Intentional or not?

[buddahj]

The kick was definitely intentional...that it connected with Schaub's groin was just a lucky coincidence for Suh.

 

this

OK, just looked at it again, missed that he could tell the ball had been thrown...still think the kick was intentional to some degree, but don't think he was jewel hunting.

 

and this

[tazinib1]

I will never defend Suh. The guy is dirty, plain and simple. But we've had these types of players throughout the history of the NFL. Its just magnified beyond anything we've ever seen before. Yep he's a dirty player...the next thing I wanna see are GoPro's on linemens helmets so we can REALLY see what goes on during a dog pile.

[delusions of grandeur]

Why am I not surprised that three of the same people who gave me such a hard time with the Saints bounty stuff are here defending Suh?

 

Defending Suh? Who and where?

 

I made the case that he should get nailed to the wall just the same as the Saints, because his "it was an accident" schtick is no longer believable, and further, that intent doesn't matter so much as not taking heed to the repeated warnings to not do crap like this.

 

You lose the benefit of the doubt when you continue with insubordiation and making no effort to abide by the rules.

[rajncajn]

Defending Suh? Who and where?

 

I made the case that he should get nailed to the wall just the same as the Saints, because his "it was an accident" schtick is no longer believable, and further, that intent doesn't matter so much as not taking heed to the repeated warnings to not do crap like this.

 

You lose the benefit of the doubt when you continue with insubordiation and making no effort to abide by the rules.

 

 

I'm sorry, you're right, let me rephrase...

 

Why am I not surprised that three of the same people who gave me such a hard time with the Saints bounty stuff are here, one openly defending Suh and the other two taking pot shots at me?

Edited November 28, 2012 by rajncajn

[delusions of grandeur]

I'm sorry, you're right, let me rephrase...

 

Why am I not surprised that three of the same people who gave me such a hard time with the Saints bounty stuff are here, one openly defending Suh and the other two taking pot shots at me?

 

 

Honestly man, I'm confused what you're even arguing. In one breath you seem to roll your eyes at Goodell about not determining intent, and the in a later post asking how you can suspend someone without being able to tell intent? So what exactly is your position, before I make my rebuttal.

 

My apologies if I incorrectly assumed this was another one of your Goodell witchhunts. It sure sounded like it, but if we agree that it was a dirty play (or at least enough indication to assume it was) from a dirty player, then we have nothing to argue about.

 

My point is that in both cases, the past insubordination seems just as likely to lose them the benefit of the doubt.

Edited November 28, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[rajncajn]

Honestly man, I'm confused what you're even arguing. In one breath you seem to roll your eyes at Goodell about not determining intent, and the in a later post asking how you can suspend someone without being able to tell intent? So what exactly is your position, before I make my rebuttal.

 

 

It's a double-standard. They're saying they can't suspend him because they can't judge that he intended to kick him but they are going to fine him anyway... on what basis? How can the NFL justify fining somebody who they've just said they can't judge that he's done anything wrong? I've already made it definitively clear that I thought it was intentional and that I thought he should be suspended. There's nothing confusing about that.

 

My apologies if I incorrectly assumed this was another one of your Goodell witchhunts. It sure sounded like it, but if we agree that it was a dirty play (or at least enough indication to assume it was) from a dirty player, then we have nothing to argue about.

 

 

So, should I expect this continued kickback and having the Saints bounty issue thrown in my face from you three every time I have an opinion on a case where I believe the NFL is not being consistent or fair with their punishment process whether it is a fair argument or not? If so, knowing in advance would be greatly appreciated.

Edited November 28, 2012 by rajncajn

[delusions of grandeur]

It's a double-standard. They're saying they can't suspend him because they can't judge that he intended to kick him but they are going to fine him anyway... on what basis? How can the NFL justify fining somebody who they've just said they can't judge that he's done anything wrong? I've already made it definitively clear that I thought it was intentional and that I thought he should be suspended. There's nothing confusing about that.

 

 

 

So, should I expect this continued kickback and having the Saints bounty issue thrown in my face from you three every time I have an opinion on a case where I believe the NFL is not being consistent or fair with their punishment process whether it is a fair argument or not? If so, knowing in advance would be greatly appreciated.

 

Players get fined all the time for illegal hits that are bang-bang plays and not necessarily intentional. At least one of Dunta's hits comes to mind. In fact, there is actually a minimum baseline for fining certain hits, without regard to being intentional. There is no double standard here.

 

Suspensions however, seem to be another matter of particularly egregious incidents that warrant excessive punishment.... So it stands to reason that if there's any doubt that the play was intentional, it would not be fair to suspend them for it... However, again that doesn't preculde fines, which can happen without determining intent, because the NFL simply cannot turn a blind eye. The likely made minimum mandatory fines for jsut this reason, to say "we don't care if you meant to, you need to make an effort not to, or you'll be fined". No double standard.

 

Unless of course you're trying to say that this is a double-standard to the way they handled the Saints matter, in which case no, as long as you';re going to go on your crusade against Goodell, then I'm going to point out that it's likely due to bitterness, rather than NFL rules that have been remarkably consistent.

 

Rule #1: Don't perform illegal hits or you'll get fined, maybe suspended if they can tell it was intentional.

 

Rule #2: When you're told to stop and you continue to ignore warnings and go about your business the same way, then don't expect to get the benefit of the doubt when you get caught again.

 

Perhaps we wouldn't keep bringing this back to the bounty deal if you weren't so clearly hell-bent on discrediting Goodell. It's as if when you see one of these reports you just start hunting for any little gotcha attempt you can find, and it's gotten old for a while now.

Edited November 28, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[rajncajn]

Players get fined all the time for illegal hits that are bang-bang plays and not necessarily intentional. At least one of Dunta's hits comes to mind. In fact, there is actually a minimum baseline for fining certain hits, without regard to being intentional. There is no double standard here.

 

Suspensions however, seem to be another matter of particularly egregious incidents that warrant excessive punishment.... So it stands to reason that if there's any doubt that the play was intentional, it would not be fair to suspend them for it... However, again that doesn't preculde fines, which can happen without determining intent, because the NFL simply cannot turn a blind eye. The likely made minimum mandatory fines for jsut this reason, to say "we don't care if you meant to, you need to make an effort not to, or you'll be fined". No double standard.

 

They get fined for what are deemed as illegal hits as defined by the guidelines laid out in the NFL rulebook, not for their foot accidentally hitting someone in the junk.

 

Unless of course you're trying to say that this is a double-standard to the way they handled the Saints matter, in which case no, as long as you';re going to go on your crusade against Goodell, then I'm going to point out that it's likely due to bitterness, rather than NFL rules that have been remarkably consistent.

 

Rule #1: Don't perform illegal hits or you'll get fined, maybe suspended if they can tell it was intentional.

 

Rule #2: When you're told to stop and you continue to ignore warnings and go about your business the same way, then don't expect to get the benefit of the doubt when you get caught again.

 

Perhaps we wouldn't keep bringing this back to the bounty deal if you weren't so clearly hell-bent on discrediting Goodell.

 

I'll take this as a yes. TIA

[delusions of grandeur]

They get fined for what are deemed as illegal hits as defined by the guidelines laid out in the NFL rulebook, not for their foot accidentally hitting someone in the junk.

 

 

I'll take this as a yes. TIA

 

Really, where in rule book is it deemed that kicking someone in the nuts is a legal hit? Where was it determined that there was no intent, only an accident? These matters are judgement calls, not some due process qualifications.

 

The kick looked pretty intentional (it appears he pulled his foot back to get a second kick in), but they would need clearer intent for a suspension to not be appealed, so they just fined him.

 

Wow, the outrage and double-standard against this poor guy who's never had a history of stomping people, ripping off helmets and other various violent and aggressive tendencies.

 

I'll take this as a yes. TIA

 

 

So I'll take it as a yes that you're going to continue on your crusade to uncover the evil intentions of Roger Goodell to fine dirty players and give it to charity! Keep up that good fight then

[rajncajn]

Really, where in rule book is it deemed that kicking someone in the nuts is a legal hit? Where was it determined that there was no intent, only an accident? These matters are judgement calls, not some due process qualifications.

 

The kick looked pretty intentional (it appears he pulled his foot back to get a second kick in), but they would need clearer intent for a suspension to not be appealed, so they just fined him.

 

Wow, the outrage and double-standard against this poor guy who's never had a history of stomping people, ripping off helmets and other various violent and aggressive tendencies.

 

So I'll take it as a yes that you're going to continue on your crusade to uncover the evil intentions of Roger Goodell to fine dirty players and give it to charity! Keep up that good fight then

 

 

THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT. There's NOTHING in the rulebook specifically defining your foot hitting someone in the groin as an illegal hit. Therefore intent SHOULD be used as the determination of a fine and/or suspension. Hell, otherwise they'd be fining players left & right for all kinds of incidental contact. On the contrary, there ARE rules that specifically spell out and define the illegality of helmet-to-helmet hits, hits to the quarterback's head/neck area and hits on defenseless receivers, horse collar tackles, face masks, to which players are fined and/or suspended regardless of determined intent.

Edited November 28, 2012 by rajncajn

[Chaster]

Should be suspended indefinitely. How many second chances for that dude.

[stevegrab]

Why am I not surprised that three of the same people who gave me such a hard time with the Saints bounty stuff are here defending Suh?

 

 

Just like you repeatedly told us you were not defending the Saints, I will repeat I am not defending Suh. He is getting judged more based on prior actions than what he actually did to Schaub. And I think that is unfair. I'm not sure why you and others don't agree.

 

I took a poke at your Free SeanP thing because I think it is silly, he isn't imprisoned anywhere and suffering some terrible injustice (at least in my opinion).

 

If you're labeling me as openly defending Suh, maybe you can now see how many of us considered your posts here to be defending the Saints.

 

As far as the Saints bounty gate and you having that thrown in your face, well you really haven't let it go and continue to have a hard on for Goodell along with your lovely avatar.

[Ed Hoyle]

It's the part where, after his foot hits Schaub in the balls, he bends his knee and then thrusts his cleats back into Schaub's junk.

 

ETA, in fact, Schaub barely reacts to the first kick. It's not until the second one where he doubles over.

 

But seriously, who the hell kicks a dude in the junk? Some woman being attacked? Sure, have at it. But a grown man? That's some pussily-assed chight right there.

 

 

On the field it is not warranted, but in a bar fight chives yes...kick in the balls, gauge eyes, stomp on a knee...it is all legal. You do not fight to make friends you immobilize the sSOB in your face until he cannot move or you are unable to move.

[skylive5]

There is no doubt that Suh is a dirty player. The proof is when he says things like "I just play as hard as I can."

 

Eventually an opposing offensive lineman will take out a knee and end his career. Cheapshot over the top players like him always get a cheapshot themselves eventually.

 

Reading what the guidelines are for fines I was very surprised at the amount of this fine. Well deserved, but surprising anyway.

[delusions of grandeur]

THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT. There's NOTHING in the rulebook specifically defining your foot hitting someone in the groin as an illegal hit. Therefore intent SHOULD be used as the determination of a fine and/or suspension. Hell, otherwise they'd be fining players left & right for all kinds of incidental contact. On the contrary, there ARE rules that specifically spell out and define the illegality of helmet-to-helmet hits, hits to the quarterback's head/neck area and hits on defenseless receivers, horse collar tackles, face masks, to which players are fined and/or suspended regardless of determined intent.

 

Here, I posted it in super slo-mo. Watch this and tell me if you think this wasn't intentional: http://postimage.org/image/e153oyis9/

 

I know you don't like Goodell's discretion, but if it was clear-cut incidental contact, then he wouldn't have ruled on it and we wouldn't be discussing this right now (where nearly everybody thinks it was intentional).

 

Key word, think, because yes, to warrant a suspension you would need to determine intent beyond a reasonable doubt (such as the case of Suh stomping on a guy)... However, Goodell is given this kind of discretion, so if he thinks, as most people think that it looked intentional (which it did, the foot is swinging, but right after it touches Scaub's arm, he rears it back a little and changes direction to get a real stomp in there), then he uses that discretion to fine him on what is heavily suspected he did, even though it's difficult to prove.

Edited November 28, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[skylive5]

Just like you repeatedly told us you were not defending the Saints, I will repeat I am not defending Suh. He is getting judged more based on prior actions than what he actually did to Schaub. And I think that is unfair. I'm not sure why you and others don't agree.

 

 

 

Might be because you are in the wrong.

[stevegrab]

Might be because you are in the wrong.

 

 

With all due respect, it could just be that I have a different opinion and judge things on what I see not on prior actions. If this had been anybody other than Suh most people wouldn't think it was intentional.

[stevegrab]

Here, I posted it in super slo-mo. Watch this and tell me if you think this wasn't intentional: https://picasaweb.go...001309181935170

 

I know you don't like Goodell's discretion, but if it was clear-cut incidental contact, then he wouldn't have ruled on it and we wouldn't be discussing this right now (where nearly everybody thinks it was intentional).

 

Key word, think, because yes, to warrant a suspension you would need to determine intent beyond a reasonable doubt (such as the case of Suh stomping on a guy)... However, Goodell is given this kind of discretion, so if he thinks, as most people think that it looked intentional (which it did, the foot is swinging, but right after it touches Scaub's arm, he rears it back a little and changes direction to get a real stomp in there), then he uses that discretion to fine him on what is heavily suspected he did, even though it's difficult to prove.

 

 

FYI Your link didn't work for me, it says "Sorry page cannot be found"

[detlef]

On the field it is not warranted, but in a bar fight chives yes...kick in the balls, gauge eyes, stomp on a knee...it is all legal. You do not fight to make friends you immobilize the sSOB in your face until he cannot move or you are unable to move.

 

Yep, you're right. I do not fight.

[skylive5]

With all due respect, it could just be that I have a different opinion and judge things on what I see not on prior actions. If this had been anybody other than Suh most people wouldn't think it was intentional.

 

 

I disagree. Everyone sitting in my livingroom watched it as it happened and every one of them thought that it was intentional. And a couple didn't know it was Suh until his name was said by the announcers. A couple even crossed their legs and hunched over a bit as if to protect themselves.

 

But you are right on one thing..... you are intitled to you opinion. As is everyone.

[delusions of grandeur]

FYI Your link didn't work for me, it says "Sorry page cannot be found"

 

 

Fixed above. Try this one: http://postimage.org/image/e153oyis9/

[rajncajn]

 

 

Might be because you are in the wrong.

 

unpossible

[skylive5]

unpossible

 

 

I know....but I thought .... what the heck, give it a shot.

[delusions of grandeur]

Fixed above. Try this one: http://postimage.org/image/e153oyis9/

 

 

Rajn? Steve? Either one of you still want to make the case that this was clearly incidental?

[rajncajn]

 

 

Rajn? Steve? Either one of you still want to make the case that this was clearly incidental?

 

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.