Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Intentional or not?


rajncajn
 Share

Intentional or not  

58 members have voted

  1. 1. Was Ndamukong Suh's kick to Shaub's groin intentional or not?

    • Yes, absolutely and he should have been suspended
      25
    • Probably, but there was enough gray area that a suspension was not warranted
      25
    • No, it did not look intentional to me.
      6
    • Other or Puddy
      2


Recommended Posts

WTH? have you even listened to a damn word I've said? Talking to the two of you is like talking to a brick wall.

 

I do actually have a point here. Only half being an ass.

 

So then you don't believe it was clearly incidental. Would you say then it's a judgement call? Maybe then a little slap on the wrist fine to a repeat offender, rather than a suspension? Because they've fined people for much less suspcion of intent than that (see next paragraph before you start furiously replying, like I'm sure you want to at this point)...

 

It is in the rule book that you can't intentionally kick someone. No you cannot prove it without a doubt here (thus no suspension), but looking at it again, the initial movement of his leg up in the air doesn't even look very natural, with the second movement for the crotch shot that makes it pretty obvious what his intent was....

 

So pretty much Goodell was stuck in a spot where he couldn't suspend Suh like I'm sure he'd love to by now, but he had plenty enough reason to assume he knew what he was doing, so he wasn't just going to let this guy keep doing stuff like this...

 

I remember back in high school I used to use the "first time" excuse when I got caught doing something wrong, but they stop believing it after a while, as they should. No, his past shouldn't incriminate him here, but it sure doesn't exonerate it when he's continued to show that he's not going to stop playing dirty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that rajn thinks it was intentional. Then again, I like to shoot from the hip.

 

Honestly, it's tough for to figure out, because at times seems to be saying it was intentional, but then that Goodell can't even fine him because he can't prove intent.

 

So it doesn't sound at all liek a double-standard (again, unless he's talking about the Saints, which he doesn't want me to throw in his face, so I can assume not). It sounds like Goodell did all he could do without being able to prove intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, it's tough for to figure out, because at times seems to be saying it was intentional, but then that Goodell can't even fine him because he can't prove intent.

 

So it doesn't sound at all liek a double-standard (again, unless he's talking about the Saints, which he doesn't want me to throw in his face, so I can assume not). It sounds like Goodell did all he could do without being able to prove intent.

 

Here's how I interpret rajn's point:

 

1) He very clearly thinks it's intentional and specifically said so. I happen to agree that it is intentional.

2) The, "you can't fine if you can't prove intent" argument is being used to say that Goodell apparently agrees with rajn that it was intentional, hence the fine. This part I don't so much agree with. I think you can fine a player for being reckless enough that he "accidentally" cheap-shots other players because he's always trying to stay just barely within the lines of what is appropriate play. That player should also be fined, IMO. Like so many other things, if you're hell-bent on testing what you can get away with, you're going to go too far at some point.

 

I'm not even going to wade into the whole Saints bit. That is not my fight.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I interpret rajn's point:

 

1) He very clearly thinks it's intentional and specifically said so. I happen to agree that it is intentional.

2) The, "you can't fine if you can't prove intent" argument is being used to say that Goodell apparently agrees with rajn that it was intentional, hence the fine. This part I don't so much agree with. I think you can fine a player for being reckless enough that he "accidentally" cheap-shots other players because he's always trying to stay just barely within the lines of what is appropriate play. That player should also be fined, IMO. Like so many other things, if you're hell-bent on testing what you can get away with, you're going to go too far at some point.

 

I'm not even going to wade into the whole Saints bit. That is not my fight.

 

  1. Yes, I thought I'd made it abundantly clear that I thought it was intentional & even directly responded to his question saying "I've already made it definitively clear that I thought it was intentional and that I thought he should be suspended." The fact that he's still confused as to whether I thought it was intentional or not just completely blows my mind.

     

  2. Not quite... I'm not even going to pretend to guess what the NFL is thinking when doling out some of these suspensions/fines and that's the majority of my issue with the league. I believe it's gotten way out of hand to the point where many of the suspensions/fines make no sense anymore. It's as if they are just making it all up as they go along, which brings me to the Suh case. I personally think he was guilty & I think it's glaringly evident in the video. As a result I thought he deserved both a fine & a suspension. However, the league says they didn't see it that way. They say that they couldn't judge intent... in other words, they couldn't judge that he meant to do it. Given that there is no specific rule against inadvertent feet hitting opposing players in the groin, like there are for horse collar tackles, helmet-to-helmet, defenseless receiver, etc and the league has come out and said that they can't tell he meant to do it then there should be no justification for fining him either. That is a double-standard... You can't tell players, "OK, we've set up these specific rules and guidelines for what constitutes these specific illegal actions and if deemed guilty of performing these specific illegal actions you will be fined, regardless of if it was intentional or not because these specific illegal actions are avoidable through sound football play," then turn around and fine somebody because their foot 'accidentally' hit somebody in the groin. Either he's guilty or not, either he should be fined & suspended or not, there should be no in between, regardless if this is a private enterprise and regardless of any past history he's had. That mess wouldn't fly in any private business I know of. Private companies would get taken to court for pulling something like telling someone there wasn't enough proof to tell they were guilty bu then cutting their pay anyway.

 

The Saints stuff, I don't even want to get into either. These guys brought it up and insist making it out that I have this opinion solely based on my bias against The League. Yet you can go out to countless other message boards, blogs, sports sites, even regular news sites and they're all discussing the same thing... saying the same things as I am. [sarcasm]Surprisingly enough, they aren't Saints fans.[/sarcasm] Even this morning, driving to work & listening to Mike & Mike, they brought up the very same point about the ridiculousness (Golic's description) of the fine based on the league saying they couldn't judge intent. I get why they think that I have an axe to grind with the league and it's completely true. I do and to deny so would be untruthful. However, that doesn't mean that I do not have a valid point and my opinion is only based on my bias.

Edited by rajncajn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 36 of 41 people here think it was intentional, with half of the respondents saying they think it was intentional enough to warrant a suspension. However, as you've highlighted, it's no so clear cut as to nail him to the wall, and they'd likely be faced with appeals to try to nail him to the wall here.

 

However, that doesn't mean that Goodell doesn't have the discretion to do so. It's in his job description and CBA that he does. So I think he was right to show some restraint here, when he really could have tried to just nail Suh to the wall as an example for his repeated violent incidents, of which this was just the latest example.

 

I mean, you can get fired from employers without any burden of proof, or even dismissed for just not being good at your job. There does not have to be a burden of proof in many cases... I mean, yes, in many industries there are laws and burden of proof regarding penalizing employees for certain actions, but not the NFL. They signed the CBA that gives Goodell discretion over all of these matters, and I think he made the right call here, a call which the vast majority agree with here that it looked intentional enough to not turn a blind eye, even though you can't prove it 100%. This isn't a court of law.

 

Remember when Roethlisraper got acquitted because of burden of proof, but penalized by the NFL because the "court of public opinion" had a strong indication of what he did, even though it couldn't be proven 100%... The difference here is that you have a guy who over and over and over has refused to let up and play the game clean. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt when it looked pretty intentional. I absolutely do not think you have to prove that beyond a doubt.

 

Sure Suh can continue to play the accident card, but he's clearly not taking any of the precautions to play the game the way the NFL has repeatedly warned and penalized him over how he's to play it, and only continues to be the one that these "accidents" happen around. He does not deserve to just get off scott free by trying to lawyer the situation to cover up his wrongdoing.

Edited by delusions of grandeur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that gif and most of the shots you guys have shown (although I admit to scanning through the lengthy posts) is one of the worst angles to actually judge what happened. I think the second replay in this link actually shows what happened from the back side and makes it more clear. The idea that it was a "second kick" or he had found a target and extended doesn't seem very likely when you look at his head position when that happened. The guy as looking all the way at the ground. At best he saw one shoe out of the corner of his eye. I understand the fine, and agree with it. I just don't think the karate kid gymnastics that it would take to actually land that on purpose is possible by a 300+ pound lineman as he has been thrown around.

 

http://www.complex.c...ly-jewels-video

The whole thing is only 10 seconds, but watch the second replay from the back camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that gif and most of the shots you guys have shown (although I admit to scanning through the lengthy posts) is one of the worst angles to actually judge what happened. I think the second replay in this link actually shows what happened from the back side and makes it more clear. The idea that it was a "second kick" or he had found a target and extended doesn't seem very likely when you look at his head position when that happened. The guy as looking all the way at the ground. At best he saw one shoe out of the corner of his eye. I understand the fine, and agree with it. I just don't think the karate kid gymnastics that it would take to actually land that on purpose is possible by a 300+ pound lineman as he has been thrown around.

 

http://www.complex.c...ly-jewels-video

The whole thing is only 10 seconds, but watch the second replay from the back camera.

 

 

I think your argument and video actually improve the likelihood that it was intentional. It may have been a lucky shot, but I think he knew the general area he was kicking in and I absolutely still think that was his intention. It's such an awkward movement for someone falling to the ground. I understand the first kick, which I thought was more an action of his leg whipping around. After that though, A person's instinct would be to get both legs straight to the ground in order to maintain balance and begin the process of getting up. Instead, he makes an off-balance kick out with his foot. It doesn't look like a natural motion at all and definitely not in keeping with the movement of the rest of his body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh...we've played 11 games and the dude has one off-side penalty all year.

 

 

Honestly, I don't think he wants to be a dirty player. I think the guy just lets his emotions get the better of him sometimes and he does stupid stuff like this. I think he's just still got a lot of growing up to do and needs to learn how to flip the switch when the whistle blows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that gif and most of the shots you guys have shown (although I admit to scanning through the lengthy posts) is one of the worst angles to actually judge what happened. I think the second replay in this link actually shows what happened from the back side and makes it more clear. The idea that it was a "second kick" or he had found a target and extended doesn't seem very likely when you look at his head position when that happened. The guy as looking all the way at the ground. At best he saw one shoe out of the corner of his eye. I understand the fine, and agree with it. I just don't think the karate kid gymnastics that it would take to actually land that on purpose is possible by a 300+ pound lineman as he has been thrown around.

 

http://www.complex.c...ly-jewels-video

The whole thing is only 10 seconds, but watch the second replay from the back camera.

 

 

If you watch, the entire time he was going down he was looking directly at Schaub. He knew where he was. Then he goes down and his leg rears back and makes a kicking motion in his direction. No he may not have been going for the jewels, but it sure looks like he's trying to get a kick in whereever he can land one.

 

I mean, that doesn't even look close to natural of how your leg would flail falling down. His leg actually gains force as it rears back and changes direction to make a kicking motion. I think that angle only makes this more clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, as a remorseless, repeat offender, Suh no longer enjoys the "innocent until proven guilty" sort of treatment that most players get, nor does he deserve it. The guy has anger management issues, and plays on a razor's edge of trying to injure people while trying to look like he's not trying to injure people in the grand tradition of Rodney Harrison, Cortland Finnegan and others. The play on Cutler this year I believe was a clear example of trying to injure a guy while trying to have plausible deniability. I'm all for tough, hardnosed, physical play (ie Troy Polamalu) but cheap shots with the intent to injure sicken me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information