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 This theme may be out of date.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.]]

Tom Brady's "slide"


Shorttynaz
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been reading this debate and it is rather comical in regards to the comparisons. IMO, the NFL is way to concerned about cosmetic BS and glosses over relevant issues that they would just rather ignore and hope it goes away.

 

In regards to analogy, I see it this way in everyday life.

 

Gore: I am docked an hours pay for my tie not being a double-knot windsor.

 

Brady: I am docked 45 minutes pay for taking a swing at a co-worker but not connecting.

 

Basically, is it worse to the company to have an employee walking around with a tie on, but not tied to corporate specs. Or, to have an employee that makes an attempt at injuring another employee. I think most employers would find the latter to be the greater offense.

 

 

If your job involved getting tackled and being physical for 60 minutes a week, then that's just a tad bit more understandable than assaulting a co-worker at a normal job. These guys are paid to do essentially that, so scuffles aren't uncommon in the least, hence why they only rend to nail to wall the most egregious offenses and offenders.

 

To compare it to a normal job is just not an apt analogy, for even more reasons besides violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your job involved getting tackled and being physical for 60 minutes a week, then that's just a tad bit more understandable than assaulting a co-worker at a normal job. These guys are paid to do essentially that, so scuffles aren't uncommon in the least, hence why they only rend to nail to wall the most egregious offenses and offenders.

 

To compare it to a normal job is just not an apt analogy, for even more reasons besides violence.

 

 

Like not pulling up your socks. An obviously more egregious offense than blatantly & intentionally going at another players knee with your cleat. Once again, you guys have got it all figured out. :okay:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like not pulling up your socks. An obviously more egregious offense than blatantly & intentionally going at another players knee with your cleat. Once again, you guys have got it all figured out. :okay:

 

 

I didn't say egregious offenders of uniform rules, I have to assume those are mandatory minimum, because frankly when they're paying players that much money, they're expected to look like professionals out there, and so they took steps against players just wearing what they want how they want (I have to assume anyway). Apples and oranges, different circumstances and thus penalties to curtail it.

 

On the other hand, as I said before the game is inherently violent, so they're only going hard after the hits that really stand to put others' careers in jeopardy. There is also a mandatory minimum of $30,000 I believe for certain illegal hits.

 

To be clear, I think Brady's slide looked dirty, and it obviously was dirty enough to draw a fine, but why it might have been so low is that he pretty much missed. I mean, guys don't get fined at all for missing on a helmet-to-helmet hit, so perhaps that's why his was so low... Also, of course quarterbacks with a history of clean play are going to get the benefit of the doubt more than others, as unfair as that may be....

 

So in cases like this and Williams', I actually think the NFL is being somewhat tolerant of the violent nature of the game, but pressured into being strict (if not for their own consciences sake) to be tougher on the things that are getting player's seriously injured, like helmet-to-helmet hits, guys like Suh twisting facemasks, and... umm nevermind....

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

An easy way to look at it is that penalties do not necessarily have to fit the crime. This is not a court of law. They're meant to deter offenses not to be punitive in most cases, so they're set at whatever level they think is appropriate to deter a certain behavior. One can't come to any other conclusion for why the penalty is so steep for uniform infractions.

 

However there are certain parts of the game that they're not going to deter without going too far with the penalties, and if it doesn't seriously jeopardize someone's career, then well, it's them putting their bodies through the abuse volluntarily, so why go overboard penalizing something you can't prevent and is a part of the game?

Edited by delusions of grandeur
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DoG, you do realize that you are now arguing from what you and a few others here have perceived to be my side of the fence?

 

 

Please elaborate.

 

My position is that it's not inconsistent for them to only go hard after the most egregious offenses/offenders and the insubordinate(in this case those blatantly disregarding their stated uniform standards, and that penalty is still only 1/3 of the minimum penalty for certain hits that might not even be intentional, but are nonetheless dangerous), while merely slapping the wrist of the less egregious... Whereas your position seems to be that the NFL is a bunch of inconsistent dicks who have no good reasoning for how they levy penalties.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ALL you've done in every one of these threads is harp on about some supposed double-standard.

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

Pass,

 

As Det posted earlier, either you get it or you don't. I'm not wasting any more of my time trying to elaborate when I know that you still won't get it..

 

No I don't get it, because as usual you're argument seems to morph to what ever crap you can get to stick on the walls regarding the NFL somehow being unfair, unconcerned, hypocritical, etc, etc, so don't go acting like you don't have an axe to grind and you're just misunderstood. We all get it...

 

Is it that the NFL isn't actually serious about player safety? Because they're levying big mandatory fines and even suspensions for plays and actions that can seriously injure someone. Brady's miss at Reed's nuts and Williams pushing a guy in the face wouldn't be the first place I'd go to help deter serious injuries, when neither stood to cause a serious injury, but nonetheless they still drew fines big enough to hopefully make them think twice.

 

Is it that they're inconsistent? Because I think they've been relatively consistent in where the line is drawn.

 

And I'm not even going to address the uniform fines again, because as I said, it's comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't matter if it's an innocent mistake, if I show up to work in inappropriate clothes, it's likely to cost me more than just a small % of my salary, so boo-freaking-hoo for Gore.

Edited by delusions of grandeur
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