DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Garrett part 2

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2812...mith-ban-appeal


Source: Browns' Myles Garrett points to '13 Antonio Smith ban during appeal
play
12:56 PM ET
ESPN
Facebook
Twitter
Facebook Messenger
Pinterest
Email
print
Cleveland Browns star Myles Garrett used a precedent-based argument on Wednesday during his suspension appeal hearing, citing the NFL's punishment of a former Houston Texans player in 2013, a source told ESPN's Dan Graziano.

Five days after being suspended indefinitely for ripping off Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph's helmet and clubbing him in the head with it, Garrett and the NFLPA met with league officials Wednesday morning in New York.

ADVERTISEMENT

Garrett and the NFLPA contended, the source told Graziano, that the worst punishment any player received for a similar incident was Houston's Antonio Smith, who was suspended in 2013 for two preseason games and one regular-season game for swinging his helmet at then-Dolphins offensive lineman Richie Incognito.

The NFL suspended Garrett for the remainder of this season, including any potential postseason games, and announced last Friday that he will have to meet with the commissioner's office before being reinstated for 2020.

EDITOR'S PICKS

Rudolph regrets his actions, is OK with Garrett

Kitchens: Browns standing by suspended Garrett

Tomlin: Steelers accept role in melee with Browns
Garrett argued that six games -- the remainder of the regular season -- is excessive under the precedent established by Smith's suspension, especially because Smith only missed one game check since players aren't paid for preseason games, the source told Graziano.

Garrett and the NFLPA also argued that an indefinite suspension is not permitted under the league's collective bargaining agreement, according to the source.

Meanwhile, a representative of the Steelers joined Maurkice Pouncey's appeal hearing by phone Tuesday in support of the center, who was suspended three games.

A source told Graziano that the Steelers believe Pouncey received the three-game ban in order to avoid him playing in the Week 13 rematch against the Browns.

According to Graziano, Pouncey's side contends that no other on-field fight in NFL history has resulted in a suspension longer than one game, so that would have been an appropriate punishment.

Even if reduced from three games to two on appeal, Pouncey's suspension would still run through the Steelers' second game against the Browns.

Garrett's hearing started at approximately 9:30 a.m. ET on Wednesday morning, and the Pro Bowl defensive end was seen leaving less than two hours later. A source told ESPN's Dianna Russini that the NFL wants to make a decision quickly on Garrett's appeal.

Browns coach Freddie Kitchens reiterated his support for Garrett earlier Wednesday morning but acknowledged that the team has no "control" over whether the league reduces his suspension.


"We can't control that. ... We're just gonna control what we can control," Kitchens said. "We have nothing to do with that. Myles has great representation, but more importantly, Myles will represent himself well."

Rudolph called Garrett's actions "bush league" and "cowardly" during his postgame news conference after Pittsburgh's 21-7 loss to Cleveland last Thursday night.

But the second-year quarterback said Wednesday that he regretted his role in the brawl, saying he "should've done a better job handling that situation."

"I have no ill will towards Myles Garrett," said Rudolph, who was not suspended but is expected to be fined. "Great respect for his ability as a player. And I know that if Myles could go back, he would handle the situation differently.

"As for my involvement last week, there's no acceptable excuse. The bottom line is I should've done a better job keeping my composure in that situation and [not] fall short of what I believe it means to be a Pittsburgh Steeler and a member of the NFL."

And as crazy as it may seem, OJ makes as much sense out of the fiasco as anyone.

I know the NFL wants to make Garrett a poster child, but the severity of the punishment simply doesn't fit the crime, at least there is no precedent that says it does...

I agree with your second and third paragraphs. No need for me to say anything, as you already state that better than I would.

Re: your first paragraph... I think it IS that simple (separating each person's actions) when it comes to handing out punishments. Swinging a helmet at another person's unprotected head is punishable with a lengthy suspension. I don't really see the point (again, in terms of assigning punishment) in hanging on what did or did not happen before said action. Rudolph kicked and punched Myles in the balls. That is a suspendable offense (apparently the NFL doesn't agree, which I wish I could understand).

Long story short...
-Garrett did something wrong, he deserves a certain punishment.
-Rudolph did something wrong, he deserves a certain punishment.

How those 2 things are linked together doesn't make either action any more or less unacceptable.

I feel like your perception is guided by a believe that just because one person is ‘armed’ and the other not that it implies the unarmed person can’t or doesn’t have the potential to be a serious danger. If that dude who had his bare hands around OBJs throat (hand to hand combat) was not wearing a helmet at the time, OBJ would have in the legal sense he 100% justified in hitting him upside the head with a helmet.

And since we still want to sensationalize this incident and use words like deadly weapon, Rudolph not only instigated the fight by committing an aggravated assault I.e. torquing Garrett’s helmet which and the potential to cause serious neck injury as well as kicking him in the groin with cleats which also had the potential to cause serious lasting injury, Myles then responds with the SAME level of force when he grabs Rudolph by his face mask, easily considered self defense. THEN when Myles is separated from Rudolph, Rudolph continues the assault HE is committing and goes after Myles, again targeting his groin. Yes it is taking Decastro to intervene but Myles IS in retreat from the situation and no one is even attempting to prevent Rudolph from continuing HIS assault on Garrett. Garrett has zero obligation to allow himself to be attacked by Rudolph. Decastros intervention is what limits Garrett to what he can do to prevent the assault.

Take this court and Myles gets off on self defense all day long.

Iistening to more and more players, this kind of thing happens all the time in practices all across the league. It’s probably why the rule book punishment is what it is and not more severe.

If the Helmet doesn't fit, you must acquit!

Myles proved that by trying to putting the helmet back on Mason for him.

If the Helmet doesn't fit hit (hard enough), you must acquit!

I think what happened before is relevant to the swing because this isn’t a situation where Myles ran up and ambushed a defenseless Rudolph. It wasn’t something blind sided like what Larry O did. Once Rudolph let go of his helmet Myles could have walked away and ended it there. I won’t argue that. But he retaliated. Once Decastro separated him Rudolph could have not gone after him and ended it there. But he didn’t.

Most people believe the helmet part was excessive. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t equal responsibility for the fight. They should both be suspended equally for the fighting, then if you want to tack on an extra game or two for the helmet, fine. Say 4 games each for the fight plus 2 for Myles.

Had Myles just walked up and cold cocked him with the helmet when he wasn’t looking I do t think anyone would defend that. But that’s not what happened.

It’s like trying to fit a square head in a round helmet...

At the crux of it Oob I really think the only thing people are asking for is for this incident to be accurately, factually, and fairly. If this is such a serious incident, then everything that led up to it needs to be addressed and appropriate and proportional punishments given. If the league isn’t going to take the incident serious enough to appropriately punish all parties involved, then Myles doesn’t deserve to be rail roaded over it either. That’s all

I didn't use the term "deadly weapon", you did. Hitting a player without having a helmet on with a helmet is wrong and actually you already know that. So does everyone else. Trying to rationalize bad behavior is quite unbecoming.

On this we agree. You'll notice that I didn't leave out Rudolph from my explanation. I don't understand why the multiple crotch hits are not only going relatively unpunished, but also unreported in all of the large media outlet articles (ESPN, CBS Sports, etc). Literally no mention of what Rudolph did.

Not the first time for this ...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...Gub4DbxbPQR5O2t

Meanwhile, Carmen Policy has been quoted as saying that those 4-1/2 pound Riddell helmets apparently "don't pack much of a wallop" without a head in them.

Here is another One I found:

https://twitter.com/dandalyonsports/status/1195219094292893697/photo/1

It's a good thing the NFL didn't settle a billion dollar concussion lawsuit before that one happened.

This isn't 1954.

Says the guy that killed his wife with a knife and her date.

Well when he says something people agree with, suddenly nobody cares about that.

So if Charles Manson says dogs make great pets, we should all just disagree based on principle?

I think we should all take into consideration the people we decide to put up in the public light as a reference of who we are agreeing with.

I'm sure there are several more examples of people that are speaking out in support of Myles that aren't the scum of the earth.

Doesn't change the fact that he said it as clearly and succinctly as anyone in the universe so far. Everything always get twisted around here... Not a soul would say that the message is good because it came from OJ, merely that the message was good despite the fact.

well, he knows what a deadly weapon really is, so yeah, his word probably cuts a little more through things

I'll stand by it. I also wouldn't use Charles Manson in regards to supporting having a dog for a pet. But that's just me.

From his experience I would say his wit is as sharp as yours. I know that was a little weak but I was just taking a stab at it.

that's fine. I wouldn't hold his opinion in too high regard if he was say... giving marital advice. But talking football, the dude was a HoF running back for a long time. His opinion is as valid as anybody elses.

Well I will say he was good when it came to the cut and run.

There's pre concussion lawsuit settlement and post concussion law suit settlement.

I don't think trying to use anything pre settlement for things that occurred post settlement hold any merit. We both know that changed everything.

Thanks for this. Wondering about the appeal and when we might know something. NFL very lopsided against MG and also blind to Rudolph as he escalated things or kept them going.

These arguments seem to be cogent and valid to me.

I said it before on here and I'll say it again. The punishment should fit the crime. Ray rice knocked a woman unconscious and spit on her before dragging her limp body from a elevator. He only was suspended 4 games. He could have killed her. So how can you give Garrett a harsher punishment ?

The justice system definitely takes circumstances and a person's emotional state into mind.

as far as the rest, I am still not seeing how what your saying relates.

Judging from other responses, I think others on here would say that Garrett deserves to be kicked out of the NFL because he used a helmet as a weapon and Ray Rice did not.

In their minds, the fact that Rice was hitting a girl in a comparatively low stress situation in which he wasn't attacked, does not factor into things.

The idiots saying he should be banned for life are stupid. Sure he should be suspended 2-3 games, missing the Steelers. But the NFL has set precedent on a player swinging a helmet. There is not wiggle room in that! I can bet in the CBA, something harsher will be clearly added for this, meaning a minimum of like 6 games or something.

I can'tbelieve Obi's 1 game was upheld, all he did was push Randolp to the ground.

No flag was thrown for roughing the passer.

In 1985...I think, Randy White swung a helmet at hit another player in the head. He was suspended 1 game and fined maybe $1000.

Did they have any left to throw?

Which is ridiculous. However Goodell seems to play favorites with certain organizations.

That would have been the first one thrown if it was a foul. All the other fouls happened after the tackle.

Just saying

Can we all put this issue to rest (the fight/Rudolph started it/Myles finishing it etc.)? This is going in circles...let's just wait until the appeal decision is made, accept it and MOVE ON.

Myles Garrett should be nervous.. the fact that Ogunjobi got suspended 1 game for just pushing a guy on the ground, and even with the appeal they still are suspending him!!??.. that doesn't make me feel very confident that the league is going to grant Garrett any leniency based on precedent. Seems like they want to set a new precedent. As a Browns fan, I wouldn't be surprised. Smh. The 'Myles Garrett rule' is coming.