I concur with this, Weave. I think you’ve laid it out nicely and it was clear that during the incident and after the game, Rudolf demonstrated he was a punk & I am surprised he didn’t get a game suspension.
Textbook ad hominem attack. You don’t have a point you can stand on so you insinuate I have some personal motivation to prove something and throw it in your face in some way.
You’re just representative of the segment of Browns fans on here that want to minimize a dangerous attack with a helmet. Just own it.
Good people do bad things. And I think he reacted in the heat of the moment. I respect that he owned it like a man. I think Mason Rudolf acted like a punk.
But Strongly disagree that “assault” is hyperbole.
MG took a hard, blunt object and hit the exposed head of a person. Your premise seems to be it’s not assault because Rudolf didn’t get seriously injured.
What if he did? What if he was concussed or bleeding or, worse, dead? Would that be assault?
The result of the assault has no bearing on the clear action. It was very dangerous and MG should be thankful he didn’t connected strongly.
I’m not saying that outside of the field of play that Mason Rudolph wouldn’t be punished at all for starting something. What I am saying, is no matter how you try to slice it, what Myles Garrett did was far worse and far more dangerous. I honestly cannot understand why people don’t see that or try to minimize it with the relative weak sauce punk behavior that Rudolph engaged in which didn’t even merit any punishment From the NFL. Besides, we are talking about real life. We are talking about something that is illegal it’s self within the bounds of a violent game.
What's "pearl clutching" about disagreeing with your perspective? You and many others seem to be trying to minimize MG's assault because Mason Rudolf "started it." You put your opinion out on a forum where people debate sports. I get it. Fandom is a bias.
The NFL disagrees with you. They're not the same. Mason R. didn't even get punished.
A court of law would likely disagree with you, too.
And yet, we continue to have DV's of LCT's posts and other rational takes from Browns fans and non-Browns fans alike. This case is pretty open and shut. Rather than "pearl clutching" -- perhaps the simpler answer is that I really cannot believe that adults would excuse MG's actions for any reason. Does it make him a monster? Not necessarily -- but he is very, very wrong. Judge a man by his actions.
So, Rudolf wasn't seriously hurt & that makes it okay? What if he was? What if he died? Would you still be running with "but he started it?" I hope not.
A hyperbolic comparison would be: "Your honor, she stole my pencil so I shot her dog." I intentionally used hyperbole to highlight the point. Perhaps you missed that part of my statement.
So, let me be more accurate -- and to your next example -- Rudolf & Garrett are in a bar...
Garrett clumsily bumps into Rudolf causing him to spill his drink.
Rudolf responds by getting in MG's face and pushing him.
Garrett responds by grabbing a barstool and cracks Rudolf on the head.
Not sure both would get charged with assault at all. Now, let's take it further -- if Rudolf punched MG in the bar, but MG's response is to still crack him on the head with a blunt object weapon. EVEN THEN -- the charges wouldn't be the same, by far.
Step back from your fandom for a second & step away from this false equivalence.
Violent acts within the RULES of the game of FOOTBALL are legal. This violent act is against the rules of the game itself. A helmet is for protection and not as a weapon.
Those same acts would be ILLEGAL if anyone did those to another member of society -- of course -- but this doesn't make what Miles Garrett did any better. Everyone isn't in a violent society playing this game.
When it comes to LCT's post... don't shoot the messenger. The NFL agrees this is egregious. LCT isn't wrong -- it's literally a criminal act. I wouldn't be surprised is Rudolf pressed charges. It's happened in hockey and baseball -- and
What was the point of you pointing out Rudolf was the instigator, as you and others have done multiple times here?
The OP is about MG's behavior and the NFL's response. MG got his punishment -- as LCT was indicating needed to happen.
I don't need to "clutch my pearls." Seems more like you do because your response is ad hominem.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that Rudolf's reaction started this incident. While my example was admittedly hyperbole, your example greatly minimizes what MG did. It's assault with a blunt-weapon (not I picked a fight with a bigger dude and got beat up). Honestly, other than fandom I cannot see how you or any other person can minimize MG's actions.
I know. I did read your OP, lol.
Some people are just reacting based on fandom. It's tough to remove ourselves from our subjective desires/motives.
I'm a Chiefs fan, so I don't care either way... other than MG's assault has no justification and the NFL must act decisively.
Still, even IF I disagreed with you -- I don't get the DV's for you raising the topic of conversation. That's not what DV's are for (according to the site rules). I don't like or agree with a lot of people's opinions on here. Still, I don't DV anyone unless they're being a jerk and attacking people or ruining the forums with agendas.
CTBF: I read the NFL's statement here & on ESPN: https://www.tmz.com/2019/11/15/myles-garrett-helmet-attack-no-police-investigation-steelers-browns/
Here's the NFL's statement ...
"The Pittsburgh Steelers and Cleveland Browns organizations have each been fined $250,000 and three players -- Cleveland's Myles Garrett and Larry Ogunjobi, and Pittsburgh's Maurkice Pouncey -- have been suspended without pay for their actions in Thursday night's game."
"Garrett has been suspended without pay indefinitely -- at a minimum for the remainder of the regular season and postseason -- and must meet with the Commissioner's Office prior to a decision on his reinstatement. He was also fined an additional amount."
"Garrett violated unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct rules, as well as fighting, removing the helmet of an opponent and using the helmet as a weapon."
"Pouncey has been suspended without pay for three games and fined an additional amount for fighting, including punching and kicking an opponent."
"Ogunjobi has been suspended without pay for one game and fined an additional amount for unnecessary roughness, specifically for shoving an opposing player to the ground during an altercation."
"Additional discipline for other players will be forthcoming through the standard accountability process, including those players that left the bench to enter the fight area."
"Under the collective bargaining agreement, the suspensions may be appealed within three business days. Appeals are heard and decided by either Derrick Brooks or James Thrash, the officers jointly appointed and compensated by the NFL and NFLPA to decide appeals of on-field player discipline."
Possible, but it doesn't matter. A hyperbolic comparison would be: "Your honor, she stole my pencil so I shot her dog."
Some could make the case that MG instigated it well after the ball was out. Some could make the case that Kitchens displayed bad leadership by having the starters out on the field at the end of a contentious game.
I'd make the case that the ref instigated it by swallowing his whistle for that awkward takedown. The rules are written to protect QBs. Mason R. admitted he was pissed and his words "won't back down from bullies."
MG is very, very wrong. he lost his cool -- it's not premeditated intent -- but if he connected well, Mason R. would be very injured or dead.
Given the punishments have been handed down, and MG is facing a season long suspension without pay, I really don't get why so many people have DV'd LCT's original post. I guess fan tribalism can cloud all of our judgments at times.
He's not wrong - MG's act was criminal (Pouncey's may be, too, TBH). MG could have killed Mason R. if he'd connected with a blunt object weapon.
No amount of "who started it" (irrelevant) or "whataboutism" (irrelevant) or that football is a "violent GAME" (irrelevant) takes away from MG's decision to swing a blunt-weapon at the head of another person. Mason R. could press for criminal charges in Cleveland, though he has not as of yet. It happened a few years ago in hockey when a player used his stick as a weapon to crack someone on the head.
Respectfully, disagree Fatpants.
A tackle in a football game is a legal play.
A swing at someone's exposed head with a blunt-object is against football rules & not part of the game.
Do we have criminal lawyers on here? What would I be looking at if I took a helmet to someone’s head? I wonder if Mason will press charges on MG. That appears to be assault with a weapon, blunt object. This is the most egregious act here, and I would suspend him for the rest of the season at least. Absolutely no justification for his actions. Zero room in sports for that, including a violent sport like football.
Pouncey was in the wrong for kicking someone in the head, too, though he still had a helmet on... that can cause concussions. This, too, seems like some kind of assault. This the second most egregious act, worthy of multiple game suspensions.
Mason R. Mostly reacted to an over aggressive late tackle & was likely frustrated the whole game, but tugging on someone’s helmet and getting in someone’s face is fairly typical football behavior... worthy of an unsportsmanlike flag & possibly a game suspension, which I think is typical for punkish-hothead reactions like that.
It’s really a ONE game suspension, since Chase would have only played 2 quarters against Maryland and 2 quarters against Rutgers.
I agree, in a sense, that because literally no one knows how the NCAA will rule on anything—it’s undesirable for schools to dole out punishment in hopes to placate the NCAA. Self-banning is a result of their inconsistency and incompetence. That needs to be fixed.
Look at Memphis or Kansas—who’ve basically said, “you can’t touch us so we’re gonna do what we want to do.” This is crazy.
I can see this being plausible and everyone likes trying to figure out a conspiracy theory. It’s being discussed by a lot more people than just “Twitter.”
As I’ve thought more about it, however, no matter who the “rat” is, so to speak — Chase Young is still guilty. So, chasing down the “snitch” is irrelevant. The rule may be stupid but it’s still a rule.
Crowley reminds me of Robert Smith when running. Smooth cuts and more of a long strider, but he’s fast.
I don't think Keandre would do that NOR would the Buckeyes embrace him the way they did if he was a snitch.
However, I think that someone close to the Maryland program/DMV area could very well be the snitch -- that's why there's so much smoke there. We may never know but the Buckeyes might know.
It's pretty plausible that given that people from Chase's hometown probably knew that this family friend helped get Chase's girlfriend to the Rose Bowl.
After a sack and a team-leading five tackles yesterday in limited time (due to the starters being pulled after halftime), Borland has established himself as a really good player on a really good unit. And it has been a welcome sign for the Buckeyes.
Perhaps the truth of this statement will begin to reflect in the forum posts.
This defense is phenomenal. Tough, disciplined, assignment-sound and they can mix & match. It's a pleasure to watch them play.
I agree with some of that. Really liked Keandre’s game and think under Fick or the current regime, his talents would be utilized.
Werner doesn’t have as good of stats, but he doesn’t play as much (blowouts, scheme) as Keandre. I think that it ended up working out best for everyone, just like it did with Burrow.
Come on man, you don’t know either.
That’s possible. Could be joking. plausible.
It’s also possible someone associated with Maryland turned Chase Young in (which many in the media including Klatt and Gus were saying). This is what I said.
Finally, it could be Keandre being a snitch — though doubtful, based on the teams interactions with him, as I also said above.
Hopefully a "game time decision" that was held out to get healthy. He's played great so far this year.
Did you hear what else was said?!?!?
JONES: "Why y'all gotta do us like that?"
OFF-CAMERA Buckeye Voice: "Cuz you a snitch." (I think this means that the Buckeyes think someone from Maryland program or near the program was the snitch on Chase -- not Keandre himself. Or else I don't think the rest of the guys would be so nice to him. We'd have heard more.)