Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 152
  1. #37

    Re: Saints Player Suspensions Announced



    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Interpretation is skewed? How do you mean?
    For example, if Suggs says he is going to take out Ben R. You don't automatically assume that he means by doing it with illegal hits. Your interpretation is most likely that Suggs means he is going to hit him as hard as he can, within the rules of the game.
    The Saints are not getting that interpretation, they all are getting the opposite. They must mean illegal hits. They bring up the hit on Kurt Warner for example. A hit that was completely legal. But somehow, now that is evidence.




  2. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,607
    Quote Originally Posted by blah3 View Post
    For example, if Suggs says he is going to take out Ben R. You don't automatically assume that he means by doing it with illegal hits. Your interpretation is most likely that Suggs means he is going to hit him as hard as he can, within the rules of the game.
    The Saints are not getting that interpretation, they all are getting the opposite. They must mean illegal hits. They bring up the hit on Kurt Warner for example. A hit that was completely legal. But somehow, now that is evidence.
    They lied to the Commish about their involvement.

    They were also told to stop yet kept going.

    Did you even read the report?
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  3. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    26,621
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Saints Player Suspensions Announced

    Quote Originally Posted by blah3 View Post
    For example, if Suggs says he is going to take out Ben R. You don't automatically assume that he means by doing it with illegal hits. Your interpretation is most likely that Suggs means he is going to hit him as hard as he can, within the rules of the game.
    The Saints are not getting that interpretation, they all are getting the opposite. They must mean illegal hits. They bring up the hit on Kurt Warner for example. A hit that was completely legal. But somehow, now that is evidence.
    In my interpretation it has less to do with the hits and more to do with the exchange of non-contract money.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  4. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,332

    Re: Saints Player Suspensions Announced

    Quote Originally Posted by blah3 View Post
    For example, if Suggs says he is going to take out Ben R. You don't automatically assume that he means by doing it with illegal hits. Your interpretation is most likely that Suggs means he is going to hit him as hard as he can, within the rules of the game.
    The Saints are not getting that interpretation, they all are getting the opposite. They must mean illegal hits. They bring up the hit on Kurt Warner for example. A hit that was completely legal. But somehow, now that is evidence.
    Your assumption about what my interpretation of a hypothetical scenario is, is incorrect.

    If Suggs, or another player in the league said that, I would assume that's a figure of speech. if Suggs or any other player i.e the Saints players were saying these things and had a bounty system + had audio of meetings targeting players head (with illegal or legal hits) because the recently had concussions + lying about the bounty system and covering it up, then I would say fine and suspend the player.

    I think the suspensions are justified, given all the evidence, and as others mentioned even if they weren't successful the intent was there.
    Last edited by NCRAVEN; 05-02-2012 at 01:44 PM. Reason: spelling




  5. #41

    Re: Saints Player Suspensions Announced

    Quote Originally Posted by blah3 View Post
    For example, if Suggs says he is going to take out Ben R. You don't automatically assume that he means by doing it with illegal hits. Your interpretation is most likely that Suggs means he is going to hit him as hard as he can, within the rules of the game.
    The Saints are not getting that interpretation, they all are getting the opposite. They must mean illegal hits. They bring up the hit on Kurt Warner for example. A hit that was completely legal. But somehow, now that is evidence.
    k0493300.jpg

    In the context of criminal law, a conspiracy exists when there is an agreement to violate the law. You do not need to show an *actual* murder in a prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder. Just the agreement to break the law, and some action taken as part of the conspiracy.

    If you conspire to circumvent the salary cap, and conspire to injure players, and conspire to obstruct an investigation, and conspire to be a p.o.s. of a human being, there does not need to be a demonstration that a single hit or a single group of hits was legal or illegal.

    It's enough that there was a conspiracy.

    You are assuming there was not enough evidence, which is quite a startling and unreasonable assumption. There was no public trial and none of these clowns is entitled to a public trial. I will not, though, assume it didn't happen just because I never received a personal invitation from Goodell to observe the meetings and read the memos.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  6. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Westminster (FORMER Training Camp)
    Posts
    864

    Re: Saints Player Suspensions Announced

    So if I am reading this thread correctly, we have two differing views of the punishment:

    1. If you put money down on people deliberately injuring or targeting someone (as opposed to earning your money to play until the whistle), and lie to obstruct an investigation, then there should be a penalty imposed.

    2. If the first part of # 1 applies but there is no evidence that anyone actually made an illegal hit or otherwise actually injured someone, then there is to be no penalty.

    The story so far as I understand it is that this was going on at one time, that the NFL said "knock it off", that they heard it was still going on, were told "no, it is not", then found out that certain people lied to cover it up, because it in fact was still in place. So the penalties dished out are for doing it, doing it and lying and covering it up when it was investigated.

    So what exactly is the reason that there should be no penalties? Or is it the length of the penalties? Or is there a claim that this is pure fiction?
    Captain Offense




  7. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Right Where I need to be
    Posts
    1,312

    Re: Saints Player Suspensions Announced

    Quote Originally Posted by BcRaven View Post
    Oh man, there goes Cleveland's Super Bowl hopes down the drain... Bc
    Welcome to the




  8. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    26,621
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Saints Player Suspensions Announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Offense View Post
    So if I am reading this thread correctly, we have two differing views of the punishment:

    1. If you put money down on people deliberately injuring or targeting someone (as opposed to earning your money to play until the whistle), and lie to obstruct an investigation, then there should be a penalty imposed.

    2. If the first part of # 1 applies but there is no evidence that anyone actually made an illegal hit or otherwise actually injured someone, then there is to be no penalty.

    The story so far as I understand it is that this was going on at one time, that the NFL said "knock it off", that they heard it was still going on, were told "no, it is not", then found out that certain people lied to cover it up, because it in fact was still in place. So the penalties dished out are for doing it, doing it and lying and covering it up when it was investigated.

    So what exactly is the reason that there should be no penalties? Or is it the length of the penalties? Or is there a claim that this is pure fiction?
    Overall this is about image.

    Whether or not folks want to agree or disagree on the "evidence" or lackthereof, this ultimately is about the image of the NFL and more importantly, the image of Roger Goodell.

    There are legitimate reasons for why he suspended those players and coaches, but I think if this wasn't such a big deal (as in US Congress and potentially IRS getting involved) then it wouldn't have been nearly as severe.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  9. #45

    Re: Saints Player Suspensions Announced

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    In my interpretation it has less to do with the hits and more to do with the exchange of non-contract money.
    The exchange of non contract money is going on in every locker room in the NFL.




  10. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,332

    Re: Saints Player Suspensions Announced

    Quote Originally Posted by blah3 View Post
    The exchange of non contract money is going on in every locker room in the NFL.
    1. Prove it

    2. That doesn't make it okay, does it?




  11. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,332

    Re: Saints Player Suspensions Announced

    Quote Originally Posted by festivus View Post
    k0493300.jpg

    In the context of criminal law, a conspiracy exists when there is an agreement to violate the law. You do not need to show an *actual* murder in a prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder. Just the agreement to break the law, and some action taken as part of the conspiracy.

    If you conspire to circumvent the salary cap, and conspire to injure players, and conspire to obstruct an investigation, and conspire to be a p.o.s. of a human being, there does not need to be a demonstration that a single hit or a single group of hits was legal or illegal.

    It's enough that there was a conspiracy.

    You are assuming there was not enough evidence, which is quite a startling and unreasonable assumption. There was no public trial and none of these clowns is entitled to a public trial. I will not, though, assume it didn't happen just because I never received a personal invitation from Goodell to observe the meetings and read the memos.
    Thread win.

    BTW - I spit out my water when I saw that picture.




  12. #48

    Re: Saints Player Suspensions Announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Offense View Post
    So if I am reading this thread correctly, we have two differing views of the punishment:

    1. If you put money down on people deliberately injuring or targeting someone (as opposed to earning your money to play until the whistle), and lie to obstruct an investigation, then there should be a penalty imposed.

    2. If the first part of # 1 applies but there is no evidence that anyone actually made an illegal hit or otherwise actually injured someone, then there is to be no penalty.

    The story so far as I understand it is that this was going on at one time, that the NFL said "knock it off", that they heard it was still going on, were told "no, it is not", then found out that certain people lied to cover it up, because it in fact was still in place. So the penalties dished out are for doing it, doing it and lying and covering it up when it was investigated.

    So what exactly is the reason that there should be no penalties? Or is it the length of the penalties? Or is there a claim that this is pure fiction?
    It's the length.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland