Rob's House

I'm on the same page with Shannon Sharp.

That's true. One other point I forgot to include under optics is the fight that ensued afterward with Pouncey and DeCastro on Garrett. No one on the Bills went after Gronk.

If Garrett stopped after ripping off Rudolph's helmet, no one gets suspended. I don't see how Garrett going the extra mile and swinging the helmet at Rudolph's head somehow makes Rudolph's behavior more egregious.

Gronk should have definitely been suspended for that, but there are a few key differences: 1. Exposure: That game was not nationally televised in prime-time. No one outside of Buffalo gave a ***** about that game. Not even NE fans who chalked it up as a win the day the schedule came out. 2. Optics: Right or wrong, the image of a guy hitting another guy in the helmet with an arm (metal brace notwithstanding) doesn't have the visual effect seeing someone hit in the bare head with a hard object does. 3. Patriot immunity: This one needs no explanation. Bottom line: NFL discipline has nothing to do with right and wrong; it is only about protecting the brand. Any assumption that it would (or even should) be about anything else is incredibly naive. It's a sports league and a business, not an institutional arbiter of justice. That's why I find it silly when segments of the population get indignant about the NFL's need to police the private personal conduct of its employees. As someone who supports economic freedom, I also support the NFL's right to place conditions on the private behavior of its employees based on principles of freedom to contract. However, I see no basis for the imposition of an obligation to police such behavior or to enforce public morality. The latter is an impossible task as there is no single moral standard that is accepted throughout the country, much less the world (as the NFL seeks to expand its market globally). There isn't even an agreed moral standard on this board, as evidenced by the disagreements in this very thread. That's why efforts to effectuate that end are folly.

Other than these unconfirmed allegations of crotch shots, I'm having a hard time seeing what's so egregious about Rudolph's response. I get the argument that pulling at Garrett's helmet was a bit much, but that and getting in the face of the guy that just slammed you to the ground isn't usually a suspension worthy offense. Can you think of anyone who's ever been suspended for similar behavior? I can't.

I think Ritchie was on the receiving end of one of these some time back. Wouldn't be surprised if he had it coming.

I love what Pouncey did. If I were the stealer's owner, and the league would let me, I'd pay him for every game of the suspension. I understand that the league can't allow that kind of retaliation to go unpunished, but when someone does your buddy like that, I fully support you beating his ****ing ass.

That's a great point. I know the law doesn't necessarily apply on the football field like it does in reality, but you can't provoke an attack and then claim self-defense.

Maybe. Still pics leave a lot to be desired. In the first one I can't tell if it's an intentional kick to the groin or inadvertantly. The second pic with the hand is far from dispositive. But like I said, if he really was responding to a good shot to the nuts I'll be more understanding.

If the helmet swing was an immediate response to a good hit in the nuts I'll be a bit more understanding of it.

I think it means 46% of all votes cast were for Garrett, not that only 46% think he should be suspended. I didn't. If that's linked in the thread I missed it.

I discount the opinions of people who state conjecture as fact. The evidence of this is flimsy, yet you state it as though it's incontrovertible truth. The defense of a Browns DE swinging a helmet at the bare head of a Steelers QB is an odd thing for a Bills fan to have an agenda-driven bias about.

Seeing as how week 11 is in the books for the Browns, a suspension for the remainder of the season isn't as harsh as it sounds. While Rudolph could have handled the situation differently, I don't know that anything he did does much to mitigate Garrett trying to brain him. Had Garrett thrown a punch I'd be a lot more sympathetic to his position, but a guy getting in your face in a situation where you face no serious threat of bodily harm does not in any way justify the use of life-threatening force. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic. We take for granted that he missed, but that was clearly not his intent. Had he accomplished what he set out to do the most likely outcome is serious head trauma to a guy who had a concussion a few weeks ago.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Marcus Spears seems to agree that Garrett was way out of line regardless of whether Rudolph overreacted.

If Garrett doesn't swing his helmet are you still arguing for Rudolph's suspension?

Fat Albert got 4 for a similar, less dangerous, offense. Edit: 5 games

Still didn't get the girl.

I put a 1 game suspension for Pouncey because no suspension wasn't an option. I have a hard time respecting the opinion of anyone who thinks 3 games is appropriate. Garrett should be done for the season. If he connects cleanly we could be talking about a TBI.

It doesn't sound like this Quincy fellow trusts the process.

This guy's living Adam Schitt's dream.

That was a fukked up movie. Some emotionally stunted virgin/superfan, who isn't even on a scholarship, works his ass off for years only to play one garbage time snap. It's sad.

The Obama days are gone. You need to move on.

We're all Browns fans tonight.

Marc Rich says hi.

No, they're raping the plaintiffs' lawyers.