The Truth about Myles/Rudolph

[Icecube]

10 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Do you really want to compare your training and experience to mine when it comes to what constitutes "credible evidence"?  

The fact is, you are just dead wrong about that, and allow me to explain why: 

 

Let's look at what you claim to be evidence.  

A. The NFL has no audio.   There is no NFL audio of any of the "dialogue"  that happened.  Good bad or indifferent.  You can't prove a negative with a negative.  Its like saying:  because there is no turd in htown's toilet, he must have never in his life ever had to take a shit. 

B. And,  Did you see the video?  None of the refs and none of the teammates were anywhere close enough to hear anything that was going on in a face to face confrontation like that....There are bodies flying around, men grunting....and a ton of crowd noise.  They can't say they heard it....because they cannot attest to anything that was said at that point where the two of them were down on the ground.  They CANNOT say that   A said this...and B said that....or that "I heard everything that was said and B did not say anything"  

C.  So Rudolph's AA coach said he would never say that?  First off, WTF is an AA coach...and what is his relationship to Rudolph,  and can he be qualified as a character witness.  Furthermore, I am sure that many people could probably say "Oh, he is not the kind of guy that would say that.....but then that would be OK....if  Rudolph were not put into a very stressful situation.  He had thrown 4 Ints. he team was being whipped every way shape or form. He was frustrated, angry and he had just be pounded again by a guy that had been in his grill all night and there he was again, slamming him to the turf (which actually...Myles could have given him a lot worse).  It is certainly highly possible, highly possible that all that had built up, and that he had done something that, yes, certainly was stupid and  out of character of him to do.   Just as, clearly, obviously, Myles did something that was stupid and out of character for him.  In fact, equally or more credible would be the testimony of Myles teammates and coaches and friends etc..and whatever an AA coach is, that it would not be in his character to swing that helmet at him....

So, what are we left with?   

The same evidence we had before..   The instantaneous "excited utterance"  or physical action or reaction.  It was clear that at that moment something happened to cause that  harsh reaction.  Furthermore, there was the statement made to Freddie in the locker room immediately after the incident.  These lend credibility to Garrett's claim. 

So, when you reach the age of 4, let us all know. 

 

Not buying it. Since when is a lack of evidence, evidence? To say, "I don't know, something made him freak out" is hardly anything resembling proof. What made him freak out was MR trying to take his helmet off and kicking him in the dingy, and then coming after him As if you need to create some other reason for him freaking out. 

[Dutch Oven]

2 hours ago, Gorka said:

Cool shirt but that would depend on what constitutes "starting it"...Myles unnecessary roughness or Red Nose's hissy fit retaliation?

Myles Garrett, Browns: Unnecessary roughness, Unsportsmanlike conduct, Fighting, Removing Helmet of Opponnent, Using Helmet as Weapon, indefinite unpaid suspension plus $45,623

So you stab me because I called you a dirty rotten name and I should be punished more severely? I instigated it.

Absurdity thrives in homerism.

Aren't you a troll who lives on the Politics Board who recently referred to someone as a "Jew Boy"? 

That pretty much tells me what your agenda is on here. 

[Ibleedbrown]

I fancy myself a bit of a word nerd and would just like to point out that a “racial slur” isn’t always an N bomb and that there are other words that are more ambiguous that can be meant one way but interpreted another.

I feel like the word “ape” may apply here. I know l’ve used that word to describe a particularly muscle-ey white guy before, but it also has been used as a racial slur. In the heat of the moment l could see Mason yelling “get off me you effing ape!” 

And quite frankly the word “boy” has been used as a racial slur. Especially when said with a pronounced southern accent with a bit of a “w” sound, like BO-wee. 

I seriously doubt Mason was dropping N bombs on the field, but if l had to guess used a more ambiguous word that was meant to offend but not meant to cross any lines. What he said and how it was received aren’t always the same things.

[The Gipper]

5 hours ago, htownbrown said:

In this instance AA obviously means African American.  

Even if the accusation is "credible", which I'm entitled to believe it's not in this context, it's not an actual defense to criminal prosecution for assault. 

Who said it was?   Maybe you have not been following along.  I have stated all along that these are mitigating factors, not exculpatory factors. 

 

That would have to be self-defense, which this isn't the case obviously.  He might have justified that with a punch, but not a helmet.  Especially, when there were plenty of people to "protect" him.  It's a moot point, unless you're aiming for a reduced sentence.

Well...as I said, this is not a court of law....but merely an internal disciplinary proceeding that can...and has imo, made rulings not based on proper legal principles,  but rather, on public relations positions.  However, you may be wrong about it being a moot point. The claim is that the "sentence" handed down is outside the purview of the league offer to deal out because it violates the terms of the CBA.  If the NFLPA chooses (and it remains to see if they are gutless or not), they could file suit to have a court overturn the punisment due to that violation. 

I'm not even sure that would work if you tried to charge Rudolph with some sort of hate crime.  That requires facts that don't exist in this case.

Again, no one is talking about any such thing.  Where the fuck are you coming up with this? 

Now, in civil court maybe.  Those are clown shows if you get the right judge.

Here you go again, digging yourself deeper into the stupid hole.

But if you think the NFL gives a shit about that defense, you're nuts. 

Which defense?  Let me learn you something:  legally, a "defense" IS something that would exonerate your actions...like self-defense, which, again, neither I nor anyone is claiming is appropriate here.  For the umpteenth time, I am talking about mitigating circumstances that would/should/could reduce punishment.  

At the moment, they don't have liability insurance for head trauma.  There's not an insurance company in the world that will provide it.  They're not going to take that risk and who can blame them? 

Well...again, here is another situation where this disciplinary proceeding varies from the application of proper legal principles.  In a court, you deal with what DID happen.....not with what might have/could have happened.  In this case, no harm befell Rudolph...ergo, you cannot punish someone for what could have happened but didn't.

And since you bring up head trauma and insurance....the same thing applies.  If Rudolph tried to bring a claim vs. Garrett...or the NFL, and if this was referred to an insurance company for adjustment....they would laugh at the concept that there would be much if any claim for damages. The FIRST thing an insurance company asks is:  Is there liability.   In this case I am going to say, yes, Myles can be considered liable for his actions (but the provocation issue would, nevertheless still be in play...because an insurance company will use every factor they can think of to deflect their responsibility).  But the next thing they ask is:  What are the damages? What is the harm?  What were the injuries?  Show us the x-rays, the CT scan reports, what were the medical expenses.   In this case the answer is:   Nothing, no harm, no injuries, no med expenses...

And the insurance company will say to Rudolph:  Fuck Off,  claim denied. 

 

 

 

[bjh2130]

1 hour ago, Flugel said:

Again, who snapped the ball to the QB attempting to throw out of the shakey cup pocket protection MG was collapsing from the edge?  The Center named Pouncey who just so happens to be African American.  

Again pouncey was not near him when he hit him or when they went to the ground.  For christ sake it was a screen play.  Pouncey was down field blocking. You said he would never dare say it because look at who his teammates are. I was simply pointing out riley cooper had a lot of teammates just like rudolph and that didn't stop him from using the racial slurs so you can't just assume because his teammates are mostly one race that he wouldn't use those terms. 

[stillmotion]

15 hours ago, Dutch Oven said:

If the same exact situation would have played out in reverse, the same people on here saying things like "it was like a pillow hitting Rudolph" would be demanding a public hanging for the Steelers player who did it to Baker. 

I don't have a problem with Garrett being suspended for the rest of the season. My problem lies with Rudolph getting off without a second lost to suspension. My hope is that he gets his a week from tomorrow. 

That's been my argument all around and I completely agree with you man.

[Neo]

15 hours ago, Dutch Oven said:

the same people on here saying things like "it was like a pillow hitting Rudolph" would be demanding a public hanging 

Don't speak for everyone because I have stated that I believe things like this should be handled internally. And it doesn't matter what team, if a Steelers player did this to Baker Mayfield I would expect the same punishment that Myles Garrett received.

Again I am looking for consistency. I have seen worse things happen on the football field and they got off for less.

[flyingfooldoug]

Browns fans swing helmets at a Mason Rudolph piñata. Now that’s a tailgate party! 

[PoeticG]

 

[PoeticG]

Nice Freudian slip there Mason..."It's totally tru...UNTRUE"

 

[Tour2ma]

21 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Do you really want to compare your training and experience to mine when it comes to what constitutes "credible evidence"?  

The fact is, you are just dead wrong about that, and allow me to explain why: 

 

Let's look at what you claim to be evidence.  

A. The NFL has no audio.   There is no NFL audio of any of the "dialogue"  that happened.  Good bad or indifferent.  You can't prove a negative with a negative.  Its like saying:  because there is no turd in htown's toilet, he must have never in his life ever had to take a shit. 

B. And,  Did you see the video?  None of the refs and none of the teammates were anywhere close enough to hear anything that was going on in a face to face confrontation like that....There are bodies flying around, men grunting....and a ton of crowd noise.  They can't say they heard it....because they cannot attest to anything that was said at that point where the two of them were down on the ground.  They CANNOT say that   A said this...and B said that....or that "I heard everything that was said and B did not say anything"  

C.  So Rudolph's AA coach said he would never say that?  First off, WTF is an AA coach...and what is his relationship to Rudolph,  and can he be qualified as a character witness.  Furthermore, I am sure that many people could probably say "Oh, he is not the kind of guy that would say that.....but then that would be OK....if  Rudolph were not put into a very stressful situation.  He had thrown 4 Ints. he team was being whipped every way shape or form. He was frustrated, angry and he had just be pounded again by a guy that had been in his grill all night and there he was again, slamming him to the turf (which actually...Myles could have given him a lot worse).  It is certainly highly possible, highly possible that all that had built up, and that he had done something that, yes, certainly was stupid and  out of character of him to do.   Just as, clearly, obviously, Myles did something that was stupid and out of character for him.  In fact, equally or more credible would be the testimony of Myles teammates and coaches and friends etc..and whatever an AA coach is, that it would not be in his character to swing that helmet at him....

So, what are we left with?   

The same evidence we had before..   The instantaneous "excited utterance"  or physical action or reaction.  It was clear that at that moment something happened to cause that  harsh reaction.  Furthermore, there was the statement made to Freddie in the locker room immediately after the incident.  These lend credibility to Garrett's claim.

OK.... I "unmasked" this one so I could quote it after reading it when it was quoted above and in full.

Well written... well thought out... except we still do not know what Freddie was told by MG... so that is hardly "furthermore" evidence.

[The Gipper]

35 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

OK.... I "unmasked" this one so I could quote it after reading it when it was quoted above and in full.

Well written... well thought out... except we still do not know what Freddie was told by MG... so that is hardly "furthermore" evidence.

The fact that  Freddie commented basically immediately after the game that Garrett told him that Rudolph said something to him that "he would not repeat" here,  lends credibility to the fact that something was said, because it was, more or less, an "on the spot" statement.   So, yes, it is evidence "furthermore".  The question is what weight should it be given.  It DOES refute the claim made by some on here that  Garrett just made this up before he went into the hearing.   It disabuses the notion perhaps that  MG and Freddie somehow conspired to come up with this "defense"......

As my Evidence professor in law school taught us in one of our first lectures:   Each item of of fact, each evidential point is basically a chip that you throw on the ante up pile.  The more chips you have, the better for your case.    If your opponent can steal some of your chips with their own facts, or there own evidential points, then you have to re-supply your ante, or block the effort of your opponent from stealing your chips..if you can. 

You can have a very small chip.....say a $1.00 chip...or you can have a chip of massive value.   A $1000.00 chip.  Every chip counts for something, little or big.  Freddie's revelation right after the game IS a chip of some undetermined value. 

Could it have been a much bigger chip if he had not been coy....or deferential, or cautious?   It may have been.....  It may have even affected the whole narrative ab initio when the original punishment came down.   

I guess Freddie felt he had to hold it close to his vest in order not to incite....something.....and not to disparage  Rudolph and his character.  Though, maybe, in retrospect, if Freddie honestly believed Garrett, he should not have been so deferential and cautious.  If he believed Garrett, Maya would not have deserved the kind of respect that Freddie afforded him.  In some sense, perhap Freddie diminished the value of that chip by not playing it right away. 

[Tour2ma]

Yes, diminished... as was MG's assertion.

I've attributed Freddie's silence to not betraying a confidence,in. However, in light of the NFL hearing leak, to continue down that path seems by far to be the lesser of his options in serving MG's interest. So I can give Freddie's being told something no weight.

[The Gipper]

28 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

Yes, diminished... as was MG's assertion.

I've attributed Freddie's silence to not betraying a confidence,in. However, in light of the NFL hearing leak, to continue down that path seems by far to be the lesser of his options in serving MG's interest. So I can give Freddie's being told something no weight.

Well as I have said I have given court  room principles analysis in this whole thing which as we all know really doesn’t apply here because the NFL just makes up whatever rules ,evidence , anything that they want to do so that they can come up with whatever conclusion  they want about how this thing should be done 

[flyingfooldoug]

[Nero]

6 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

Yes, diminished... as was MG's assertion.

I've attributed Freddie's silence to not betraying a confidence,in. However, in light of the NFL hearing leak, to continue down that path seems by far to be the lesser of his options in serving MG's interest. So I can give Freddie's being told something no weight.

I haven't read 20% of the thread, but here it is what I think: 

Myles drags him, they exchange words and Mason says SOMETHING that infuriates Myles and sets everything off. Myles, ashamed, doesn't speak to nobody but his coach, knowing that he shouldn't have reacted that way, no matter the word, even if it is the N-word. (it's a disgusting word, but if someone whispers it and it sets you off you're only acting the way the "offender" wants you to).  

Myles wasn't called the N-word, but something else. His agent and lawyer, knowing that it is his only possible defense, convince him to declare it using the N word, because in the end it was an offensive word what set him off. 

Someone leaks it, and the NFL has audio evidence of both players in the wrong (Mason saying something he shouldn't, Myles being proved a liar), so Godell decides not to take any further actions. 

That makes sense to me. 

[bjh2130]

10 hours ago, Nero said:

I haven't read 20% of the thread, but here it is what I think: 

Myles drags him, they exchange words and Mason says SOMETHING that infuriates Myles and sets everything off. Myles, ashamed, doesn't speak to nobody but his coach, knowing that he shouldn't have reacted that way, no matter the word, even if it is the N-word. (it's a disgusting word, but if someone whispers it and it sets you off you're only acting the way the "offender" wants you to).  

Myles wasn't called the N-word, but something else. His agent and lawyer, knowing that it is his only possible defense, convince him to declare it using the N word, because in the end it was an offensive word what set him off. 

Someone leaks it, and the NFL has audio evidence of both players in the wrong (Mason saying something he shouldn't, Myles being proved a liar), so Godell decides not to take any further actions. 

That makes sense to me. 

But no one ever confirmed that Myles claimed he said the n word just that Rudolph used a racial slur.

[onkyoreceiver]

4 hours ago, flyingfooldoug said:

What is missing here is the two Steelers offensive linemen holding Garrett down.

[mjp28]

11 minutes ago, onkyoreceiver said:

What is missing here is the two Steelers offensive linemen holding Garrett down.

That is really clever !

(but you need to smack the guy holding the stick first they wrestle him to the ground trying to unscrew his head and kick him in the nuts.....more realistic! )

[The Gipper]

3 hours ago, Nero said:

I haven't read 20% of the thread, but here it is what I think: 

Myles drags him, they exchange words and Mason says SOMETHING that infuriates Myles and sets everything off. Myles, ashamed, doesn't speak to nobody but his coach, knowing that he shouldn't have reacted that way, no matter the word, even if it is the N-word. (it's a disgusting word, but if someone whispers it and it sets you off you're only acting the way the "offender" wants you to).  

Myles wasn't called the N-word, but something else. His agent and lawyer, knowing that it is his only possible defense, convince him to declare it using the N word, because in the end it was an offensive word what set him off. 

Someone leaks it, and the NFL has audio evidence of both players in the wrong (Mason saying something he shouldn't, Myles being proved a liar), so Godell decides not to take any further actions. 

That makes sense to me. 

No, it doesn't....not one damned bit......because you have the fact pattern all wrong.   Whatever was said by Rudolph was said while the two of them were on the ground wrestling.   It was what Rudolph said, along with him trying to wrench Garrett's helmet off that  infuriated him....causing him to then drag Rudolph by the helmet. 

[stillmotion]

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

No, it doesn't....not one damned bit......because you have the fact pattern all wrong.   Whatever was said by Rudolph was said while the two of them were on the ground wrestling.   It was what Rudolph said, along with him trying to wrench Garrett's helmet off that  infuriated him....causing him to then drag Rudolph by the helmet. 

We're not sure what he was called, but I've heard rumors it was the b word (boy).

Regardless of what was said, Rudolph looked weak in his response and guilty.

[calfoxwc]

heh.

James Thrash is a former teammate of the other two yahoos. Go figure.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/11/22/james-thrash-complains-about-social-media-reaction-to-his-myles-garrett-decision/

On Thursday, former NFL receiver James Thrash upheld the NFL’s indefinite suspension of Browns defensive end Myles Garrett. The decision prompted a reaction on social media.

Thrash has reacted to the reaction.

“Please stop tweeting me about the decision,” Thrash tweeted late Thursday afternoon. “This was a grueling process and the outcome is final. Player safety is what’s most important!!!”

*************************************************************

That logic goes out with the trash, Thrash. Player safety? what the hell about getting your helmet nearly ripped off, and kicked in the groin? starting the entire fiasco in the first place? what happened to the studio guy who said he HEARD it said ? Where is that audio? Did you interview the guy who said he heard it? Why didn't you suspend mason for at least one game?

Player safety your ass. It's "superbowl teams make big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for the NFL". AND, as Josh Cribbs is saying - "indefinite suspension" is not permitted in your so-called "rule book" that is supposed to apply to ALL TEAMS, NOT just your superbowl money making favorites !

    Fans all over...most of the NFL - see how your "rules" don't apply when you don't want them to - and how your suspensions are not consistent. I wish I could Tweet you, you twit". (whine much?)

 

[Ibleedbrown]

Licky boom boom down

[The Gipper]

45 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

heh.

James Thrash is a former teammate of the other two yahoos. Go figure.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/11/22/james-thrash-complains-about-social-media-reaction-to-his-myles-garrett-decision/

On Thursday, former NFL receiver James Thrash upheld the NFL’s indefinite suspension of Browns defensive end Myles Garrett. The decision prompted a reaction on social media.

Thrash has reacted to the reaction.

“Please stop tweeting me about the decision,” Thrash tweeted late Thursday afternoon. “This was a grueling process and the outcome is final. Player safety is what’s most important!!!”

*************************************************************

That logic goes out with the trash, Thrash. Player safety? what the hell about getting your helmet nearly ripped off, and kicked in the groin? starting the entire fiasco in the first place? what happened to the studio guy who said he HEARD it said ? Where is that audio? Did you interview the guy who said he heard it? Why didn't you suspend mason for at least one game?

Player safety your ass. It's "superbowl teams make big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for the NFL". AND, as Josh Cribbs is saying - "indefinite suspension" is not permitted in your so-called "rule book" that is supposed to apply to ALL TEAMS, NOT just your superbowl money making favorites !

    Fans all over...most of the NFL - see how your "rules" don't apply when you don't want them to - and how your suspensions are not consistent. I wish I could Tweet you, you twit". (whine much?)

 

OK.  Yes, absolutely....this basically confirms that the ruling was NOT based on facts/evidence....but on optics/public relations.   While player safety, yes, is important....it is a bullshit corporate line that he gives.    If he were honest he could say:  We have to punish players harshly who conduct themselves in this egregious manner...using a helmet as a potential weapon...that "could have"  done serious harm to another player.    That would have been at least an honest answer.  But,  The thing is....he is basing his ruling on the "what could have happened"  and not on what did happen. 

Disingenuous all around. 

[Ibleedbrown]

5 hours ago, stillmotion said:

We're not sure what he was called, but I've heard rumors it was the b word (boy).

Regardless of what was said, Rudolph looked weak in his response and guilty.

If this is true then my suspicions are correct. A word with a degree of plausible deniability, but a word that cuts nonetheless. 

Frustrated people reach for words that cut.  I have little tolerance for this kind of shit. It’s where intelligence meets racism and l prefer my racists to be dumb as shit so that l can spend less time identifying and dismissing them. 

[Dutch Oven]

1 hour ago, Ibleedbrown said:

If this is true then my suspicions are correct. A word with a degree of plausible deniability, but a word that cuts nonetheless. 

Frustrated people reach for words that cut.  I have little tolerance for this kind of shit. It’s where intelligence meets racism and l prefer my racists to be dumb as shit so that l can spend less time identifying and dismissing them. 

You must be in all your glory with the MAGA crowd then... 🤣

[Dutch Oven]

9 hours ago, The Gipper said:

No, it doesn't....not one damned bit......because you have the fact pattern all wrong.   Whatever was said by Rudolph was said while the two of them were on the ground wrestling.   It was what Rudolph said, along with him trying to wrench Garrett's helmet off that  infuriated him....causing him to then drag Rudolph by the helmet. 

You are basing this totally on what Myles said happened. As of right now, there is no proof that Rudolph said anything. 

[Tour2ma]

8 hours ago, stillmotion said:

We're not sure what he was called, but I've heard rumors it was the b word (boy).

Regardless of what was said, Rudolph looked weak in his response and guilty.

As i said in the Tavern Sunday.... Rudolph played vs Cinci like he had a guilty conscience.

[gumby73]

On 11/24/2019 at 7:38 PM, PoeticG said:

Nice Freudian slip there Mason..."It's totally tru...UNTRUE"

 

           Welcome Back to Steeler Week Mason!!

[calfoxwc]

say, go look at the ratbuzzards' Mark Ingram, running back - they are playing the rams right now. Look at his dark visor. On a night game.

Remember when OBJ was instructed to leave the field during a scoring drive, to put on a clear visor?

Does anybody think Ingram will have to also leave the field and put on a clear visor?

stay tuned. I don't think so.