Tom Brady's "slide"

[Big John]

Looks like Butt Chin will be fined $10k for his "slide".

 

Only $500 less than he would have been given for wearing his socks too low, via Frank Gore.

[rajncajn]

Only $500 less than he would have been given for wearing his socks too low, via Frank Gore.

 

 

It's all about player safety.

[Papajohn]

Whether or not Tom Brady did something wrong all depends on if the Patriots had a pay-for-performance program in place or not. If they did then he did nothing wrong and if they didn't then he what he did was wrong.

 

I am now officially a follower of Rajn's school of thoughts

[rajncajn]

I can't even post something in defense of Gore/Brady without people who have no idea what they are talking about posting crap about me.

 

Edited to take out the name-calling. Don't know if you were trying to be funny or not, though it was a poor attempt if you were. But for that I apologize.

 

And for the record, I am not really defending Brady either, just pointing out the ridiculousness and disproportionate way the NFL doles out fines.

Edited January 24, 2013 by rajncajn

[rajncajn]

Brady's slide - $10,000

Trent Williams punch - $7,875

Frank Gore's socks - $10,500

 

All first offenses.

 

In this day where the NFl is preaching so hard about player safety being the utmost priority, what message does that send?

[Savage Beatings]

Brady's slide - $10,000

Trent Williams punch - $7,875

Frank Gore's socks - $10,500

 

All first offenses.

 

In this day where the NFl is preaching so hard about player safety being the utmost priority, what message does that send?

 

 

The message is: fashion and branding make us a lot of money, so don't F with it. Oh, and we really care about player safety (when people are paying attention).

[stevegrab]

Brady's slide - $10,000

Trent Williams punch - $7,875

Frank Gore's socks - $10,500

 

All first offenses.

 

In this day where the NFl is preaching so hard about player safety being the utmost priority, what message does that send?

 

 

I'd say the message is don't break the rules or you'll be punished. Whether the rule relates to player safety, dress code, etc.

 

Still surprised that Brady got fined, maybe the NFL was catching wind of the backlash there would be if he wasn't. Because it seemed obvious that he was trying to cleat Reed with that move. I guess even the golden boy can get in trouble.

[rajncajn]

I'd say the message is don't break the rules or you'll be punished. Whether the rule relates to player safety, dress code, etc.

 

Still surprised that Brady got fined, maybe the NFL was catching wind of the backlash there would be if he wasn't. Because it seemed obvious that he was trying to cleat Reed with that move. I guess even the golden boy can get in trouble.

 

 

So if Trent Richardson was fined $11,000 in a game for wearing his cap the wrong way and Trent Williams was fined $8,000 in the same game for punching Richardson in the face then you're saying that you'd be ok with that?

[delusions of grandeur]

So if Trent Richardson was fined $11,000 in a game for wearing his cap the wrong way and Trent Williams was fined $8,000 in the same game for punching Richardson in the face then you're saying that you'd be ok with that?

 

Oh give me a break, he pushed his face, not even punched, all after a heated football game. Yes they're concerned about player safety, but football's still an inherently violent sport where things get heated, so no, I don't think a little post-game scuffle where no one was even close to being seriously injured would be on the top of my list of priorities.

 

Yes the uniform fines are a bit steep, but they also have many other prerogatives besides enforcing player safety, one of which is to protect their brand name. Hell players get fined and disciplined for what they do off the field, in many cases for more than they do injuries, so yes, the NFL has mroe to worry about and enforce than player safety. Sorry that bothers you (or rather anything that Goodell does), but it's not really a double standard whatsoever.

[delusions of grandeur]

Now where there's a double standard is how a prominent QB like Brady gets more of the benefit of the doubt and a slap on the wrist, but I can't say that's terribly surprising or outrageous, especially given his 10 years with no history of misconduct.

[nelsosi]

I love that Gore got fined more for wearing low socks than Brady did for his slide.

[rajncajn]

Oh give me a break, he pushed his face, not even punched, all after a heated football game. Yes they're concerned about player safety, but football's still an inherently violent sport where things get heated, so no, I don't think a little post-game scuffle where no one was even close to being seriously injured would be on the top of my list of priorities.

 

Yes the uniform fines are a bit steep, but they also have many other prerogatives besides enforcing player safety, one of which is to protect their brand name. Hell players get fined and disciplined for what they do off the field, in many cases for more than they do injuries, so yes, the NFL has mroe to worry about and enforce than player safety. Sorry that bothers you (or rather anything that Goodell does), but it's not really a double standard whatsoever.

 

 

Oh give me a break, he wore his socks too low.

 

The question isn't whether or not a fine is warranted, it's what message are they sending with the amounts of the fines. It may or may not be their intent, but damn, with all the litigation they are facing you would think they would be a little smarter about projecting this image that they've been portraying that their biggest priority is player safety rather than just protecting the brand.

 

How about you answer the question. If Jonathan Vilma "pushed" Julio Jones in the face in a game & got an $8,000 fine while Julio got an $11,000 fine for wearing his socks too low would you be ok with that? Would you consider that fair? How do you think most Falcons fans would react to that news? Do you think that would project an image that the NFL's number one priority is player safety?

Edited January 24, 2013 by rajncajn

[rajncajn]

(or rather anything that Goodell does)

 

 

One other thing... Do yourself a favor and do a search for "Goodell" quotes from me specifically and see how often I have had disparaging remarks about the commissioner. I have made it a point to put the majority of my ire on "the League" rather than Goodell himself because i believe that he thinks that he has acted in the best interest of "the League" and apparently the majority of the owners support his actions. While I do think that he went overboard in his punishments, that he was led to jump to rash decisions by a shoddy investigation and allowed his emotions to influence his punishment, I am not gullible enough to believe that he is anything more than a glorified figurehead for the intentions of the League owners. So please, spare me and everyone else this hogwash that I will do anything that I can to discredit Roger Goodell.

Edited January 24, 2013 by rajncajn

[stevegrab]

One other thing... Do yourself a favor and do a search for "Goodell" quotes from me specifically and see how often I have had disparaging remarks about the commissioner. I have made it a point to put the majority of my ire on "the League" rather than Goodell himself because i believe that he thinks that he has acted in the best interest of "the League" and apparently the majority of the owners support his actions. While I do think that he went overboard in his punishments, that he was led to jump to rash decisions by a shoddy investigation and allowed his emotions to influence his punishment, I am not gullible enough to believe that he is anything more than a glorified figurehead for the intentions of the League owners. So please, spare me and everyone else this hogwash that I will do anything that I can to discredit Roger Goodell.

 

 

Now you don't have a beef with Goodell, really?

 

As to the fines, are they possibly out of whack, I suppose. But I'm not going to be outraged over it and act like the fines are trying to make some statement about what issues are more or less important.

 

Somebody said this was Gore's first offense, do we know that for a fact? Because I know the NFL has a scale for fines that goes up when you are a repeat offender.

 

The other thing to consider here between uniform violations and something like a cheap shot on the field, one is probably considered to be a planned activity knowing you are breaking the rules (uniform standards) the other is a heat of the moment emotional response. So maybe the fines are stiffer on the uniform violations because the NFL considers it to be willful disregard of the rules. (Similar to the Saints swearing they'd stop their pay for performance program, and then continuing to do it.)

 

Sorry but most of us will have a hard time taking you at your word on these issues. We all know you're pissed at the NFL and Goodell. Your avatar and signature are proof of that. As are your comments hear in the past.

[rajncajn]

Now you don't have a beef with Goodell, really?

 

As to the fines, are they possibly out of whack, I suppose. But I'm not going to be outraged over it and act like the fines are trying to make some statement about what issues are more or less important.

 

Somebody said this was Gore's first offense, do we know that for a fact? Because I know the NFL has a scale for fines that goes up when you are a repeat offender.

 

The other thing to consider here between uniform violations and something like a cheap shot on the field, one is probably considered to be a planned activity knowing you are breaking the rules (uniform standards) the other is a heat of the moment emotional response. So maybe the fines are stiffer on the uniform violations because the NFL considers it to be willful disregard of the rules. (Similar to the Saints swearing they'd stop their pay for performance program, and then continuing to do it.)

 

Sorry but most of us will have a hard time taking you at your word on these issues. We all know you're pissed at the NFL and Goodell. Your avatar and signature are proof of that. As are your comments hear in the past.

 

 

Gore had his socks pushed down, he probably did it sitting on the sidelines and just forgot to pull them back up before going back out on the field. It wasn't like he was trying to make some statement by wearing some non-league approved apparel. I seriously doubt there was any "willful disregard of the rules" by having them pushed down.

 

As for Goodell, yes, I fully admit that I am unhappy with the way he handled the case with the Saints, but again, I don't rest that ire solely on him, nor am I looking for any opportunity to discredit him. In fact, I didn't even mention him in this thread until DoG accused me of such. I don't even know if Goodell had anything to do with these fines, nor do I care.

Edited January 24, 2013 by rajncajn

[Papajohn]

Brady didn't injury anybody, even though he intended to, then he shouldn't be punished...........assuming a pay-for-performance program was in fact in place.

[rajncajn]

Brady didn't injury anybody, even though he intended to, then he shouldn't be punished...........assuming a pay-for-performance program was in fact in place.

 

 

You're pure class.

[detlef]

I'd say the message is don't break the rules or you'll be punished. Whether the rule relates to player safety, dress code, etc.

 

Still surprised that Brady got fined, maybe the NFL was catching wind of the backlash there would be if he wasn't. Because it seemed obvious that he was trying to cleat Reed with that move. I guess even the golden boy can get in trouble.

 

What BS. You can only say something like that because it doesn't affect you. How would you feel if the DMV punished you more for making a simple mistake with regards to how you renewed your registration than it did for a very serious moving violation?

 

As someone sharing the road with other drivers, do you feel it is more important that everyone has dotted all their "i"s and crossed all their "t"s? Or would you prefer that we take care of those doing 95 in a 35 zone?

 

This is exactly the same thing. Frank Gore basically forgot to fill in one of the lines on his registration renewal and Tom Brady committed a moving violation. (maybe not 95 in a 35, but still a moving violation).

[stevegrab]

What BS. You can only say something like that because it doesn't affect you. How would you feel if the DMV punished you more for making a simple mistake with regards to how you renewed your registration than it did for a very serious moving violation?

 

As someone sharing the road with other drivers, do you feel it is more important that everyone has dotted all their "i"s and crossed all their "t"s? Or would you prefer that we take care of those doing 95 in a 35 zone?

 

This is exactly the same thing. Frank Gore basically forgot to fill in one of the lines on his registration renewal and Tom Brady committed a moving violation. (maybe not 95 in a 35, but still a moving violation).

 

 

I'll pass on getting into another 10 page debate with you thanks. So feel free to have the last word after this...

 

And your analogy is off, the DMV (at least here in OH) doesn't punish me for anything. And Brady's leg whip or the Williams shove are hardly on order of 95 in a 35. But hey, exaggerate away.

 

If you'd say "what if the fine for driving with invalid registration, or missing plates, mirrors or other required equipment were the same as a moving violation" you might be close. And personally I'd expect those fines to be pretty close in the first place. Most of those fines are not huge, just like these $10,000 fines to players making millions isn't.

 

rajn (and others) appears to think the message the NFL is sending is

trying to injure another player isn't as bad as wearing your socks too low (because Gore's fine was the highest of those 3)

 

Seriously I don't understand all the outrage over the Gore fine. Or how people think it means the NFL doesn't care about safety. It reminds of how people say "why are they bothering to arrest people for minor offenses when there are 'real crimes' being committed".

[rajncajn]

rajn (and others) appears to think the message the NFL is sending is

trying to injure another player isn't as bad as wearing your socks too low (because Gore's fine was the highest of those 3)

 

Seriously I don't understand all the outrage over the Gore fine. Or how people think it means the NFL doesn't care about safety. It reminds of how people say "why are they bothering to arrest people for minor offenses when there are 'real crimes' being committed".

 

 

Hello? There is no outrage over Gore being fined. He broke the rules, he should be fined. It's a stupid rule, mind you, but that makes no difference.

 

Really simple here:

 

I do something wrong and get 5 years in prison, you do something wrong and get 6 years in prison. Who committed the worst offense, me or you?

 

Do you get that?

[TripleW64]

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.

[rajncajn]

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.

 

 

Only the company is also facing litigation over ignoring, even cultivating violence in the workplace in the past and has publicly said that it is now doing everything in it's power to prevent it.

Edited January 24, 2013 by rajncajn

[Delicious_bass]

Not to absolve Brady of any guilt for what certainly appeared to be a cheap shot (or attempt at one, anyway) but its not like there hasnt been many safeties that have taken advantage of hitting (sometimes within the rules, sometimes not) offensive players when they are most vulnerable. Watch any game these days and you will see guys from the secondary (particularly, safeties) launch themselves like missles at players that are (for all intents and purposes) already stopped/down. If the officials are not going to call more of that stuff at the end of plays, I think you'll see more offensive players look for ways (sometimes within the rules, sometimes not) to try to deter that.

 

[ChrisRock]"I'm not saying its right...but I understand."[/ChrisRock]

[stevegrab]

Hello? There is no outrage over Gore being fined. He broke the rules, he should be fined. It's a stupid rule, mind you, but that makes no difference.

 

Really simple here:

 

I do something wrong and get 5 years in prison, you do something wrong and get 6 years in prison. Who committed the worst offense, me or you?

 

Do you get that?

 

Well maybe no outrage here (or from you) but I've been reading in other places "stupid rule" and knocks about how this shows they don't care about player safety, or care less than they do about uniforms.

 

As far as your hypothetical, without knowing any other facts I'd say I committed the worse offene because of the higher sentence. But I also know that in that case (and possibly in the case of the NFL fines) there is more to it than that. That is why I answered your "what message does this send" the way I did, because the message I get is what I said. You're interpreting all this as something else, and I believe your angst with the NFL is contributing to that.

 

The fines may be out of whack, but I don't think the NFL message is "uniform violations are worse than cheap shots".

 

capiche?

[detlef]

I'll pass on getting into another 10 page debate with you thanks. So feel free to have the last word after this...

 

And your analogy is off, the DMV (at least here in OH) doesn't punish me for anything. And Brady's leg whip or the Williams shove are hardly on order of 95 in a 35. But hey, exaggerate away.

 

If you'd say "what if the fine for driving with invalid registration, or missing plates, mirrors or other required equipment were the same as a moving violation" you might be close. And personally I'd expect those fines to be pretty close in the first place. Most of those fines are not huge, just like these $10,000 fines to players making millions isn't.

 

rajn (and others) appears to think the message the NFL is sending is

trying to injure another player isn't as bad as wearing your socks too low (because Gore's fine was the highest of those 3)

 

Seriously I don't understand all the outrage over the Gore fine. Or how people think it means the NFL doesn't care about safety. It reminds of how people say "why are they bothering to arrest people for minor offenses when there are 'real crimes' being committed".

 

First off, I specifically said that Brady's deal would not compare to a moving violation as bad as going 95 in a 35. So it is actually you exagerating in a feeble attempt to marginalize my argument.

 

However, while we're on the topic of poor comparisons, how 'bout comparing this to people saying "why are they going after minor criminals when there's worse things being done." Um, in this case, they're actually going after both those wearing their socks too low and those committing the NFL equivalent of "moving violations". So, it's not an either/or situation. It's just a matter of how bad the punishment is.

 

Whatever. Either you get it or you don't.