[2006alum]

Garrett should shit for the rest of this season and some of next season too. 

Unless he has extraordinarily unusual anatomical issues, I suspect he will, regardless of when the NFL reinstates him. :D

[2006alum]

Garrett should shit for the rest of this season and some of next season too. 

Unless he has extraordinarily unusual anatomical issues, I suspect he will, regardless of when the NFL reinstates him. :D

[cardcrimson]

Garret obviously overreacted at every part.  First retaliating after the initial helmet grab by Rudolph and later swinging the helmet when Rudolph re-engaged by charging at Garret.  But I don't think the tackle that started it all was late.  I don't see why people are calling it a late hit.  Holding on a little too long and going to the ground unnecessarily, yes.  Which I guess could have been flagged as roughing the passer? But the hit itself wasn't late.

Agreed on both points.

Okay, I see your points. Rudolph had it coming.

So did the school bully that got shot. That provocatively dressed coed deserved to get raped, too.

WTF?

You know it's possible for both players to be in the wrong, for there to be a vast difference in the degree of their transgressions (since it's clear Garret and later Pouncey went nuclear,) and for you to argue without creating a strawman, right?  

To point out what Rudolph did is not to say that he deserved the helmet to the head.  

That rape analogy was in really poor taste, too.  You should be ashamed, dude.

Ashamed? I'm not the one who blamed Rudolph for getting hit in the head with his own helmet. I simply tried to point out how utterly ridiculous that opinion is.

[cardcrimson]

Garret obviously overreacted at every part.  First retaliating after the initial helmet grab by Rudolph and later swinging the helmet when Rudolph re-engaged by charging at Garret.  But I don't think the tackle that started it all was late.  I don't see why people are calling it a late hit.  Holding on a little too long and going to the ground unnecessarily, yes.  Which I guess could have been flagged as roughing the passer? But the hit itself wasn't late.

Agreed on both points.

Okay, I see your points. Rudolph had it coming.

So did the school bully that got shot. That provocatively dressed coed deserved to get raped, too.

WTF?

You know it's possible for both players to be in the wrong, for there to be a vast difference in the degree of their transgressions (since it's clear Garret and later Pouncey went nuclear,) and for you to argue without creating a strawman, right?  

To point out what Rudolph did is not to say that he deserved the helmet to the head.  

That rape analogy was in really poor taste, too.  You should be ashamed, dude.

Ashamed? I'm not the one who blamed Rudolph for getting hit in the head with his own helmet. I simply tried to point out how utterly ridiculous that opinion is.

[Canalejas]

Garret obviously overreacted at every part.  First retaliating after the initial helmet grab by Rudolph and later swinging the helmet when Rudolph re-engaged by charging at Garret.  But I don't think the tackle that started it all was late.  I don't see why people are calling it a late hit.  Holding on a little too long and going to the ground unnecessarily, yes.  Which I guess could have been flagged as roughing the passer? But the hit itself wasn't late.

Agreed on both points.

Okay, I see your points. Rudolph had it coming.

So did the school bully that got shot. That provocatively dressed coed deserved to get raped, too.

WTF?

You know it's possible for both players to be in the wrong, for there to be a vast difference in the degree of their transgressions (since it's clear Garret and later Pouncey went nuclear,) and for you to argue without creating a strawman, right?  

To point out what Rudolph did is not to say that he deserved the helmet to the head.  

That rape analogy was in really poor taste, too.  You should be ashamed, dude.

Ashamed? I'm not the one who blamed Rudolph for getting hit in the head with his own helmet. I simply tried to point out how utterly ridiculous that opinion is.

There you go strawman-ing again.

[Canalejas]

Garret obviously overreacted at every part.  First retaliating after the initial helmet grab by Rudolph and later swinging the helmet when Rudolph re-engaged by charging at Garret.  But I don't think the tackle that started it all was late.  I don't see why people are calling it a late hit.  Holding on a little too long and going to the ground unnecessarily, yes.  Which I guess could have been flagged as roughing the passer? But the hit itself wasn't late.

Agreed on both points.

Okay, I see your points. Rudolph had it coming.

So did the school bully that got shot. That provocatively dressed coed deserved to get raped, too.

WTF?

You know it's possible for both players to be in the wrong, for there to be a vast difference in the degree of their transgressions (since it's clear Garret and later Pouncey went nuclear,) and for you to argue without creating a strawman, right?  

To point out what Rudolph did is not to say that he deserved the helmet to the head.  

That rape analogy was in really poor taste, too.  You should be ashamed, dude.

Ashamed? I'm not the one who blamed Rudolph for getting hit in the head with his own helmet. I simply tried to point out how utterly ridiculous that opinion is.

There you go strawman-ing again.

[cardcrimson]

Agreed on both points.

Okay, I see your points. Rudolph had it coming.

So did the school bully that got shot. That provocatively dressed coed deserved to get raped, too.

WTF?

You know it's possible for both players to be in the wrong, for there to be a vast difference in the degree of their transgressions (since it's clear Garret and later Pouncey went nuclear,) and for you to argue without creating a strawman, right?  

To point out what Rudolph did is not to say that he deserved the helmet to the head.  

That rape analogy was in really poor taste, too.  You should be ashamed, dude.

Ashamed? I'm not the one who blamed Rudolph for getting hit in the head with his own helmet. I simply tried to point out how utterly ridiculous that opinion is.

There you go strawman-ing again.

Did not some posters here go so far as to say, "if Randolph hadn't done X Y or Z, Garrett would never had hit him in the head with his helmet"? Sheesh.

[cardcrimson]

Agreed on both points.

Okay, I see your points. Rudolph had it coming.

So did the school bully that got shot. That provocatively dressed coed deserved to get raped, too.

WTF?

You know it's possible for both players to be in the wrong, for there to be a vast difference in the degree of their transgressions (since it's clear Garret and later Pouncey went nuclear,) and for you to argue without creating a strawman, right?  

To point out what Rudolph did is not to say that he deserved the helmet to the head.  

That rape analogy was in really poor taste, too.  You should be ashamed, dude.

Ashamed? I'm not the one who blamed Rudolph for getting hit in the head with his own helmet. I simply tried to point out how utterly ridiculous that opinion is.

There you go strawman-ing again.

Did not some posters here go so far as to say, "if Randolph hadn't done X Y or Z, Garrett would never had hit him in the head with his helmet"? Sheesh.

[Goose]

IMHO, Garrett should be banned for life. Why? He lost control of himself and assulted  a fellow NFL player during the game. There is never any reason that excuses this conduct. If any of us did something like this, we would be fired for sure, and it would be essentially impossible to get a new job. There are plenty of good football players out there. If you want to keep your job, follow the rules. If you don't, you should be replaced. No reason for the other players to risk this happening again.

This isn't really a justice issue. It is an employment issue. If they let him keep playing and he seriously injures somebody, the NFL is at fault. They chose to retain a known violent person who had previously shown he couldn't control himself. They shouldn't risk that.

[Goose]

IMHO, Garrett should be banned for life. Why? He lost control of himself and assulted  a fellow NFL player during the game. There is never any reason that excuses this conduct. If any of us did something like this, we would be fired for sure, and it would be essentially impossible to get a new job. There are plenty of good football players out there. If you want to keep your job, follow the rules. If you don't, you should be replaced. No reason for the other players to risk this happening again.

This isn't really a justice issue. It is an employment issue. If they let him keep playing and he seriously injures somebody, the NFL is at fault. They chose to retain a known violent person who had previously shown he couldn't control himself. They shouldn't risk that.

[ColoradoTree]

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).

[ColoradoTree]

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).

[teejers1]

Football is different - it's a violent sport and fights are to be expected.  They even occur among teammates during practice.  I'm not saying that it's okay, or that there shouldn't be a punishment, but Garrett's punishment struck me as a bit too severe. Ray Rice gets two games for beating the crap out of a woman, while Garrett gets half a season or more for escalating a fight in the heat of battle (albeit very egregiously) with a grown man who was kind of asking for it.

Um, Ray Rice was punished for life by the NFL.

And that was ridiculous, and here's why.  In a show of "moral triumph" - and after taking heat for being too lax and inconsistent on dealing with domestic violence - the NFL comes out with a policy.  Good (everyone thinks).  The policy was 4 games for a first suspension.  And then the punishments escalated exponentially for repeat offense(s), IIRC.  Good.  Or so everyone thinks.

Anyway, Rice gets the four game punishment for his first-time offense.  Then the video comes out.  Then he gets banned for life.  [Predictably, and entirely justifiably, the victim opposes the ban and would like the father of their children to, you know, be able to provide for the family.  Nope.  That entire episode was handled poorly].

WTF do NFL poo bahs think occurs in domestic violence situations?  Exactly what we saw in the video (in a lot of instances).  And yet, because it was on video (and not just on a police report, with pictures), policy goes out the window.  Rice is banned for life, and let's just hope things work out okay for fiance and kids.

Have a policy. Stick with it.  (BTW, if the video made you uncomfortable with only a 4 game 'first time offense' suspension, then fine, change the policy, or have a range of punishment for first time; second-time, etc.).

As for Garrett, et al.  The punishments seemed about right - and if Rudolph got one for trying to pull helmet off initially, then that would have been fine, too.

P.S.  Garrett may just be a bad guy - think he has had a few other instances of potentially alarming behavior (alarming as in: this guy may not adjust well to life post-football).

[teejers1]

Football is different - it's a violent sport and fights are to be expected.  They even occur among teammates during practice.  I'm not saying that it's okay, or that there shouldn't be a punishment, but Garrett's punishment struck me as a bit too severe. Ray Rice gets two games for beating the crap out of a woman, while Garrett gets half a season or more for escalating a fight in the heat of battle (albeit very egregiously) with a grown man who was kind of asking for it.

Um, Ray Rice was punished for life by the NFL.

And that was ridiculous, and here's why.  In a show of "moral triumph" - and after taking heat for being too lax and inconsistent on dealing with domestic violence - the NFL comes out with a policy.  Good (everyone thinks).  The policy was 4 games for a first suspension.  And then the punishments escalated exponentially for repeat offense(s), IIRC.  Good.  Or so everyone thinks.

Anyway, Rice gets the four game punishment for his first-time offense.  Then the video comes out.  Then he gets banned for life.  [Predictably, and entirely justifiably, the victim opposes the ban and would like the father of their children to, you know, be able to provide for the family.  Nope.  That entire episode was handled poorly].

WTF do NFL poo bahs think occurs in domestic violence situations?  Exactly what we saw in the video (in a lot of instances).  And yet, because it was on video (and not just on a police report, with pictures), policy goes out the window.  Rice is banned for life, and let's just hope things work out okay for fiance and kids.

Have a policy. Stick with it.  (BTW, if the video made you uncomfortable with only a 4 game 'first time offense' suspension, then fine, change the policy, or have a range of punishment for first time; second-time, etc.).

As for Garrett, et al.  The punishments seemed about right - and if Rudolph got one for trying to pull helmet off initially, then that would have been fine, too.

P.S.  Garrett may just be a bad guy - think he has had a few other instances of potentially alarming behavior (alarming as in: this guy may not adjust well to life post-football).

[Goose]

As for Garrett, et al.  The punishments seemed about right - and if Rudolph got one for trying to pull helmet off initially, then that would have been fine, too.

P.S.  Garrett may just be a bad guy - think he has had a few other instances of potentially alarming behavior (alarming as in: this guy may not adjust well to life post-football).

There is no "may" about it. No need to look at any past acts either. I realize football is a physical sport. I realize guys get mad. However, there are lines you just can't cross. The NFL should be very intolerant of those who cross these lines. There are corner cases. This is not a corner case. There is no reason to allow guys who fail to control their emotions to continue to play the game. 99.99% of the players know what the lines are and don't cross them. Those guys get hit too, and sometimes there are personal fouls called. However, if you are clearly outside the norm, which trying to hit somebody in the head with their own helmet is, you should be gone for good. The NFL doesn't need these guys. There are plenty of other players that don't play that way. Any players who operate outside the norms, by stepping on other players intentionally (Ndamukong Suh) and generally trying to hurt people (Vontaze Burfict) should also be gone. That isn't football. Football is controlled violence. These guys are not controlled.

[Goose]

As for Garrett, et al.  The punishments seemed about right - and if Rudolph got one for trying to pull helmet off initially, then that would have been fine, too.

P.S.  Garrett may just be a bad guy - think he has had a few other instances of potentially alarming behavior (alarming as in: this guy may not adjust well to life post-football).

There is no "may" about it. No need to look at any past acts either. I realize football is a physical sport. I realize guys get mad. However, there are lines you just can't cross. The NFL should be very intolerant of those who cross these lines. There are corner cases. This is not a corner case. There is no reason to allow guys who fail to control their emotions to continue to play the game. 99.99% of the players know what the lines are and don't cross them. Those guys get hit too, and sometimes there are personal fouls called. However, if you are clearly outside the norm, which trying to hit somebody in the head with their own helmet is, you should be gone for good. The NFL doesn't need these guys. There are plenty of other players that don't play that way. Any players who operate outside the norms, by stepping on other players intentionally (Ndamukong Suh) and generally trying to hurt people (Vontaze Burfict) should also be gone. That isn't football. Football is controlled violence. These guys are not controlled.