Come on man, I have Patriots-colored glasses too but you cannot really call pass interference "blatantly cheating". That's a stretch. It's a penalty yes, but committing a penalty isn't *really* the same as cheating.What bothers me is all the discussion is centered around the cheap shot and it isn’t being mentioned, at least from what I saw on NBC, that the hit came after one of the worst non-calls of the season, which is a factor in all of this. Gronk didn’t just cheap shot some random guy on the other team, he hit someone who blatantly cheated and was rewarded for it without penalty.
Meh, one heat of the moment incident is not a referendum on Gronk. Dress it up however you like but your original post was over the top with the melodrama.And you would call it ...? The guy for 8 years has stood for joy, fair play and intelligence on the field. That’s what makes it disappointing to me.
I think today will bring a $30,000 fine and one-game suspension. If that’s what he gets, he should take it.
If he is not suspended by the League, I think BB gives him the Welker treatment — for a half. And I think if the Buffalo game means nothing, he sits for that — for different reasons.
Edit — and Trey Wingo pointed out this morning that Gronk was mugged on the play — by my count, held three times.
But so what? If a guy pisses you off in traffic, even flips you off, you don’t get to punch him in the face.
Finally, the most damning portion of the film is a Patriot touching the player down after the INT — and THEN Gronk buries him. The play was ovah.
Not to mention we were up by 20 points with 4:39 to go in the fourth.Come on man, I have Patriots-colored glasses too but you cannot really call pass interference "blatantly cheating". That's a stretch. It's a penalty yes, but committing a penalty isn't *really* the same as cheating.
You think making stupid feet puns is in any way worse or less of the "Patriot Way" then lining up a prone player and launching yourself at his head and neck? What Gronk did was one of the dumbest and meanest and most disturbing things I've seen someone do in sports. I have no idea why he's getting any kind of a pass here.Meh, one heat of the moment incident is not a referendum on Gronk. Dress it up however you like but your original post was over the top with the melodrama.
If Bill sits Gronk, it will not be more than for a drive. What Welker did was premeditated and scripted. And a conscious violation of how things are done in NE. Gronk’s move was idiotic and risked serious injury to White, but the insubordination level of Welker’s Rexy Act was what probably pissed Bill off the most. I can’t imagine that Bill will treat Gronk more harshly than he treated a player who handed the opposition some juicy motivation, against the Pats well established manner of handling themselves.
I didn’t read that as saying what Welker did was worse. But any punishment for that was going to come from the Patriots — obviously the league was never going to care about it. Is there any precedent for a team punishing their own guy for a late hit?You think making stupid feet puns is in any way worse or less of the "Patriot Way" then lining up a prone player and launching yourself at his head and neck? What Gronk did was one of the dumbest and meanest and most disturbing things I've seen someone do in sports. I have no idea why he's getting any kind of a pass here.
I didn’t say be should get a pass.You think making stupid feet puns is in any way worse or less of the "Patriot Way" then lining up a prone player and launching yourself at his head and neck? What Gronk did was one of the dumbest and meanest and most disturbing things I've seen someone do in sports. I have no idea why he's getting any kind of a pass here.
Yes, one of the most disturbing things I've seen someone do in sports. Please cite some similar incidents in the NFL from the last couple seasons. This wasn't a scrum or an ongoing play. This is to me up there with Suh's stomps, McSorley's stickwork, etc. The guy held is jersey a bit and maybe pushed him off the ball slightly. That sort of things happens on every play in football. As a Patriots fan I hate seeing how often Gronk is interfered with, but it's completely irrelevant. It was a thuggish move. It was dangerous. It was very much uncalled for and it's definitely not the sort of things that happens often in the NFL or elsewhere.I feel like there is another Gronk play that happened that I havent' had a chance to see yet. Most disturbing things you've ever see someone do in sports? It was shitty but there are several similar incidents like this every single season in the NFL.
Gronk deserves to be called out, fined, suspended, whatever. I don't think him losing his shit in a fit of frustration overrides the other 98 games he's played in the NFL, but YMMV I guess.
It's also a distraction. Bill I'm sure is livid. Hopefully the Bills player is ok and it turns into a learning experience and Gronk is adequately punished and then it becomes a win all around with respect to deterring future behavior by other players. You need to punish the high profile guys to make everyone understand that this is simply not going to be tolerated.I think Bill will have a big issue with what Gronk did on two levels.
1. Gronk put himself before the team by taking an entirely unnecessary penalty bore purely out of frustration. Bill routinely says coaches coach, players play and refs ref. You can't control the officiating and live with the good and bad calls.
2. Gronk acted out in a way that was both dirty and caused injury. Bill has too much respect for the game to stand for that type of play.
How many times has Bill apologized to another HC for his players actions? That right there tells you a lot of what Bill thinks about the play.
Interesting point there at the end. I’m not sure we know the answer to that one way or the other. I doubt that he knew that his BS comment would get out. Bill is very aware but that was said quietly and I don’t recall many times when the mikes picked up the Post game exchange between Bill and the other HC.I think Bill will have a big issue with what Gronk did on two levels.
1. Gronk put himself before the team by taking an entirely unnecessary penalty bore purely out of frustration. Bill routinely says coaches coach, players play and refs ref. You can't control the officiating and live with the good and bad calls.
2. Gronk acted out in a way that was both dirty and caused injury. Bill has too much respect for the game to stand for that type of play.
How many times has Bill apologized to another HC for his players actions? That right there tells you a lot of what Bill thinks about the play.
This. Nowhere near a football play. It was an intent to injure, plain and simple. Really disappointed in the guy, but I think he's disappointed in himself as well.Yes, one of the most disturbing things I've seen someone do in sports. Please cite some similar incidents in the NFL from the last couple seasons. This wasn't a scrum or an ongoing play. This is to me up there with Suh's stomps, McSorley's stickwork, etc. The guy held is jersey a bit and maybe pushed him off the ball slightly. That sort of things happens on every play in football. As a Patriots fan I hate seeing how often Gronk is interfered with, but it's completely irrelevant. It was a thuggish move. It was dangerous. It was very much uncalled for and it's definitely not the sort of things that happens often in the NFL or elsewhere.
I had NFL Network (Good Morning Football) on for an hour just now and nothing. Maybe I just missed it, but they usually come back to a big story within an hour. ESPN all over it?I don't think Belichick is going to suspend/sit him if they league doesn't. They're in a race for the one seed and HFA. He's not going to handicap himself if the league decides in Gronk's favor.
I think Gronk will get suspended, anyway. The media attention is huge.
ESPN and FS1 have covered it a fair amount today. Multiple popular websites have articles up calling for suspension.I had NFL Network (Good Morning Football) on for an hour just now and nothing. Maybe I just missed it, but they usually come back to a big story within an hour. ESPN all over it?
Not easy to pin down. Suspensions this year have come primarily Monday and Tuesday, but some have been announced as late as Friday. Seems like they're all based on the situation.When do the suspensions usually get announced? Tuesday?
Yeah, that's where I'm coming from. Look, I'm all for violence in sports by the rules. And I get actual flash of the moment anger that takes the violence outside the rules. Tons of plays on Sunday are probably more dangerous or result in greater harm, but that's with guys flying around 20 mph in the midst of plays. What's so disturbing about this is the premeditation. This wasn't a guy running or sliding or moving out of bounds. This wasn't a split second decision.Again I'm not defending or excusing Gronk, and the fact that he was interfered with on that play or a million other plays when it is not called is irrelevant. But is it worse than a safety or linebacker laying out a defenseless receiver? I'm not sure that it is. There are multiple instances of guys just about decapitating defenseless receivers in any given NFL season. I'd put this in the same category as those hits, dirty, violent and unnecessary. If you put this in a category by itself because it happened after the play, then I guess I can see how you would see it differently.
Thanks. I did look for Mike and Mike but they seem to have changed TV time for that show where I am.ESPN and FS1 have covered it a fair amount today. Multiple popular websites have articles up calling for suspension.
They really should do it early in the week so coaches can plan for having a guy or not in the next game.Not easy to pin down. Suspensions this year have come primarily Monday and Tuesday, but some have been announced as late as Friday. Seems like they're all based on the situation.
Edit: the last two (Mike Evans and Talib/Crabtree) were announced Monday.
I guess it depends on how you view the premeditation aspect of it. I think with the advent of targeting rules in the NFL and NCAA that we've shown that in a lot of cases it is possible to avoid the knockout blow, or the helmet to helmet, or the viscous shot on the defenseless receiver. Sometimes I do think those things are split second, and unavoidable. Sometimes I think they can be premeditated, just that they happen during game play as opposed to after the play.Yeah, that's where I'm coming from. Look, I'm all for violence in sports by the rules. And I get actual flash of the moment anger that takes the violence outside the rules. Tons of plays on Sunday are probably more dangerous or result in greater harm, but that's with guys flying around 20 mph in the midst of plays. What's so disturbing about this is the premeditation. This wasn't a guy running or sliding or moving out of bounds. This wasn't a split second decision.
There is no more Mike & Mike. It’s Golic & WingoThanks. I did look for Mike and Mike but they seem to have changed TV time for that show where I am.
They really should do it early in the week so coaches can plan for having a guy or not in the next game.
I agree that Gronk deserves a suspension. I think a game seems right.Yeah, that's where I'm coming from. Look, I'm all for violence in sports by the rules. And I get actual flash of the moment anger that takes the violence outside the rules. Tons of plays on Sunday are probably more dangerous or result in greater harm, but that's with guys flying around 20 mph in the midst of plays. What's so disturbing about this is the premeditation. This wasn't a guy running or sliding or moving out of bounds. This wasn't a split second decision.
You're a lawyer. You know premeditation takes a second. He got up, he walked back to the guy, it looks like he went to throw a punch, changed his mind, then dropped his shoulder and 260 pounds into the back of the guy's head as he lay prone and unaware on the ground of out bounds. That's enough premeditation for me to be put off, and distinguishes it from live action play.I agree that Gronk deserves a suspension. I think a game seems right.
But I have trouble with premeditation. I mean yes, the play has stopped. But the play had literally just ended. How many seconds passed from the end of the play to Gronk launching? Was it even three? It wasn’t five.
To me, premeditated is something more than a person making an extreme dumbass decision immediately after a play had ended and immediately after getting fouled at least two times without getting a call, and seeing a pick happen as a result.
I’m with you on blaming Gronk but to elevate this to being akin to something he planned out is to willfully ignore the context and the timing.
I’m not a criminal lawyer though I do watch Law & Order SVU. And I did take Criminal Law in Law School.You're a lawyer. You know premeditation takes a second. He got up, he walked back to the guy, it looks like he went to throw a punch, changed his mind, then dropped his shoulder and 260 pounds into the back of the guy's head as he lay prone and unaware on the ground of out bounds. That's enough premeditation for me to be put off, and distinguishes it from live action play.
I get your point, but I'm uncomfortable with saying that just because the NFL screwed up badly before, they should screw up in the same manner a second time around.I don't disagree that it was a dirty play and Gronk probably deserves a Sunday off, however let's not forget that this didn't warrant a suspension...
Oh that’s right! What happened to Greenberg? Tangent taken, sorry.There is no more Mike & Mike. It’s Golic & Wingo
Heat of battle? How many offensive plays do you think Gronk has been part of in his life? I get that it happened on the field. I get that he didn't sit around all night making plans and procuring weapons then driving over to the victim's house. But, these are athletes, they've been in the "heat of battle" their entire lives. You get hit playing sports. You take fastballs off your shoulder, you get hit after the bell or in the balls boxing, you get held or pushed playing football. He got up, decided he wanted to punish or hurt someone, lined them up with those baby steps. Looks to me like he wanted to throw a punch, though better of it, then dive bombed the guy's head.I’m not a criminal lawyer though I do watch Law & Order SVU. And I did take Criminal Law in Law School.
It strikes me that the analog for what Gronk did under the circumstances is akin to some sort of manslaughter rather than murder per se.
Alert: I’m just borrowing those concepts as they relate to what it means for an action to be “premeditated.”
I associate that word with actual planning. Not with having the wrong reaction seconds before committing the crime, particularly when said action occurred in the heat of battle.
It was in the heat of battle because it happened literally seconds after Gronk ran down field, was held a few times, saw no flag for the obvious violations and then saw the guy committing the fouls pick off the pass. The heat comes from proximity in time and what actually happened on that ludicrous play. And the even wider context was a ball game when Gronk was penalized for multiple phantom violations while seeing his opponent foul him repeatedly with impunity. Make no mistake, the biggest aspect of the “heat of battle” was that he launched only seconds after the play ended. But context matters and the context arguably lead the player to think irrationally.Heat of battle? How many offensive plays do you think Gronk has been part of in his life? I get that it happened on the field. I get that he didn't sit around all night making plans and procuring weapons then driving over to the victim's house. But, these are athletes, they've been in the "heat of battle" their entire lives. You get hit playing sports. You take fastballs off your shoulder, you get hit after the bell or in the balls boxing, you get held or pushed playing football. He got up, decided he wanted to punish or hurt someone, lined them up with those baby steps. Looks to me like he wanted to throw a punch, though better of it, then dive bombed the guy's head.
I'd feel differently if this was a scrum or arose out of a pushing match. The guy was lying out of bounds on his back.
“That guy” was Aaron Rodgers.He should obviously be suspended but calling it premeditated seems like a bit of an overplay.
Gronk rolls through missing the catch, gets up, sees the INT from the guy that had been holding him, maybe sees the INT as still a live ball (because at least when Gronk first looks it is not obvious that White is out of bounds and it is worth noting that Dorsett runs through for the tag) and then he jumps on him.
He jumps on him (and this whole sequence takes under two seconds/just over one second) and while jumping on him pulls back from really using his arms for the hit.
Clearly he had a split second and the second step to pull off and not clobber the guy and for that he should get a game (and in a just world it would be the next Buffalo game) but it was not as bad as Suh stomping on the guy from GB.
Well, we can agree to disagree if you'd like, but you're 100% wrong on what legally constitutes premeditation. Two or three seconds does cut it.It was in the heat of battle because it happened literally seconds after Gronk ran down field, was held a few times, saw no flag for the obvious violations and then saw the guy committing the fouls pick off the pass. The heat comes from proximity in time and what actually happened on that ludicrous play. And the even wider context was a ball game when Gronk was penalized for multiple phantom violations while seeing his opponent foul him repeatedly with impunity. Make no mistake, the biggest aspect of the “heat of battle” was that he launched only seconds after the play ended. But context matters and the context arguably lead the player to think irrationally.
Looks like we should probably just agree to disagree. I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to say that something was not planned out was “premeditated,” and as I said, I don’t think a court or law would look at something without advance planning and deliberations in that way. Two or three seconds (at most) doesn’t cut it.
Like I said, I’m not a criminal lawyer. So maybe you’re right. But I don’t think you are and I read enough cases on the clock such that I will pass here.Well, we can agree to disagree if you'd like, but you're 100% wrong on what legally constitutes premeditation. Two or three seconds does cut it.
As for the heat of battle, if having your jersey tugged and having bad calls made or missed on you opens up this type of reaction - either morally or in terms of what the league tolerates - then everyone's going to be going after everyone else's head. But, I'm happy to leave it here, unless you want some case cites about premeditation.