suh wins appeal. he'll play

[DougDew]

Suh is a dirty player and there's no doubt he stepped on Rodgers intentionally but I don't have a problem with this ruling. If it was the regular season then a one game suspension is well deserved, but for the playoffs I think this would be unfair to the rest of the Lions players and fans, especially since they only make the playoffs about once a decade. I'm sure the NFL will have the referees keeping a close eye on him and he'll get a quick ejection if he tries anything similar during the playoffs and I'm sure Suh knows it too. Fining the hell out of him while still giving the Lions a fair shot to win is the right way to go, IMO.

Agreed.

 

I don't get the whole suspension thing as a means of punishment.  It just punishes the team more than the game check for the player.  If the NFL fined him $500K I'm sure he'd get the message.  I don't care who you are...half a mill of cash hurts anybody.

[GoPats]

I'm just glad the NFL is standing behind all of their player safety initiatives with this decision.

 

 

 

 

/sarcasm.

[amfootball]

Suh said his feet were cold so he didn't know he was standing on Rodgers, http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12102055/ndamukong-suh-detroit-lions-says-appeal-feet-were-numb-cold

 

Unbelievable.

[DougDew]

Suspending any player for the first playoff game is almost the same thing as punishing them for the rest of the season.  There is a difference between the regular season and the playoffs.

 

And the play wasn't that bad anyway.  Not much different than Patriot that twisted Bradshaw's ankle when he went into the goal line pile this year.  The play where he broke his ankle.  I don't recall that player getting fined or suspended. 

[King Colt]

Suh's claim for not knowing he was stepping on Rodgers ankle is officially his feet were numb from the cold and he could not feel the difference between the ground and Rodgers ankle!!!! ARE YOU KIDDING?! And this was accepted as a valid reason? So that means that every person that walks in cold weather with numb feet falls down and dies. All persons in the northern part of the world never get to stores to buy Christmas presents because their feet are numb and the parking lots are full of men, women and children all lying down in the parking lots because they cannot walk. All outdoor construction workers never make it from their vehicles to the job site. Ice skaters must be robots or aliens, Eskimos don't even exist and he brave soldiers in WWI and WWII in the frozen Soviet and Europe all died because their feet were cold. I guess out right lying is the norm in the NFL.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Well according to the article he's been fined 8 times for player violations

 

Since he's been clean for 32 games he gets a clean slate.

 

Guess it doesn't walk like a duck.......

 

It's true.  Due to the modified policy (for 2014), a player can get a clean slate after 32 straight games without incident.  They include up to 2 preseason and all post season games. 

 

Mertin Hanks felt the offense was enough to suspend, even though it was now a (cough cough) first time offense.  Ted Cottrell did not, thus the reversal to first offense status and a fine only.  That was the thinking and process followed.

[-JJ-]

It's true.  Due to the modified policy (for 2014), a player can get a clean slate after 32 straight games without incident.  They include up to 2 preseason and all post season games. 

 

Mertin Hanks felt the offense was enough to suspend, even though it was a (cough cough) first time offense.  Ted Cottrell did not, thus the reversal to first offense status and a fine only.  That was the thinking and process followed.

Ah that explains it. Suspend down to a fine due to number of offenses in a stated period. In this case 1 since the slate was clean.

That aligns with typical judicial procedure,

 

They deemed it intentional or it wouldn't even be a fine. And 70k is a hefty one as fines go.

[DougDew]

It's true.  Due to the modified policy (for 2014), a player can get a clean slate after 32 straight games without incident.  They include up to 2 preseason and all post season games. 

 

Mertin Hanks felt the offense was enough to suspend, even though it was now a (cough cough) first time offense.  Ted Cottrell did not, thus the reversal to first offense status and a fine only.  That was the thinking and process followed.

Exactly.  The NFL originally said that Suh's past had nothing to do with it, so it was a first time offense. 

 

Suh not knowing that he was on Rogers ankle is the same thing as Gronk not knowing there was a camera directly in Brown's path,  or the Patriot not realizing he had a hold of Bradshaw's foot and twisted it when he was defenseless.

 

Neither of those players had a real past, so its actually a bit of a shame that Suh even got fined when those two players did not.

 

If the NFL was allowed to consider Suh's past, a fine and suspension would probably have been fair.

[Gramz]

On Sunday, the Lions will have access to defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh despite a blatant violation of player safety rules.  On Saturday, the Panthers won’t have access to defensive end Greg Hardy for something he allegedly did off the field, but for which he has not yet been determined to be legally responsible in any way.

And that’s the outcome for a league that has placed P.R. concerns over competitive balance.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/31/suh-decision-underscores-inherent-unfairness-of-paid-leave/

[ColtsBlueFL]

Exactly.  The NFL originally said that Suh's past had nothing to do with it, so it was a first time offense. 

 

Suh not knowing that he was on Rogers ankle is the same thing as Gronk not knowing there was a camera directly in Brown's path,  or the Patriot not realizing he had a hold of Bradshaw's foot and twisted it when he was defenseless.

 

Neither of those players had a real past, so its actually a bit of a shame that Suh even got fined when those two players did not.

 

If the NFL was allowed to consider Suh's past, a fine and suspension would probably have been fair..

 

That's it in a nutshell.  But those players that do get hit by a fine, and now Suh, have that mark on them until 32 clean games have passed. Otherwise it will not quite go so well for them.

[HtownColt]

On Sunday, the Lions will have access to defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh despite a blatant violation of player safety rules. On Saturday, the Panthers won’t have access to defensive end Greg Hardy for something he allegedly did off the field, but for which he has not yet been determined to be legally responsible in any way.

And that’s the outcome for a league that has placed P.R. concerns over competitive balance.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/31/suh-decision-underscores-inherent-unfairness-of-paid-leave/

not even close to being comparable situations

[Moose Of Woe]

So the morale of the story: If you're going to attempt to injure someone, do it before a playoff game.

All the more reason to rest the starters if you can!

[ColtsBlueFL]

 

On Sunday, the Lions will have access to defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh despite a blatant violation of player safety rules.  On Saturday, the Panthers won’t have access to defensive end Greg Hardy for something he allegedly did off the field, but for which he has not yet been determined to be legally responsible in any way.

And that’s the outcome for a league that has placed P.R. concerns over competitive balance.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/31/suh-decision-underscores-inherent-unfairness-of-paid-leave/

 

 

What you get when  policy involves those outside the game.  the NFL hires a team internal and external experts to cover it. They come out with statements like-

 

"The new measures include a more extensive list of prohibited conduct, independent investigative procedures, and specific criteria on paid leave for an individual charged with a violent crime.  ...significantly more robust, thorough and formal. It applies to all NFL personnel, not just players."

 

I noted- independent investigative procedures, and specific criteria on paid leave for an individual charged with a violent crime.

 

Yet football media compare it to roughhousing incidents on the field, as above; hinting it is much too harsh compared to other rules

 

The NFLPA is upset-

 

""There will be a lot of analysis about the differences in our formal proposal and what the NFL will present today on personal conduct policy, Sadly, those discussions will be through the media, not through formal negotiations, which the NFL has said they're not interested in."

 

Outside institutions are unhappy saying it actually doesn't go far enough-

 

NOW President Terry O'Neill said in a written statement-

 

"The victim is an afterthought in this 'new' policy -- as she was in the old policy. There is no guarantee that economic support will be there for as long as it takes for a victim to get back on her feet, and no indication that the NFL even understands that a six-game unpaid suspension could spark even higher level of violence."

 

**A new conduct committee will include Cardinals owner Michael Bidwell, Falcons owner Arthur Blank, Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, Bears owner George McCaskey and Texans owner Robert McNair. Other members are Dee Haslam, the wife of Browns owner Jimmy Haslam; Cowboys Executive Vice President Charlotte Jones Anderson and two former players who hold ownership stakes -- Warrick Dunn and John Stallworth. Their job will be to review the policy at least once a year.**

 

Since there appear to be no real winners, I guess the policy is and will be adjusted to eliminate or minimize any impact to undeserving parties.

[JerodMayo51]

And engaging someone in a block and holding it until you drive them into a camera is worse than both, and the congratulatory attitude displayed by Gronk and Belichick after it happened was worse yet. But the Pats fans would go crazy and the NFL lose money if Gronk was suspended for the rest of the season like he should have been.

Hahahaha

Don't come in da club when Gronk is around

[Moose Of Woe]

Hahahaha

Don't come in da club when Gronk is around

[DougDew]

Hahahaha

Don't come in da club when Gronk is around

Hahahaha 

 

 Do you need a speech therapist? 

[GoPats]

Stomping on a player is one thing, merely stepping on them in not a big deal.  That sounds bad, but in reality, there wasn't much chance of any harm.

 

What Newsome did to Fitzpatrick was worse.  Although not intentionally meant to harm, he intentionally meant to trip which causes far more injuries than merely being stepped on.

 

And engaging someone in a block and holding it until you drive them into a camera is worse than both, and the congratulatory attitude displayed by Gronk and Belichick after it happened was worse yet.  But the Pats fans would go crazy and the NFL lose money if Gronk was suspended for the rest of the season like he should have been.

 

I bet a classy guy like Caldwell didn't laugh about Suh's play.

 

Are you serious with all of this? Let's see if I'm following the logic here.

 

If 300+ pound "player A" stands on a star QB's leg on purpose, it's OK as long as he doesn't play for the Patriots.

 

If "player B" squares up with another professional football player and overpowers him after he runs his mouth all game, and is indeed a Patriot, then the correct thing to do is to be a complete and total pantywaist about it, even like a month after it happens. 

 

Gotcha! 

[BOTT]

Are you serious with all of this? Let's see if I'm following the logic here.

If 300+ pound "player A" stands on a star QB's leg on purpose, it's OK as long as he doesn't play for the Patriots.

If "player B" squares up with another professional football player and overpowers him after he runs his mouth all game, and is indeed a Patriot, then the correct thing to do is to be a complete and total pantywaist about it, even like a month after it happens.

Gotcha!

Really? Players get stepped on all the time. While dumb, what Suh did wasn't that big of deal. If he had purposely stepped on his hand that would be a different story.

And seriously, stop using the trash talking angle for Gronk. Should defenders cheap shot Brady when he runs his mouth? A DB ran his mouth......shocking.

Having said that, I would have enjoyed it if a colts player had done that to a patriots player lol.

[Qwiz]

Are you serious with all of this? Let's see if I'm following the logic here.

If 300+ pound "player A" stands on a star QB's leg on purpose, it's OK as long as he doesn't play for the Patriots.

If "player B" squares up with another professional football player and overpowers him after he runs his mouth all game, and is indeed a Patriot, then the correct thing to do is to be a complete and total pantywaist about it, even like a month after it happens.

Gotcha!

Are you even surprised he's taking this stance? Some people will never get over the camera shoving (which was hilarious by the way). This thing where a defenseless man on the ground got his ankles trampled by a humongous guy trying to do him harm is quite a different situation.

[Qwiz]

On Sunday, the Lions will have access to defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh despite a blatant violation of player safety rules. On Saturday, the Panthers won’t have access to defensive end Greg Hardy for something he allegedly did off the field, but for which he has not yet been determined to be legally responsible in any way.

And that’s the outcome for a league that has placed P.R. concerns over competitive balance.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/31/suh-decision-underscores-inherent-unfairness-of-paid-leave/

Well, that's the NFL for you....

[Superman]

I'm just glad the NFL is standing behind all of their player safety initiatives with this decision.

 

 

 

 

/sarcasm.

 

It's hard to believe the NFLPA continues to win this battle. Everything the NFL does is undermined by the NFLPA, and then when stupid decisions like this come about, the NFL still gets the blame.

 

I know your post is partly tongue-in-cheek, but still...

[GoPats]

Really? Players get stepped on all the time. While dumb, what Suh did wasn't that big of deal. If he had purposely stepped on his hand that would be a different story.

And seriously, stop using the trash talking angle for Gronk. Should defenders cheap shot Brady when he runs his mouth? A DB ran his mouth......shocking.

 

I don't know man, usually I'm with you on these things. I know players (mostly linemen) get stepped on, and if I hear "this is nothing compared to what happens at the bottom of those piles" one more time, I'm going to eat my keyboard. 

 

But Rodgers went into the game with an injured calf. You don't think Suh was deliberately trying to take him out of the game? If this had been Luck, and Suh had fractured his tibia, you'd feel the same way? 

 

Neither of us know what was said between Sergio Brown and Gronk. But I do know that in his entire career, Gronk has done something like that exactly one time. Not a pattern of behavior (like Suh) so if he said he got tired of Brown running his mouth, then it's reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. 

 

And no, you don't do the same thing if it's Brady or another QB. Those guys don't block, they don't tackle. Richard Sherman's "You Mad Bro?" rise to fame is how you handle a trash-talking QB. As much as it * me off at the time, I look back now and he earned the right to do it! 

[GoPats]

Are you even surprised he's taking this stance? Some people will never get over the camera shoving (which was hilarious by the way). This thing where a defenseless man on the ground got his ankles trampled by a humongous guy trying to do him harm is quite a different situation.

 

I guess I'm just baffled. Looking at both situations, and trying to remove my inane bias as a Pats fan, I still can't see how what Gronk did is even on the same level as what Suh did.

 

It sounds like you're in agreement so I'm glad I'm not losing my mind finally, lol...

[GoPats]

It's hard to believe the NFLPA continues to win this battle. Everything the NFL does is undermined by the NFLPA, and then when stupid decisions like this come about, the NFL still gets the blame.

 

I know your post is partly tongue-in-cheek, but still...

 

The NFLPA always plays both sides of the fence. They'd just have a really hard time doing that in this case if Suh had broken Rodgers' leg or injured him to the point where he was out for the playoffs. 

[Superman]

I guess I'm just baffled. Looking at both situations, and trying to remove my inane bias as a Pats fan, I still can't see how what Gronk did is even on the same level as what Suh did.

 

It sounds like you're in agreement so I'm glad I'm not losing my mind finally, lol...

 

It's not.

 

What's annoying, as a Colts fan, is the defense of what Gronk did. Especially on the basis of "well, Sergio was talkin' mess, that's what he gets." Even worse is "it was hilarious." 

 

No, it was against the rules, and dirty, and he was fined for it.

[Superman]

The NFLPA always plays both sides of the fence. They'd just have a really hard time doing that in this case if Suh had broken Rodgers' leg or injured him to the point where he was out for the playoffs. 

 

The NFLPA supported Suh through the appeal. And the NFLPA campaigned for these guidelines for "fair" discipline. It's due to those guidelines that Suh's suspension was overturned. 

 

Then in the next breath, they'll say that the NFL doesn't care about player safety. And people will repeat it, as if they have a legitimate argument.

[GoPats]

 

No, it was against the rules, and dirty, and he was fined for it.

 

Yes, it was. And he was penalized and fined. When you talk about Patriots fans "defending" it, you need to understand what I mentioned earlier. Gronk has absolutely no history of cheap or violent play. He's a big goof. A 270 pound Labrador Retriever. 

 

So what's more likely then? That after a few years in the NFL he suddenly snapped and lost his mind? Or that Brown actually provoked him and probably deserved what he got? 

 

Sometimes, when it's called for, you do this sort of thing anyway because it's - as a famous old QB once put it - "money well spent." 

 

I have the benefit of hindsight and knowing that Brown didn't get hurt on the play. Would I feel differently if he had? I probably would, and I would think the big lug wearing #87 would too. 

[GoPats]

 

Then in the next breath, they'll say that the NFL doesn't care about player safety. And people will repeat it, as if they have a legitimate argument.

 

Well the NFLPA is always going to have conflicting interests. One dues-paying member is suspended for a playoff game and heavily fined for (allegedly) trying to injure another dues-paying member.

 

Ultimately it's the league that looks hypocritical here, IMO. 

 

I'll try to be more insightful though and repeat things less often.  ;)

[Superman]

Yes, it was. And he was penalized and fined. When you talk about Patriots fans "defending" it, you need to understand what I mentioned earlier. Gronk has absolutely no history of cheap or violent play. He's a big goof. A 270 pound Labrador Retriever. 

 

So what's more likely then? That after a few years in the NFL he suddenly snapped and lost his mind? Or that Brown actually provoked him and probably deserved what he got? 

 

Sometimes, when it's called for, you do this sort of thing anyway because it's - as a famous old QB once put it - "money well spent." 

 

I have the benefit of hindsight and knowing that Brown didn't get hurt on the play. Would I feel differently if he had? I probably would, and I would think the big lug wearing #87 would too. 

 

Brown may have provoked him. Doesn't mean he deserved to get shoved into a camera cart ten yards out of the field of play. That's what's ridiculous. I'm not saying Gronk is a dirty player, but that was a dirty play (can't even really call it a play, it had nothing to do with football). 

 

Also, Manning got in another player's face and talked. He didn't shove him into a camera cart. There's nothing dirty about smack talk. 

 

I'm very over it all, and it's very off topic in this thread. I just don't like this "Colts fans are so biased" thing that all these non-Colts fans do over here in General. You're biased too. You admitted it; some won't. I wonder if it would be "hilarious" if DJ Swearinger were shoved into a camera cart. He's got one of the biggest mouths in the league, and to make matters worse, he sucks.

[Superman]

Well the NFLPA is always going to have conflicting interests. One dues-paying member is suspended for a playoff game and heavily fined for (allegedly) trying to injure another dues-paying member.

 

Ultimately it's the league that looks hypocritical here, IMO. 

 

I'll try to be more insightful though and repeat things less often.  ;)

 

How so? That's what I don't get. 

 

The league suspended him. The NFLPA backs Suh's appeal (which is no surprise, that's their job), and it's the guidelines that were lobbied for and negotiated by the lawyers and agents who make up the NFLPA that are the basis for Suh's suspension being overturned.

 

And the league looks hypocritical?

 

I don't mean to be a backer of all things NFL, but I don't follow the logic. The NFL has said that they believe Suh intentionally stepped and stood on Rodgers' leg, and that they believe he deserves to be suspended, but technically, he's a first time offender, so it's just a fine. 

 

The only way the league looks hypocritical is if you don't use that insight that you just talked about. We know where the league stands on Suh's actions, and we know why the suspension was overturned. You have to ignore all of that to call the NFL hypocritical in this regard.

[GoPats]

Brown may have provoked him. Doesn't mean he deserved to get shoved into a camera cart ten yards out of the field of play. That's what's ridiculous. I'm not saying Gronk is a dirty player, but that was a dirty play (can't even really call it a play, it had nothing to do with football). 

 

Also, Manning got in another player's face and talked. He didn't shove him into a camera cart. There's nothing dirty about smack talk. 

 

I'm very over it all, and it's very off topic in this thread. I just don't like this "Colts fans are so biased" thing that all these non-Colts fans do over here in General. You're biased too. You admitted it; some won't. I wonder if it would be "hilarious" if DJ Swearinger were shoved into a camera cart. He's got one of the biggest mouths in the league, and to make matters worse, he sucks.

 

I hear you man. I have a little boy, 2 years old... that's not how I'll teach him to settle his differences. (Though judging from the way he handles things now, and the fact that he's absolutely huge for a kid his age, it may take some time, lol...) From that standpoint, you're right, it was that kind of play. 

 

I was really only pinpointing the one Indy fan who said that what Gronk did was worse than Suh's actions last weekend. If Gronk was on the Colts and had done what he did to Brown to some other guy on some other team, most of the people who condemned him for it would no issues with it at all. We both know that's true. 

[GoPats]

How so? That's what I don't get. 

 

The league suspended him. The NFLPA backs Suh's appeal (which is no surprise, that's their job), and it's the guidelines that were lobbied for and negotiated by the lawyers and agents who make up the NFLPA that are the basis for Suh's suspension being overturned.

 

And the league looks hypocritical?

 

I don't mean to be a backer of all things NFL, but I don't follow the logic. The NFL has said that they believe Suh intentionally stepped and stood on Rodgers' leg, and that they believe he deserves to be suspended, but technically, he's a first time offender, so it's just a fine. 

 

The only way the league looks hypocritical is if you don't use that insight that you just talked about. We know where the league stands on Suh's actions, and we know why the suspension was overturned. You have to ignore all of that to call the NFL hypocritical in this regard.

 

In terms of public perception. 

 

Casual fans won't say, "The NFLPA is so hypocritical!" 

 

Lawyers and unions... nothing's ever simple.

[Superman]

I hear you man. I have a little boy, 2 years old... that's not how I'll teach him to settle his differences. (Though judging from the way he handles things now, and the fact that he's absolutely huge for a kid his age, it may take some time, lol...) From that standpoint, you're right, it was that kind of play. 

 

I was really only pinpointing the one Indy fan who said that what Gronk did was worse than Suh's actions last weekend. If Gronk was on the Colts and had done what he did to Brown to some other guy on some other team, most of the people who condemned him for it would no issues with it at all. We both know that's true. 

 

Some people see the world a lot differently, that's for sure.

 

My thing is, I think we can all acknowledge our biases without disregarding the facts. (I think Andrew Luck is a better QB than Russell Wilson, but I know that he turns the ball over way more.) In that vein, I've never condemned Gronk for what he did, but it's annoying to see it defended on the basis of "Brown was talking mess."

 

I'm sorry to hear that you have a 2 year old... ;) That's a fun age, but it takes a lot of energy to deal with those little buggers. My daughter was pretty laid back, but she had her moments. Still does, at 9...

[Superman]

In terms of public perception. 

 

Casual fans won't say, "The NFLPA is so hypocritical!" 

 

Lawyers and unions... nothing's ever simple.

 

That's my whole point. The NFLPA continues to win this battle, and the NFL takes all the blame. 

 

The league has completely botched a lot of things lately, but not this. They were right to suspend Suh, and the only reason his suspension is overturned is because of legalese, negotiated by the NFLPA. 

 

And now, people get to say that the league isn't serious about player safety. I think their initial reaction to the situation -- suspending a team's best player, for a playoff game, when his contract is set to expire -- shows very clearly that they do care about player safety.

[GoPats]

Some people see the world a lot differently, that's for sure.

 

My thing is, I think we can all acknowledge our biases without disregarding the facts. (I think Andrew Luck is a better QB than Russell Wilson, but I know that he turns the ball over way more.) In that vein, I've never condemned Gronk for what he did, but it's annoying to see it defended on the basis of "Brown was talking mess."

 

I'm sorry to hear that you have a 2 year old... ;) That's a fun age, but it takes a lot of energy to deal with those little buggers. My daughter was pretty laid back, but she had her moments. Still does, at 9...

 

Oh for sure. True objectivity is a rare thing! 

 

The 2-year-old has a 5-year-old sister... she really took it easy on us, by comparison. I always tell her she's lucky she was born first because if she hadn't, well... 

 

LOL...

 

Happy New Year to you and yours my friend.  :disco: 

[GoPats]

That's my whole point. The NFLPA continues to win this battle, and the NFL takes all the blame. 

 

The league has completely botched a lot of things lately, but not this. They were right to suspend Suh, and the only reason his suspension is overturned is because of legalese, negotiated by the NFLPA. 

 

And now, people get to say that the league isn't serious about player safety. I think their initial reaction to the situation -- suspending a team's best player, for a playoff game, when his contract is set to expire -- shows very clearly that they do care about player safety.

 

100% true. My initial post should have said, "Glad to see the NFLPA standing behind..." 

[jvan1973]

Are you even surprised he's taking this stance? Some people will never get over the camera shoving (which was hilarious by the way). This thing where a defenseless man on the ground got his ankles trampled by a humongous guy trying to do him harm is quite a different situation.

Not as funny as Suh kicking Schaub in the junk

[Superman]

Oh for sure. True objectivity is a rare thing! 

 

The 2-year-old has a 5-year-old sister... she really took it easy on us, by comparison. I always tell her she's lucky she was born first because if she hadn't, well... 

 

LOL...

 

Happy New Year to you and yours my friend.  :disco: 

 

 

100% true. My initial post should have said, "Glad to see the NFLPA standing behind..." 

 

You're alright, GP.

[GoPats]

You're alright, GP.

 

Right back at ya man! 

[Qwiz]

Not as funny as Suh kicking Schaub in the junk

Nah, definitely funnier. Way funnier.