rudolph, because Rudolph was charging him when he swung the helmet. Blaming the incident on a supposed late hit by Garrett doesn't work, because among other things, there was no penalty flag thrown on Garrett.
You're using very inconsistent standards when you're talking about "assault". In the legal sense, simply pushing someone on the street meets the standard of simple assault. A 3v1 scenario where one of the 3 already grabbed, kicked, or punched the other is elevated. So if we're talking about a street fight then Garrett could claim self defense.
Obviously, that's an awkward thing to implicate for a fight in the middle of an NFL game.
You know who wasn't "walking away"? Rudolph. What was Rudolph doing instead? Running directly after Garrett, who ironically was literally walking away up until the moment he swung the helmet.
Pressing assault charges on someone you're assaulting isn't credible. Maybe he'll try, if it turns out he's garbage after cooling his head.
You seem to be interchanging the distinction whenever it's convenient. I'm asking for consistency, and I'm not seeing any.
I'm not okay with someone being attacked by multiple people, one of them twice, going to jail because in the moment emotion led him to use force that is literally only "excessive" because it happened during a game rather than in public. Garrett wasn't trying to kill anybody any more than the 3 Steelers attacking him. In that moment, he was being attacked 3v1 though.
I stand by a suspension for him, and hold that Rudolph shouldn't play this season either. Criminal charges I'd laugh out of court if placed on a jury. Assaulting people then crying assault deserves little more than that.
I think you mean "cause injury" rather than hurt. I have no doubt that hurt pretty significantly.
There is SOME mechanical advantage to swinging helmet vs punching. Even 3-6 pounds with some give, because it's a hard surface with a longer distance from arm socket, you can get more force going. But it's true that it's worth questioning how much more dangerous it really is compared to a punch from a person of similar strength, especially given that he wasn't on-platform like a solid punch might be.
See in sports we chose for the sake of the game to ignore basic things about law as it's "part of the game" and so on otherwise ya know contact football wouldn't exist. That's why despite a late hit and some heated exchanges between the who there would be no law involved for either party. A fine here, a suspension there, that's normal. All that changed when Garrett used a weapon, do you not see why that is? It changed it from a football brawl which despite it's kinda dumb we accept as part of a game to someone deliberately concretely doing something to hurt another human being an a fit of rage. I'm not pulling this out of my ass here it's a real thing that athletes have been changed with and convicted in the past. When you use equipment in an explicit attempt to hurt another player it rises above what reasonable expectations people assume of the risk of playing the sport. The law needs to step in here. I really don't give a **** what happens to Rudolph. Suspend him for 4 games sure if the league thinks that appropriate go ahead, but Garrett needs to be behind bars.
Sure it probably stung, but you can see in the video that his immediate reaction wasn't to clutch his head/face, or fall to the ground, or give any sign that he was in any significant amount of pain. Instead he immediately starts grandstanding for the referees looking for a flag like it was a pass interference call he wanted or something like that. And after the game in the press conference, you don't see any substantial bruising or swelling on his face. So in shorthand, he wasn't injured, no.
Now as you know, football players spend a lifetime learning to shrug off minor impacts, even ones that might make ordinary folks go "ouchie" and some of that may have been going on there, but the bottom line is Rudolph was fine... and all this hand wringing and pearl-clutching about "*gasp* He could've been KILLED!" is just overblown, ill-informed or both.
Again, we agree that Garrett should be suspended, but Rudolph should have also received some form of punishment as well.
A helmet and the fact that everyone has one by default is "part of the game". Or are you ignoring that for convenience? Garrett didn't bring a knife or gun onto the field. He swung an object literally every player has.
It's like calling a frying pan or a towel with some rocks inside a "weapon".
Nope, still a "football brawl", if you're willing to create that standard. No fabricating magic/arbitrary cutoff points where we suddenly warp to the street.
Law stepping in --> fails. Garrett was backing off when he swung the helmet, a fact you continue to straight up refuse to acknowledge in this discussion. Interesting to talk about "walking away" until closer examination demonstrates that the alleged "criminal" was doing precisely that, yet somehow still found himself in range of the person he supposedly "assaulted"...I wonder why that is?
Okay, let's rachet down and take a look at some realities.
Yes, there have been hockey players charged with and convicted of assault for whacking guys with their stick, so that could be considered as precedent.
No, the incidents in question are not really comparable to this because there was no fight in progress at the time. In both those incidents the target was pretty much skating along fat dumb and happy when they took an unexpected stick to the head. There was no "defending against a charging foe" element to those cases at all.
Much more importantly, those events took place in road games. The entire "this was beyond the game, outside any rules of the game, this was criminal" argument was made by local law enforcement and a local DA to local peeps who were if anything fans of the player who was attacked. There is no way that the DA and cops in Cleveland want anything to do with arguing such a case against Myles Garrett.
So here we are. Right, wrong, or indifferent, you try to crack a guy with a helmet you are gonna feel the wrath. Right, wrong, or indifferent you kick a guy in the head while he is on the ground you will feel the wrath. The usual NFL pushing match "fight" generally doesn't lead to suspensions, so nobody else is likely to feel much wrath.
See we have a fundamental disagreement that isn't really gonna be resolved here. To me (and based on what I've seen most other players, even Browns greats like Joe Thomas) he used his helmet to assault a guy but Tim is right that as a home game it'll never get filed as actual charges. Just another case of someone with privilege getting to walk away. You do seem awfully keep to defend a guy who even his teammates and organization are clearly distancing themselves from.
Separate names with a comma.