[quote]apayne wrote:
People’s heads get stomped all the time on purpose in rugby, it’s called a ruck.
.[/quote]
thats true for sure, but in rugby thats part of the game, and most players know to cover their heads when the pack is ruckin over them. its almost expected to be cleated. This guy on dallas had no idea he was gonna get stomped on after his helmet came off.
[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
PGJ wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
Why the fuck doesn’t the players association give a rats ass about the guy who got his face stepped on?
Because it’s a Union, and like all unions, they will go to the mat to protect their accused/punished members regardless of the issue or crime. It is interesting that the union hasn’t mentioned anything about protecting the victim, who is a fellow dues-paying union member.
Prior to my moving to the management side 4+ years ago, I was the local union president. There is no way in hell my Executive Board would have appealed this guys punishment.
The idea of unions is to ensure that everyone is treated equally, not to get members out of trouble they caused. I can’t believe the players association would want to set a precedent like this. Especially considering that the victim is also a member.
Unreal.
[/quote]
Holy cow, union president to management? Anyone slash your tires or throw bricks through your windows? No offense, but I don’t care for unions. But that’s a different thread.
Anyway, it’s unreal but the players union is more concerned with the penalty imposed on the offender than the welfare of the victim or the game.
This just in-----
The NFL Players Association has decided NOT to appeal the 5 game suspension.
How gracious of them. Still no comment on the victim.
I have put the boot to many people and had the boot put to me more than a few times.
I think this case is overblown.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
I very much disagree, with all due respect. While criminal law is not my specialty (I do aerospace contracts), this kind of case does stick out in my head from law school and discussions with colleagues.
Yes, there is a certain amount of accepted risk inherent in sports and it varies by sport. What is acceptable in the context of a golf match is not on par with a boxing match.
However, there is a well-grounded area within the law of situations where an act goes outside the bounds of what is part of the accepted risk of the sport. Chop blocks and such, while dirty, are still a block as part of the game and if you do it, 15 yard penalty (at the very least). There is absolutely ZERO football reason for the removal of the helmet of a prone player and stomping on his exposed face. None. So in that situation, it really does not border on criminal… it is (as Irish said) criminal.
In terms of sheer numbers of these cases? Geez, that would be quite a search on Lexis or Westlaw. You would have to look this up in all 50 states and then look to which way those courts ruled. It would not be a short project… but if you want to pay me $300/hour to do so, I would be delighted to take on this project for you! :)[/quote]
Since you are a lawyer and I just play one on TV, I will defer to you here.
But I didn’t mean things like chop blocks when I said “cheap shots”. I was talking more about stuff like eye gouging in dog piles, blatently late hits, attempting to take out another player’s knees, things of that sort.
These actions, unlike chop blocks and the like, are potentially injurous and serve no purpose in the game except to intimidate the opponent. They do occur fairly often and are not often prosecuted (whether or not the courts would rule in favor of the defendants is another matter). Haynesworth’s’ stomp seems to be closely related to these types of actions.
I would be interested in the case search to see if there’s strong precendent in either direction… but not for $300/hr! (Unless you are the world’s most efficient attorney! 
)
For the record, I honestly do not agree with what I originally wrote either. If I were Gurode, you bet your ass I would be filing charges against Haynesworth.
Again, the main purpose of my post was to illustrate that there is, IMO, an argument against the criminality of these actions. I don’t agree with it, but I still think it exists.
However, if someone actually did the case search and found that the only reason these aren’t prosecuted is because the victims don’t press charges, then the argument, again IMO, just took a serious blow.
I dont think this case was overblown. How can you say that this is in line with cheap shots? If a guy is in the game and hits someone at the knees you cant necessarily say it was intentional b/c there are always circumstances.
WTF would be the mistake here? I see you have some grass stuck in your helmet, let me clean that off for you. Oh no! I am so clumsy and cant stand upright! In order to regain my footing i must step on your head. Oh wow, im still falling, must do again!
This is retarded this-Haynesworth should be out. I see a very distinct line in regards to actions during a game that may be criminal and this is definitly battery. I hope the other guy presses some serious charges… i know i would.
Haynesworth has a history of losing his cool and doing overly violent things in football dating back to his college days at the University of Tennessee. I’m sure some Volunteer fans can chime in on this one.
[quote]spartanpower wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I agree with you to some extent, it was a disgusting thing to do, they should suspend him for the rest of the season, but not kick him out of the game.
What’s worse, though, is the cut-blocking crap lines like Denver’s use, which blows out knees and cripples guys. They should suspend someone for the season for that stuff, which often happens with barely a whisper about how dirty it is.
Cut blocking is a part of the game. Chop blocking (cutting someone from behind) is fucking dirty. Either way, defensive players have to be protecting their legs at all times.[/quote]
Yeah, I was referring to chop blocking, I realize regular straight ahead cut-blocking is all well and good (especially for tiny RBs in pass protection).
But that cutting from the side and behind shit that Denver does, sometimes with guys in tandem, is fucking dirty, and more of a big deal that Haynesworth’s stomp.
[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
Haynesworth has a history of losing his cool and doing overly violent things in football dating back to his college days at the University of Tennessee. I’m sure some Volunteer fans can chime in on this one.[/quote]
Yeah, from what I remember, he got in an on-field fight with an O-lineman during practice(not an uncommon occurance at all for a D-Lineman), but then left practice and came back with a metal pole looking for said O-lineman (fairly uncommon).
His draft status dropped as well due to “immaturity concerns”… go figure.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Since you are a lawyer and I just play one on TV, I will defer to you here.
But I didn’t mean things like chop blocks when I said “cheap shots”. I was talking more about stuff like eye gouging in dog piles, blatently late hits, attempting to take out another player’s knees, things of that sort.
These actions, unlike chop blocks and the like, are potentially injurous and serve no purpose in the game except to intimidate the opponent. They do occur fairly often and are not often prosecuted (whether or not the courts would rule in favor of the defendants is another matter). Haynesworth’s’ stomp seems to be closely related to these types of actions.
I would be interested in the case search to see if there’s strong precendent in either direction… but not for $300/hr! (Unless you are the world’s most efficient attorney! )
For the record, I honestly do not agree with what I originally wrote either. If I were Gurode, you bet your ass I would be filing charges against Haynesworth.
Again, the main purpose of my post was to illustrate that there is, IMO, an argument against the criminality of these actions. I don’t agree with it, but I still think it exists.
However, if someone actually did the case search and found that the only reason these aren’t prosecuted is because the victims don’t press charges, then the argument, again IMO, just took a serious blow.[/quote]
You bring up an interesting point with the eye-gouging, late hits, etc. I think those situations would be a case-by-case review. What needs to be emphasized here is this particular kind of claim is VERY fact specific. The late hit might not rise to the level of a criminal/civil claim, but the eye gouging could.
I think in a lot of situations (and there will never be a way to do statistics on this kind of thing), the players get their own brand of justice on the field for someone playing dirty.
However, in Gurode’s situation, he was put out of the game, so it’s not like that was even an option anyway. I think if players feel like they can get back at them in the game, then they would be a lot less likely to press charges.
Either way, due to the macho nature of pro football, I think it’s pretty unlikely for Gurode to bring a case anyway (unless he suffers some kind of long-term damage that affects his ability to play football and earn a living).
I’m glad the NFLPA is deciding not to appeal. When I heard Gene Upshaw was considering it, I just about threw up in my mouth. At that point, they are basically saying that salaries are more important than the safety of their union members.
I wonder why the League or even the state of TN could’t press charges, regardless of what Gourda wants. It was an assault, in public with serious injury. I think the League should press charges for injuries to one of it’s players.
I know we have a lawyer in the audience, any legal precedence here?
My football coach in H/S was a former D-lineman for the Steelers. He was kicked out of the league.
When he played, the head slap was legal. What he did was took a steel bar and cut it to the size of his forearm. Then wrapped it to the inside of his forearm in bandages.
When he head slapped a lineman and split his helmet open… he was tossed out of the game and then the league.
Football is a violent sport. Some guys dont see where the line should be drawn. There’s no excuse for what Haynesworth did, but the punishment imho is sufficient.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
Holy cow, union president to management? Anyone slash your tires or throw bricks through your windows? No offense, but I don’t care for unions. But that’s a different thread.
[/quote]
No slashed tires. My organization’s Union is completely different than most unions. It’s non striking and relys on law suits and grievances.
Definately another thread though.
Umm… you think this is the first time that an NFL player has stomped another player while he was on the ground? You must not watch very closely. I mean, just this past college season there was the issue with Marcus Vick that got him suspended for a few games. The guy’s helmet just happened to come off this time. That doesn’t justify the action, I’m just saying that this isnt some ridiculous action compared to the rest of what goes on.
Getting 30 stiches on your face is not nearly as bad (career-wise) as what could happen if somebody cheap shots you in the back of the legs or spears you while you’re in a defenseless position.
There’s three sides to every story: one guy’s, the other guy’s and what actually happened. I’m guessing Gurode was playing dirty and Haynesworth snapped and went overboard. I doubt Haynesworth was trying to tell the ref that he didn’t do anything, I’m sure he was ranting about something Gurode was doing.
It would be nice to see him just man up and run Gurode over and sack the quarterback as retaliation, rather than resorting to cheap shots.
[quote]DNIC75 wrote:
Exactly. Hopefully, criminal charges will follow soon.
FightinIrish26 wrote:
It didn’t “border on criminal”, it was criminal.
If I did that outside a bar, I’d still be trying to make bail. This cocksucker gets off with a five game suspension?
That’s bullshit.
[/quote]
I agree with you, but being suspended isn’t like you just go home and jerk-off.
He’s going to be fined and lose a considerable amount of money. Not justifying anything, just saying.
jtrinsey,
Haynesworth intentionally injured a defenseless FB player after the whistle blew. 'Nuff said.
[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
jtrinsey,
Haynesworth intentionally injured a defenseless FB player after the whistle blew. 'Nuff said. [/quote]
Did I ever say it wasn’t a reprehensible action?
News flash. From Fox Sports:
"Titans coach Jeff Fisher, appearing as a guest on Fox Sports Radio, was asked what will happen next to Albert Haynsworth: "It’s over. It’s done with. It was brutal. There was no place for it. But we’ve moved on. He’s not in the building, he won’t be in the building, he may never be in the building ever again. “He’s gone for 5 weeks. I don’t know what he’s gonna do. Is he gonna go out and gain his weight back or come back not in shape? I don’t know. At this point I don’t care. … He’s not part of this team.”
Awesome!
Yeah I like Jeff Fisher. I’m surprised he’s let the Titans fall as far as they have because he seemed like he knew what he was doing during that Super Bowl run. Maybe not having Eddie George to carry the ball 30 times a game has something to do with that though.
wrt Marcus Vick at VA Tech- the NCAA would have only suspended him for a couple of games, but VT kicked him out of school- not just off the team- for stomping on an opposing players leg.
The Titans should follow Tech’s example. They are already filing to get about a half-million back from Haynesworth’s signing bonus. Maybe they will release him. Who knows?
I completely understand losing your self control and temper a bit, especially in a “warrior” mentality situation, but you always know there is a line that you don’t cross for ANY reason. Haynesworth crossed that line. He seems sincere in his remorse, but that is most likely because he know he is in deep trouble and wants to get out of it, not because he feels sorry for what he did.