11-18-2019, 09:26 AM
On the issue that this discipline seems too severe when compared to what men who have committed domestic violence have received, I agree! But that's because the NFL has a woeful domestic violence problem and doesn't take it nearly seriously enough. The right thing to do is to make those suspensions longer, not this one shorter.
And the tackle on Rudolph wasn't a late hit, he wasn't flagged for one, and he shouldn't have been flagged for one. But after three consecutive sacks in the waning seconds of a game that was done and dusted (8 seconds left!), it wasn't the initial wrap-up, it was dragging him to ground when he knew the ball was out. He didn't need to twist the knife like that. Again, not a late hit, but I'd be pretty frustrated if I were Rudolph, too.
But ultimately, I just can't believe some of these reactions. "He started it, shouldn't have grabbed at Garrett's helmet first." Like I said before, a little pushing and shoving and frustration is all part of what's expected here. Rudolph didn't hurt Garrett, and Garrett responded by using a weapon on Rudolph. Sure, fine Rudolph a little if you want (if nothing else, it was dumb to get up and get in his face when DeCastro already has him in hand), but nothing he did struck me as suspension-worthy. But we're losing sight of what's important here--that response was so wildly disproportionate that to me, the "shouldn't have gotten in his face" argument is absurd. If you push me, yeah, I get to push you back. If you punch me, yeah, I get to punch you back. If you get in my face, I do not get to use a weapon against you.
Another aspect of this that's been lost due to the fact that he hit Rudolph with the helmet is that he also dragged him around by the facemask for a couple seconds (including lifting him off the ground with it), yanking in such a way that could have caused Rudolph serious damage. That's what caused the ref that was right there to throw his flag initially, and even if Garrett hadn't hit Rudolph with the helmet, he gets suspended just for that (and rightfully so).
And the tackle on Rudolph wasn't a late hit, he wasn't flagged for one, and he shouldn't have been flagged for one. But after three consecutive sacks in the waning seconds of a game that was done and dusted (8 seconds left!), it wasn't the initial wrap-up, it was dragging him to ground when he knew the ball was out. He didn't need to twist the knife like that. Again, not a late hit, but I'd be pretty frustrated if I were Rudolph, too.
But ultimately, I just can't believe some of these reactions. "He started it, shouldn't have grabbed at Garrett's helmet first." Like I said before, a little pushing and shoving and frustration is all part of what's expected here. Rudolph didn't hurt Garrett, and Garrett responded by using a weapon on Rudolph. Sure, fine Rudolph a little if you want (if nothing else, it was dumb to get up and get in his face when DeCastro already has him in hand), but nothing he did struck me as suspension-worthy. But we're losing sight of what's important here--that response was so wildly disproportionate that to me, the "shouldn't have gotten in his face" argument is absurd. If you push me, yeah, I get to push you back. If you punch me, yeah, I get to punch you back. If you get in my face, I do not get to use a weapon against you.
Another aspect of this that's been lost due to the fact that he hit Rudolph with the helmet is that he also dragged him around by the facemask for a couple seconds (including lifting him off the ground with it), yanking in such a way that could have caused Rudolph serious damage. That's what caused the ref that was right there to throw his flag initially, and even if Garrett hadn't hit Rudolph with the helmet, he gets suspended just for that (and rightfully so).