Titan's player stomps on Dallas player's head - Page 2

**sordavie** · 10-03-2006, 02:35 AM

Hm, I guess nobody is reading that passage the same way that I do. It seems to me that it cannot be the case that what was quoted came at a time when the coach knew nothing or very little about the incident.

If he had known next to nothing, if he had known only the fact that his player produced back-to-back penalties, then his statements about additional punishment on top of possible league punishment seem odd. This leads me to understand the quoted material as not being taken from on the field as the incident unfolds. How would he have known that the league is considering punishment just a few minutes after the play happened?

If he was being interviewed right after the game and he knew that his player had done something intentional to harm another player, but did not know what extent the harm or intention was, then I would think his comment should be something like "I don't know what happened yet, but I will find out. And, if it warrants punishment, the player will be punished." At least, that's what I would say, if I'm being interviewed about the play right after the game without much knowledge of what happened.

The passage at the end of that CNN article sounds like it's comming from an interview after widespread viewing of the replays. It comes in a context where league punishment is a relevant possibility. What he's calling unacceptable cannot be back-to-back penalties. What he's calling unacceptable is something that can be punished by the league. That part of the passage must be narration from a press conference after the game, after everyone has seen the replays of the stomp and know that the league must be considering punishment.

To then read the next sentence in the article, the quoted material, as Fisher's reaction minutes after the play would be to attribute a very disconnected style of writing to whoever wrote the article. It would be, as I mentioned before, to quote out of context. If you describe Fisher as having called his player's actions unacceptable then directly quote him talking about his player without mentioning when and where Fisher said these things, it would be appropriate only if your description of what he said and the quoted material came from the same speech. Otherwise you're putting your reader in one context, as you describe what Fisher says in a speech, and then misleading your reader by changing the context without any flags that you are doing so, by quoting what Fisher says at some time other than which you described a sentence ago.

I guess I'm assuming the CNN writer would not do this. That would be a pretty blatant instance of bad writing.

So to review, I've given you the reading of those last two sentences in the context of a post game interview when he knew nothing or little about the play, a post game interview when he did know something about the play, an on field interview minutes after the play, as well as a mix of the two. They all seem weird to me.

Maybe my reading comprehension is just really poor?

**sordavie** · 10-03-2006, 02:37 AM

The league's longet suspension was only 2 games?

**sordavie** · 10-03-2006, 02:53 AM

"'I felt there needed to be some serious action taken from a discipline standpoint, and I believe that what the league has done right now is adequate,' Fisher said."

Looks like Fisher has decided not to keep his earlier promise. Sounds like no punishment from the team. At least, that would be the implicature from saying that the league punishment is adequate.

**Switchcraft** · 10-03-2006, 04:05 AM

Sordavie, I read the quote as him being disgusted that the player would go do something like that, I don't think he was referring to the fact that penalties were given, I think he was referring to the actions themselves, that after already being cited for being a complete douche, he couldn't be man enough to accept that, and instead had to go do something to further the incident.

It may be because of the way coaches and referees speak about these things. if it had been pass interference 7 plays in a row, and he said "it's ridiculous that he got 7 back to back penalties," I think most people would recognize that he is upset with the player for behaving like that, not that the refs called him on it.

**CingularDuality** · 10-03-2006, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

Yeah that could conceivably be assault with a deadly weapon (in some states, at least). I think the punishment by the league is pretty reasonable, but that shouldn't necessarily preclude or substitute for applicable criminal charges.

I've got mixed feelings about this issue. Let's use hockey as an example. For better or worse, fights have practically become a part of the game. But there's usually some honor among those that fight. They take off their gloves and helmets, throw down their sticks and start throwing fists like men. I don't think that this should be subject to criminal prosecution. When that honor is absent, however, and a stick or helmet is used as a weapon, or in this case, a man on the ground has his helmet kicked off and his bare head stomped, then I feel that criminal charges should be considered.

In my mind, it's a somewhat subtle line when compared to what would be considered assault out on the street... We're talking about sports where the legal definition of assault is involved in the actual rules of the game, whether it's checking in hockey, blocking or tackling in football, sliding into home in baseball, or, well, the list could go on and on...

Calvin · 10-03-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

Looks like Fisher has decided not to keep his earlier promise. Sounds like no punishment from the team. At least, that would be the implicature from saying that the league punishment is adequate.

""The coach called Haynesworth's actions unacceptable and promised he would be punished by the Titans even if the NFL disciplines him."

He didn't say that.

Are you calling Jeff Fisher's character into question? From what I hear, he's one of the most highly regarded people in the league, a class act.

5 games, and over half a million dollars in paychecks is inadequate? Like he said in the press conference, this is an unprecedented penalty for unprecedented actions....
If it were baseball, this would be equivalent to ~50 games or so, which is what Delmon Young, the guy that threw the bat at the umpire got.

No, he didn't see the play on the field, but he did get right in Haynesworth's face right after the play because the disrespect he was showing to the refs, and the coach, and after the game he went straight to Parcells and apologized on behalf of the team.

Beatnik · 10-03-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I've got mixed feelings about this issue. Let's use hockey as an example. For better or worse, fights have practically become a part of the game. But there's usually some honor among those that fight. They take off their gloves and helmets, throw down their sticks and start throwing fists like men. I don't think that this should be subject to criminal prosecution. When that honor is absent, however, and a stick or helmet is used as a weapon, or in this case, a man on the ground has his helmet kicked off and his bare head stomped, then I feel that criminal charges should be considered.

In my mind, it's a somewhat subtle line when compared to what would be considered assault out on the street... We're talking about sports where the legal definition of assault is involved in the actual rules of the game, whether it's checking in hockey, blocking or tackling in football, sliding into home in baseball, or, well, the list could go on and on...

I agree but I think the closest relevant example from hockey was a few years ago when the player high sticked/chopped a black player (can't remember his name ATM). This is showing my total hockey ignorance here, but didn't the guy get KO'ed and/or have his jaw broken? IIRC, criminal charges (and a massive suspension) were brought against him too. I think the line lies where the action is clearly unrelated to the game (after the play was dead, as in this example) and a disproportionate use of force or a weapon is used (also present in this example). I wasn't advocating battery charges to be brought up for tackling a person out of bounds or anything.

**CingularDuality** · 10-03-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

I think the line lies where the action is clearly unrelated to the game (after the play was dead, as in this example) and a disproportionate use of force or a weapon is used (also present in this example). I wasn't advocating battery charges to be brought up for tackling a person out of bounds or anything.

Agreed. I'm just afraid that this lack of honor represents a larger societal problem, and that instituting criminal law on the sports field will wussify sports. That eventually, charges WILL be brought up for a late hit or roughing the kicker.

**WhiskeySix** · 10-03-2006, 05:08 PM

A criminal action? No way... it's football... like Cing said, the law is broken on every play...

On the other hand, if the stompee wanted to file a civil lawsuit claiming that the stomper reduced his ability to make a livelihood, then sure... sue away.

edit: Marty McSorley whacked Donald Brasheer in the head wiiiiiiiiiiiiith ... a hockey stick.

Beatnik · 10-03-2006, 06:32 PM

THANKS Whiskey - McSorley's name was on the tip of my brain for the last couple hours... didn't he have criminal prosecution too?

EDIT: Just checked. (no pun intended) He did.

**Switchcraft** · 10-03-2006, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

A criminal action? No way... it's football... like Cing said, the law is broken on every play...

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. While I agree with Cing that I would not want to see criminal charges filed for every personal foul committed in the game, the "slippery slope" argument does not mean that we should ignore blatantly criminal acts.

Though someone may correct me if I am wrong, but the initial report I read said he stomped him twice...once that knocked the other players helmet off, and then once in the face, which is what we saw in the video.

Kicking him in the helmet might still fall into the definition of unsportsman-like conduct, but removing someone else's safety equipment and then maliciously wounding them in a manner that could have caused the permanent loss of an eye and in the immediate case caused wounds bad enough to need THIRTY STITCHES? That's assault.

This isn't "part of the game." This has nothing to do with football, and I cannot think of the argument that could be made that woud exempt this kind of behaviour from criminal penalty. A boxer who waits until after the bell is rung, and the other guy has taken his mouthpiece out, only to come at him and kick him in the face, or hit him with a chair, would not be excused. And that's how serious this is. I think it's a shame the NFL is letting him play again at all, no matter what the previous maximum penalties were. This was a deliberate act that came perilously close to costing a man his eye. That's not football.

Kerostasis · 10-03-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

Hm, I guess nobody is reading that passage the same way that I do. It seems to me that it cannot be the case that what was quoted came at a time when the coach knew nothing or very little about the incident.
...
I guess I'm assuming the CNN writer would not do this. That would be a pretty blatant instance of bad writing.
...
Maybe my reading comprehension is just really poor?

No, I'm reading it exactly the same way you are. I just have a lower opinion of the CNN writers than you do.

So following up on your analysis, I see two possibilities. Either the paraphrased line from the coach and the quoted line from the coach were gathered at two completely different times, which would be misleading and rather bad writing, or the coach really said something that weird at a press conference afterwards, which you would expect to raise a few more eyebrows than it did. So, strange stuff either way. But my money's on the coach being the intelligent one, and the writer screwing up, rather than the other way around.

**WhiskeySix** · 10-04-2006, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

A criminal action? No way... it's football... like Cing said, the law is broken on every play...

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. While I agree with Cing that I would not want to see criminal charges filed for every personal foul committed in the game, the "slippery slope" argument does not mean that we should ignore blatantly criminal acts.

Though someone may correct me if I am wrong, but the initial report I read said he stomped him twice...once that knocked the other players helmet off, and then once in the face, which is what we saw in the video.

Kicking him in the helmet might still fall into the definition of unsportsman-like conduct, but removing someone else's safety equipment and then maliciously wounding them in a manner that could have caused the permanent loss of an eye and in the immediate case caused wounds bad enough to need THIRTY STITCHES? That's assault.

This isn't "part of the game." This has nothing to do with football, and I cannot think of the argument that could be made that woud exempt this kind of behaviour from criminal penalty. A boxer who waits until after the bell is rung, and the other guy has taken his mouthpiece out, only to come at him and kick him in the face, or hit him with a chair, would not be excused. And that's how serious this is. I think it's a shame the NFL is letting him play again at all, no matter what the previous maximum penalties were. This was a deliberate act that came perilously close to costing a man his eye. That's not football.

guess I shoudl clarify... by "it's football", I did NOT mean stomping some dudes mellon is an accepted part of the game. I just meant that it's a brutally violent sport, and to be honest, that head stomp wasn't tha bad relative to some of the other stuff that goes on in the game... both within and against the rules.

Anyone see the Patriots/Bengals game Sunday? Reche Caldwell (pats WR) went over the middle and the Bengals safety just DESTROYED him... I'm talking hit by a bus, head bounce off the ground, tunnel-vision, concussion situation... it was the most violent thing I'd ever seen in the NFL.

And we've all heard stories about what happens at the bottom of the pile... Squeeze anything (yes even there) you can get your hands on, stick fingers in eyes, etc... Catch Bill Romanowski on 60-minutes last week? About how he was in a fight for a ball at the bottom of a scrum.. the play was dead, but he was pissed, so he grabbed a finger - didn't know who's - and snapped the thing sideways... the guy started SCREAMING at the bottom of the pile.

Or what about Ronnie Lott... He broke his pinky finger in a game.. did he come out for the rest of the game? No.. in fact, he made them AMPUTATE it, so he could finish the game....

Heck even playing HS football, there's some pretty awful violence. One time junior-year I tackled a kid on a sweep to the right. Pretty routine tackle, except the kid w/ the ball starts screaming bloody murder. Confused, I stood up and looked down. Apparently his leg got cought up in the grass/me, and the poor kid had a second knee where his shin used to be - clean break, both bones. I threw up in my mouth, the ambulance took him away, and the game resumed on....

My point is just that this is all blown wayyyy out of proportion IMO... Sure he coulda got a cleat in his eye but he didn't... he got 30 stitches. <insert hockey reference here>

SmokingTarpan · 10-04-2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

And we've all heard stories about what happens at the bottom of the pile... Squeeze anything (yes even there) you can get your hands on, stick fingers in eyes, etc... Catch Bill Romanowski on 60-minutes last week? About how he was in a fight for a ball at the bottom of a scrum.. the play was dead, but he was pissed, so he grabbed a finger - didn't know who's - and snapped the thing sideways... the guy started SCREAMING at the bottom of the pile.

Do you think these actions are excusable because they're done within the confines of the game?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying let's have charges and whatnot for every hard hit that results in a concussion or broken limb. These things happen when you've got a game where rough play is the norm. It's when the actions are deliberately malicious with the intent to cause injury and not part of the game whatsoever that we need to be careful. I don't want to see assault charges because some dude got a bruised elbow, but I also don't want to see a guy walk if he decides to whip out a pistol from under his pads and shoot the opposing quarterback. :P

**WhiskeySix** · 10-04-2006, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Do you think these actions are excusable because they're done within the confines of the game?

Excusable? No.
Explainable? Yes, Easily.
To be expected? Certainly.

Most players DONT do such things, but it's a nasty game in general... especially for the linemen in the trenches. In nearly every NFL game you can see people stepping on hands and arms and backs and whatever else all the time... it's always when there's a big pile-up along the line of scrimmage... 'woooah <crunch> oops. I stumbled, and accidentally put all my weight on your forearm'. Rugby's even worse! (or maybe it's the same, just minus pads and with extra players?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying let's have charges and whatnot for every hard hit that results in a concussion or broken limb. These things happen when you've got a game where rough play is the norm. It's when the actions are deliberately malicious with the intent to cause injury <snip>

Honestly, every participant in every voilent collision in football has SOME intent to injur... not permanently so... but it's there... Humans are in fact mammals, and football is a very primal game at it's essence. When you're tackling someone to the ground, it's not a gentile or sportsmanlike thing! You throw your full body at them and do everything physically possible to drive them to the ground; and the last thing on your mind is their well being. Your body pumps out adrenaline and who knows what else to make this happen.... Never played offensive line, but I'd imagine that's a similar situation... you're doing everything you possibly can to keep the monster you're blocking from getting by you to hurt your team-mate.

Uh.. I don't think I'm explaining this very well :/ There is a pure rush one gets from winning a physical battle with another human - it's pretty hard to describe.. that combined with the immeasurable team pride that's involved, and you get a pretty emotionally charged scene.

Ever see those UFC fights? Ever see how they end when a guy taps out or time runs out? They don't just blow a whistle and then the winner stands, helping the looser to his feet. No, the ref tackles the victor off his opponent... it's breaking up a fight. Same thing can happen in football.. except it's a 50-60 round fight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

I don't want to see assault charges because some dude got a bruised elbow, but I also don't want to see a guy walk if he decides to whip out a pistol from under his pads and shoot the opposing quarterback. :P

I know what you're saying, and I agree. My point is that the NFL's strong reaction was appropriate, but, given the nature of the game, we shouldn't be surprised when such 'after the whistle' things happen.

10-03-2006, 02:35 AM	#16 (permalink)
sordavie Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 2,092	Re: Titan's player stomps on Dallas player's head Hm, I guess nobody is reading that passage the same way that I do. It seems to me that it cannot be the case that what was quoted came at a time when the coach knew nothing or very little about the incident. If he had known next to nothing, if he had known only the fact that his player produced back-to-back penalties, then his statements about additional punishment on top of possible league punishment seem odd. This leads me to understand the quoted material as not being taken from on the field as the incident unfolds. How would he have known that the league is considering punishment just a few minutes after the play happened? If he was being interviewed right after the game and he knew that his player had done something intentional to harm another player, but did not know what extent the harm or intention was, then I would think his comment should be something like "I don't know what happened yet, but I will find out. And, if it warrants punishment, the player will be punished." At least, that's what I would say, if I'm being interviewed about the play right after the game without much knowledge of what happened. The passage at the end of that CNN article sounds like it's comming from an interview after widespread viewing of the replays. It comes in a context where league punishment is a relevant possibility. What he's calling unacceptable cannot be back-to-back penalties. What he's calling unacceptable is something that can be punished by the league. That part of the passage must be narration from a press conference after the game, after everyone has seen the replays of the stomp and know that the league must be considering punishment. To then read the next sentence in the article, the quoted material, as Fisher's reaction minutes after the play would be to attribute a very disconnected style of writing to whoever wrote the article. It would be, as I mentioned before, to quote out of context. If you describe Fisher as having called his player's actions unacceptable then directly quote him talking about his player without mentioning when and where Fisher said these things, it would be appropriate only if your description of what he said and the quoted material came from the same speech. Otherwise you're putting your reader in one context, as you describe what Fisher says in a speech, and then misleading your reader by changing the context without any flags that you are doing so, by quoting what Fisher says at some time other than which you described a sentence ago. I guess I'm assuming the CNN writer would not do this. That would be a pretty blatant instance of bad writing. So to review, I've given you the reading of those last two sentences in the context of a post game interview when he knew nothing or little about the play, a post game interview when he did know something about the play, an on field interview minutes after the play, as well as a mix of the two. They all seem weird to me. Maybe my reading comprehension is just really poor? __________________

10-03-2006, 02:37 AM	#17 (permalink)
sordavie Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 2,092	Re: Titan's player stomps on Dallas player's head The league's longet suspension was only 2 games? __________________

10-03-2006, 02:53 AM	#18 (permalink)
sordavie Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 2,092	Re: Titan's player stomps on Dallas player's head "'I felt there needed to be some serious action taken from a discipline standpoint, and I believe that what the league has done right now is adequate,' Fisher said." Looks like Fisher has decided not to keep his earlier promise. Sounds like no punishment from the team. At least, that would be the implicature from saying that the league punishment is adequate. __________________

10-03-2006, 04:05 AM	#19 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 30 Posts: 999	Re: Titan's player stomps on Dallas player's head Sordavie, I read the quote as him being disgusted that the player would go do something like that, I don't think he was referring to the fact that penalties were given, I think he was referring to the actions themselves, that after already being cited for being a complete douche, he couldn't be man enough to accept that, and instead had to go do something to further the incident. It may be because of the way coaches and referees speak about these things. if it had been pass interference 7 plays in a row, and he said "it's ridiculous that he got 7 back to back penalties," I think most people would recognize that he is upset with the player for behaving like that, not that the refs called him on it.

10-03-2006, 05:08 PM	#24 (permalink)
WhiskeySix Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Gillette Stadium, Section 309, Row 12, Seat 24 Age: 33 Posts: 8,271	Re: Titan's player stomps on Dallas player's head A criminal action? No way... it's football... like Cing said, the law is broken on every play... On the other hand, if the stompee wanted to file a civil lawsuit claiming that the stomper reduced his ability to make a livelihood, then sure... sue away. edit: Marty McSorley whacked Donald Brasheer in the head wiiiiiiiiiiiiith ... a hockey stick. __________________ *PoE2 Version 2.5 Overview \| Get started with PoE2 (for free!)*

10-03-2006, 06:32 PM	#25 (permalink)
Beatnik Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Age: 33 Posts: 4,322	Re: Titan's player stomps on Dallas player's head THANKS Whiskey - McSorley's name was on the tip of my brain for the last couple hours... didn't he have criminal prosecution too? EDIT: Just checked. (no pun intended) He did. __________________ -F- Beatnik

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links