2019-2020 Official Regular Season Thread

[dtgold88]

Coming from the guy crying about Draymond needing to get suspended when he didn't even injure Lebron, after Lebron instigated the whole thing too, this is hilarious.

You're a hypocrite of the highest order.

He never said Garrett should not be suspended at all.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

i am defending the action because i said that they would look at it different if he had brain damage and was in the hospital instead of it cause no injury at all

again- you are as dumb as ignorant as they come. I cant believe you made it out of the 8th grade. You display all emotion, little reading comprehension and zero critical thinking.

Look at it different?
He’s kicked out of league within 12 hours.
Thats as severe as they could get.

Maybe it becomes a police matter under your circumstances, but thats another story.

So you are now arguing with proven results.

You should help him with his appeal.

Too bad this happened.
Its taking away from the ass whipping the Heat put on you as well as the shit game TT had.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Admittedly I was grunching here and I wasn't caught up. If I was wrong here, my bad. I'll try to go back and re-read the genesis of the argument. What I initially saw it looked like you were defending Garrett. If that wasn't the case, I apologize.

I mean its common sense- or so I would think

if Rudolph was hit in his temple by the hard part of the helmet and died

it would be different than if he suffered no injury at all

 

[WiggyRuss]

He never said Garrett should not be suspended at all.

its all emotion and no actual thinking. Should I be surprised? I mean- at this point I probably shouldnt be.

 

[CitySushi]

i WAS defending Garrett

there is a large difference between causing no injury and causing serious injury.

in no way shape or form does that 100 absolve him, but it is absolutely a factor that can and will be considred by people that are not ignorant morons like turnup who lack the ability of critical thinking and are all emotion and no comprehension.

Sorry but that's ridiculous.

I get you're coming at it from a legal perspective, but this type of situation is not in the NORMAL context of every day life. This is the equivalent of a baseball player charging the mound with their baseball bat and making contact swinging at someone. Regardless of the outcome, the intent and action itself should demand immediate and severe punishment.

Ron Artest went into the crowd and attacked a fan. He was banned for over a year. This was just a fist fight.

Myles Garrett used a helmet (weapon) to hit a player without one. If the helmet was turned slightly so the solid part of it hit Rudolph instead of the padded portion, he's undoubtedly has a much more severe injury.

Stop defending him. His action was terrible. Like out of any and all arguments you've been on other sides, I really, really, hope you reconsider your stance here.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

Now you are comparing hitting a guy in the head with a helmet to molesting young boys over a stretch of years?

Oh my....cannot wait to see you try and backtrack from this one.

Only question is will usual cronies come to your rescue.

Not comparing the crime, just the mindset to justify the crime.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Admittedly I was grunching here and I wasn't caught up. If I was wrong here, my bad. I'll try to go back and re-read the genesis of the argument. What I initially saw it looked like you were defending Garrett. If that wasn't the case, I apologize.

if Steph Curry threw his mouth guard into the standds and hit a fan in the eye and blinded the fan, it would be different than if the mouth guard hit no one and fell on the ground

the act is the exact same- even the intent is the same- but the circumstances and thus the penalty would be hugely hugely different.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Sorry but that's ridiculous.

I get you're coming at it from a legal perspective, but this type of situation is not in the NORMAL context of every day life. This is the equivalent of a baseball player charging the mound with their baseball bat and making contact swinging at someone. Regardless of the outcome, the intent and action itself should demand immediate and severe punishment.

Ron Artest went into the crowd and attacked a fan. He was banned for over a year. This was just a fist fight.

Myles Garrett used a helmet (weapon) to hit a player without one. If the helmet was turned slightly so the solid part of it hit Rudolph instead of the padded portion, he's undoubtedly has a much more severe injury.

Stop defending him. His action was terrible. Like out of any and all arguments you've been on other sides, I really, really, hope you reconsider your stance here.

so your saying that the actual outcome does not matter

whether rudolph died

or

whether rudolph suffered no injury at all

its the same


I mean forgive me- but thats lunacy.

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't think he will appeal tbh

He may not have a choice. Could be wrong, but I think the NFLPA automatically appeals. Although, considering that even those who are talking about Rudolph starting it, are saying that you just can't cross the line that Garrett did.

So maybe they decide not to appeal it?

 

[dtgold88]

 

[CitySushi]

if Steph Curry threw his mouth guard into the standds and hit a fan in the eye and blinded the fan, it would be different than if the mouth guard hit no one and fell on the ground

the act is the exact same- even the intent is the same- but the circumstances and thus the penalty would be hugely hugely different.

Do you think there's a difference between tossing a mouth guard into the stands versus using a weapon to strike another person?

You're using a freak occurrence versus something that has a tangible effect on someone. You throw a mouth guard at someone, if it ends up blinding them, that you can clearly state was not intended to inflict pain. However if you swing a helmet a someone not wearing one to strike them on the head, I would think you could safely assume there's intent to harm there.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Sorry but that's ridiculous.

I get you're coming at it from a legal perspective, but this type of situation is not in the NORMAL context of every day life. This is the equivalent of a baseball player charging the mound with their baseball bat and making contact swinging at someone. Regardless of the outcome, the intent and action itself should demand immediate and severe punishment.

Ron Artest went into the crowd and attacked a fan. He was banned for over a year. This was just a fist fight.

Myles Garrett used a helmet (weapon) to hit a player without one. If the helmet was turned slightly so the solid part of it hit Rudolph instead of the padded portion, he's undoubtedly has a much more severe injury.

Stop defending him. His action was terrible. Like out of any and all arguments you've been on other sides, I really, really, hope you reconsider your stance here.

if that baseball player swung the bat and knicked the pitcher and there was no injury the penalty would be hugely different than if he caught him square and caused brain damage.

to make the argument that both are the same is just no where in the realm of common sense.

 

[dtgold88]

Not comparing the crime, just the mindset to justify the crime.

And one is justifying a provoked guy hitting another with a helmet, the other is justifying innocent boys being raped over a period of years.

Dance, deflect, distort, you made a foolish comment. Question is, could this be the first time you man up and own your absurd comment.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Do you think there's a difference between tossing a mouth guard into the stands versus using a weapon to strike another person?

You're using a freak occurrence versus something that has a tangible effect on someone. You throw a mouth guard at someone, if it ends up blinding them, that you can clearly state was not intended to inflict pain. However if you swing a helmet a someone not wearing one to strike them on the head, I would think you could safely assume there's intent to harm there.

I am saying that the consequences of the action matters.

that when crafting a penalty one of the main factors to consider is the outcome.

There is a HUGE difference if Mason Rudolph dies from a brain injury, or if he suffers no injury what so ever.


there is a huge difference if Steph Curry blinds a fan with his mouth guard, or if the mouth guard falls harmlessly to the ground.

 

[dtgold88]

Sorry but that's ridiculous.

I get you're coming at it from a legal perspective, but this type of situation is not in the NORMAL context of every day life. This is the equivalent of a baseball player charging the mound with their baseball bat and making contact swinging at someone. Regardless of the outcome, the intent and action itself should demand immediate and severe punishment.

Ron Artest went into the crowd and attacked a fan. He was banned for over a year. This was just a fist fight.

Myles Garrett used a helmet (weapon) to hit a player without one. If the helmet was turned slightly so the solid part of it hit Rudolph instead of the padded portion, he's undoubtedly has a much more severe injury.

Stop defending him. His action was terrible. Like out of any and all arguments you've been on other sides, I really, really, hope you reconsider your stance here.

what about throwing a 90-100 MPH baseball at a guy? Miss by too much and you can kill the player. Does this action often see the pitcher banned the rest of the year?

That said, the timeframe not a complete surprise, but nor would a couple of games

 

[CitySushi]

if that baseball player swung the bat and knicked the pitcher and there was no injury the penalty would be hugely different than if he caught him square and caused brain damage.

to make the argument that both are the same is just no where in the realm of common sense.

Obviously results matter. If you kill someone that's way different than not. But that's why there are different penalties for lesser crimes like attempted murder or even manslaughter.

There's no arguing that ultimately the severity of the injury to the other person has an effect on the length of punishment. However the STARTING point for the punishment based on the action should be lengthy.

If that is what your argument is, then I guess we are in agreement. But if you believe the penalty should be light because there wasn't any injury, I don't agree at all.

 

[Black Adam]

Look at it different?
He’s kicked out of league within 12 hours.
Thats as severe as they could get.

Maybe it becomes a police matter under your circumstances, but thats another story.

So you are now arguing with proven results.

You should help him with his appeal.

Too bad this happened.
Its taking away from the ass whipping the Heat put on you as well as the shit game TT had.

they'll throw away the key if Wiggy defends him...

 

[WiggyRuss]

btw.....

@msgkings322

i finally got my birthday gift in the mail...my birthday was a little bit ago

I got a new polo down comforter. Originally it was $360, but it went on sale, and the sale again, and came down to a reasonable about 180.

its amazing

i highly recommend it.

https://www.macys.com/shop/product/...898$4861852~xcm_pos~zPos2~xcm_srcCatID~z28898

sorry- the deal is not as good as it was a few days ago....15% off additionally instead of 30%....

 

[WiggyRuss]

Obviously results matter. If you kill someone that's way different than not. But that's why there are different penalties for lesser crimes like attempted murder or even manslaughter.

There's no arguing that ultimately the severity of the injury to the other person has an effect on the length of punishment. However the STARTING point for the punishment based on the action should be lengthy.

If that is what your argument is, then I guess we are in agreement. But if you believe the penalty should be light because there wasn't any injury, I don't agree at all.

i mean its all degrees at that point- "light" its not a word i would use but "lighter" is absolutely one I would use.

thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[dtgold88]