He's more than a yard from the line of scrimmage when he throws the ball.
Yea, I'm sure Harrison sees that blue line on the field too. When I was watching it real time (and even after without benefit of the blue line), I felt he was passed the line. Not sure how you expect him to know that on the field, realtime. 1 yard away from LOS with ball tucked under your arm is pretty hard to gauge he wasn't attempting to advance the ball on foot down the field.
Look at how tightly hits on a quarterback after the pass are now policed.
and look how often flags are thrown for just this because the players CAN'T make those decisions. Other players "aren't managing" as you put it. There's controversial late hit calls on QBs every week in every game (watch any NE game)
posted by bdaddy at 04:20 PM on December 13
I happened to notice that those who support a certain football team from Pittsburgh fall on one side of the argument
yea, very ASTUTE of you. Except Peter King, Mike Wilbon, and thousands of others (talking heads and fans alike) who AREN'T Steeler fans argue against it. Listen to some talk radio and you'll find a lot of people who don't think a suspension was warranted.
Linebackers tackle runners. They don't try to knock their heads off like they're receivers crossing over the middle.
Did you watch the game? Because I can't point you to a hit, in that EXACT SAME GAME, where a LB on the Browns leaves his feet, leads with his helmet, and delivers a de-cleating helmet to helmet hit (no wrapup) to a RB (Mendenhall). No flag, no suspension, no fine. Just go review that go-line stand by the Browns in that game and you'll see the one I'm talking about (even hear the announcer say that it's not a penalty because there's no H2H penalty against RBs).
But anyway, I've already admited the "McCoy was a runner" excuse doesn't fly, not because of that (weak) argument, but because it doesn't matter if he WAS a runner..the NFL considers hits to QBs heads illegal, whether the QB is running or not (which opens up a whole lot of scenarios with Tebow, I'd guess).
posted by bdaddy at 04:17 PM on December 13
Are you f'ing kidding me?!?!?! Harrison not only took the extra step, he had the time to consider: do I make this hit or not? He did, and there's consequences for his actions.
we discussed this to death, but no he did not. To quote Peter King:
"McCoy, by my count, took five strides with the ball tucked under his arm, and when he and Harrison were about one stride apart, McCoy quickly pulled out the ball and tossed it to a receiver for a completion. I agree with what Harrison said postgame -- when he was coiling to hit McCoy, the quarterback appeared to be a runner."
watch this and pause it at 12 seconds. You can see Harrison already in his launch when the ball is leaving Colt's hands (If I could post a picture, I would).
Now King thinks the penalty should have been called because of the H2H, which I had argued against as I thought he was a "runner" and thus was legal to hit H2H, but my thoughts were wrong as those rules apparently don't apply to a QB, even when he's a runner. But I will say, to add to Harrison's case, that Colt ducks his head which contributes to the H2H hit.
Regarding the suspension..ridiculous. You suspended Suh and Haynesworth for a "non-football" play (stomping on a guy). Those plays didn't have anything to do with football. This was a "football" play. Fine the hell out of him, but suspension? Ridiculous.
posted by bdaddy at 02:59 PM on December 13
They once asked James Harrison if he'd like to run full speed at Tim Tebow, and he said no.
posted by bdaddy at 04:25 PM on December 12
I'd feel the same if it was a Raven or Cowboy.
If you watch it in slowmotion, he's released the ball. Watch it in realtime. In fact, pause it while the ball is still in colt's hand and you see harrison already in his launch stance. It wasn't late..the penalty wasn't a "late hit". It was unnecessary roughness for the H2H (which I'm arguing would be legal since he's a runner in that instance, as he's in the process of the hit when he gets rid of the ball.).
He doesn't take 2 steps after the ball's out of his hand (the old measure for late hit in the pocket). He takes 1. He's in the process of the hit when the runner (already past the line of scrimmage, by the way)' flings the ball out.
posted by bdaddy at 10:54 AM on December 10
funny I was trying to find that Gocal hit to link to and found this article which says "Linebacker Chris Gocong set the tone with a wicked helmet-to-helmet hit on running back Rashard Mendenhall, a maneuver that's legal when applied to ball carriers. "
posted by bdaddy at 11:59 PM on December 09
If your child lowers his head to hit people, unless he's playing with much smaller kids, he shouldn't hit them in the head when they are standing up.
Well we have different impressions of what "lower your head" means. I'm not talking about looking face down at the ground or bending over at the waist. If I'm standing straight up and duck my head like I'm about to hit somebody (what I call duck my head anyways) it only shrinks my height about 4-5 inches. My eyes stay up, my waist barely bends..only thing that happens is my shoulders haunch and my head lowers. Basically EXACTLY what Harrison did there.
Heck, look at that picture rcade posted about "safe technique"..that form right there would catch most running backs right in the chinstrap (and helmet to helmet if they happened to duck, which is what they instinctively do too)
posted by bdaddy at 11:51 PM on December 09
I watched it live and watched it dozens of times since...he hits him just after he lets go of the ball. There was nothing LATE about it and if he hadn't have hit him H2H then there wouldn't have been a flag. And I can't imagine he "target his helmet"..at least not consciously. It amazes me that people think that these guys have time to process all that stuff in fractions of seconds. So in that time frame you think his mind reasons "oh, he got rid of the ball..but who cares I'm hitting him anyways..and let me aim for his head to really lay into him". Did you guys play the game? That's not how I remember it working...for me it was "ball, load, hit"...all instinctive. I've delivered my share of de-cleating hits in my time and I never, ever remember consciously thinking about aiming for a helmet or thinking about how I'm going to deliberately hurt this guy, etc..there is just no time for any of that. It's "ball, load,hit". The fact that his "load,hit" ends up on the guys helmet is from years of instinctive playing..not from "yea, let me hurt this guy". I can't imagine if someone even had that mentality (to intentionally injure) how in the game they would have time to process those thoughts on plays like that.
Even if McCoy was considered a runner, that doesn't make it a clean shot for Harrison to target his head with his helmet.
Then you still haven't really answered my question. Why is it a clean shot for the H2H de-cleater of Mendenhall at the goal line? Gocong LAUNCHED himself, leading with his helmet, directly at Mendenhall's helmet. Nobody's saying that was a "premeditated, deliberate attempt to injure". If Colt truly was a "runner", how is Harrison's tackle any different than Gocongs?
posted by bdaddy at 11:46 PM on December 09
Yes it was a serious question...read my post. He's a RUNNER in that situation. And your perception about seeing the ball gone and targeting the head on a bang-bang play seems misguided. Football happens much faster than that. Not to mention your taught from age 5 to lower your head and it's all rather instinctive. My 7 year old lowers his head to hit.
But back to my question, if him leading with the crown of his helmet on a RUNNER is a penalty, where's all the uproar on the mendenhall hit where he got lit up by a LB with an identical head first launch. Was the browns LB deliberately trying to hurt Mendenhall?
posted by bdaddy at 10:06 PM on December 09
Can someone explain to me how that was a cheap shot? I thought a qb out of the pocket was considered a running back (especially that particular play as i still believe he was across the LOS when he threw it). So if he WAS a runner at that point, there is no helmet to helmet penalty against a runner(as the announcer pointed out in an earlier helmet to helmet hit against mendenhall), and it certainly wasn't late.
And if that is the case, how was his hit any more an "deliberate attempt to injure" then the hit mendenhall got at the goalline?
posted by bdaddy at 05:24 PM on December 09
The latest QB to comment on Tebow's Christianity? Aaron Rodgers. Love his take on things.
Wow, what a way for the author to misconstrue what Rodgers said.
Rodgers: "I firmly believe, just personally, what works for me, and what I enjoy doing is..."
And turns it into "So put Rodgers in the camp...that says Tebow should probably tone down all the God talk"
He emphasized, basically 4 times in the same sentence, that these were HIS beliefs, but somehow the author thinks he's trying to say everyone should express their faith in the same way? And calling out Tebow as part of that? I don't know about you, but that is NOT the impression I got when I read the Rodgers quote.
posted by bdaddy at 10:04 PM on December 05
Actually, a great QB has a lot of influence on the defense.
a *decent* QB has a lot of influence on the defense. Amazing what the field position/turnover battle does for a defense. Defensively you go from some 20 pts/game (which isn't exactly shitty) under Orton to 15 pts/game (pretty amazing) under Tebow. And while you might not be ready to write off that difference to "inspired by their QB" or "hand of God", certainly not turning the ball over and playing the game of field position has some positive effect. Neil O'Donnell and Trent Dilfer can attest to that.
Before last week, Tebow's limited sample data projected to 19 TDs, 3 INTs , 2,061 yards passing, 1,112 yards rushing, 5 rushing TDs. All together that's not exactly horrid..that 19-3 will get you a nice W/L record. May not get you deep in the playoffs, but for a team not even on the map to get to the playoffs before, I can't imagine they would complain.
posted by bdaddy at 07:48 PM on December 05
you know, the Broncos are actually really fun to watch right now
yes, I find myself watching them now too, even though I'm not a Bronco's fan. I just love to picture Merrill Hodge and Chris Carter hemorrhaging each week as Tebow wins again. The venom that Hodge has for Tebow would be funny if it wasn't sad. He said on Sunday that he didn't think Tebow was getting any better. Seriously? No better? He's gone from "he can't win" to (after he won) "he can't win consistently" to (after he's gone 6-1) "he'll never win a superbowl". Yes, his argument now is that we shouldn't be judging him by his W/L's, but whether he can win a Super Bowl. Anybody else catch that on the pregame?
posted by bdaddy at 05:10 PM on December 05
Not a lions fan and sort of an OT rant, but this is bad for them as Goodell and his crack staff of dumb-asses already had a bulls-eye on them BEFORE this incident. They'll be getting flags and fines the rest of the year for perfect form tackles that aren't wrapped in pillows.
For example, can anyone explain to me why, early in the game, Detroit got a roughing the passer penalty on a play where he hit Rodgers right as he let go of the ball (wasn't late, didn't go to the head, didn't lead with his helmet, didn't drive him into the ground) and the series before the same penalty wasn't called against the Packers who did the EXACT SAME THING to Stafford? I mean it was funny how the replay on Stafford, Aikman was like "yea, it looked like they were going to get a penalty here but you can see he was just completing the motion and it was a good non-call", then the very next series the same thing happens but because it's Rogers he gets a flag. It's the inconsistency and blatant favoritism that is infuriating. Protect the Roethlisbergers and Staffords the way you do every other team's QB they are playing.
posted by bdaddy at 10:33 AM on November 25
Bad week for Houston sports fans. Schaub out for the season and now this.
I'm no Astros fan, but sucks that I won't get to see my Braves come to town now. My son's a huge Ranger fan, but the Rangers already played the Astros each year anyways
posted by bdaddy at 06:42 PM on November 16
grum, maybe I'm overly optimistic on people in general, but that "rumor" HAS to be false. I mean I don't think a TV movie could come up with a more absurd story. A child-sex ring?
And let's not forget Mark Madden is the source of this (or at least first to raise it loudly), and anybody who is familiar with him knows he isn't above yelling FIRE! just to get someone to look at his ugly face.
posted by bdaddy at 04:46 PM on November 10
Even in cases of alleged sexual assault, there can be agreements whereby the assaulted party agrees to drop charges or not press charges
Yes, this is exactly the argument I was trying to make. But your counterpoints about the fact that it's a minor, so consent doesn't matter, makes a lot of sense....so I withdraw that argument.
I guess I got lawyered? :-)
posted by bdaddy at 04:42 PM on November 10
Or it might just be that they were drunk as fuck college students, almost none of whom had read the grand jury report or a reliable new source's account of the events that led to his firing, and were looking for a good time
Yea and what's the deal with all the drunk Irishmen, racist southerners, and flamboyant gays?!? (am I missing any other gross-categorizations we can make on groups of people? :-)
I kid..and get your point, but I personally suspect that students at the school are probably a lot closer to this than most of us just catching the 10 minute byline on sports center.
posted by bdaddy at 04:12 PM on November 10
- But, it all seems to be in a fever pitch right now, and anyone who doesn't want to participate in the mob is condoning child rape. - bperk
- Anyone that argues that Paterno didn't deserve what he got is the worst kind of sophist, engaging in rhetoric that essentially apologizes for people that protected and enabled a child rapist. - insomnyuk
I'd say you were right on the money, bperk.
Fixed it for ya.
posted by cixelsyd
Yea, thanks for fixing my opinion for me. By the way, I was talking about the people that were RIOTING so it's pretty clear THOSE PEOPLE didn't believe he didn't do what he was supposed to do.
posted by bdaddy at 03:44 PM on November 10
can't imagine that will bode well for the Venezuela winter league. What major leaguers are going to want to play there now?
Hope he comes out of this unscathed.
posted by bdaddy at 03:21 PM on November 10
Children were raped, and people riot over the fact that someone covering it up was fired? Says a lot about our sports culture in this country.
I'd say most of those people don't believe he covered anything up. They believe he did what he was supposed to do and OTHERS covered it up. I can't say I fully agree with that (or disagree with that either, I put myself in the camp that says I don't know enough to sit in judgement over him either way), but I can certainly understand that if they believe that way, why they might be angry about his dismissal.
You seem to be implying here exactly what bperk argued early, that because people disagree as to his culpability, they must be condoning the actual act. That I certainly disagree with. People rioting over their anger of his dismissal, in no way would/should mean that those same people don't care that a child was raped.
posted by bdaddy at 02:55 PM on November 10
An agreement of that kind would be a criminal conspiracy.
No, it wouldn't..it happens everyday. Ask Herman Cain.
Have you ever considered that some of us have a personal reason to be outraged? I'm close to someone who was molested as a pre-teen.
So given that history, have you considered that you might be impartial in your judgement on Paterno? Might you automatically lump him in the group of the people that protected the Priest you refer to earlier, even though the situations and details of THIS case are not the same or not as available to you?
posted by bdaddy at 02:46 PM on November 10
I think everybody assumes he was told "Last night I saw Sandusky ass-fucking a 10-year old in the shower". That may not be exactly what he was told, however.
actually, I missed this quote from Paterno:
"at no time [McQuery] relayed to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report."
posted by bdaddy at 10:14 AM on November 10
If the eyewitness who told you never contacted police, would you call the cops?
how does he know the eyewitness never contacted the police? How does he know it ISN'T being processed through the right channels at all?
That's the part I'm missing (and maybe it's been reported and I'm just missing it), but he reports it to his supervisors..at that point, how does he know the proper channels aren't being pursued? For all he knows, maybe the parents and university reach an agreement to keep it quiet for the kids sake, to avoid a child having to go through a trial and victimized again. That sort of "financial" settlement is not exactly uncommon to these types of scenarios. Or maybe he is investigated criminally and it's found there's not enough evidence to charge? Would Paterno know the difference between "buried" vs. one of these other scenarios? Would you or I?
Outside of that, to me a lot of it is really dependent on what exactly he was told when it was reported to him. I think everybody assumes he was told "Last night I saw Sandusky ass-fucking a 10-year old in the shower". That may not be exactly what he was told, however.
posted by bdaddy at 10:10 AM on November 10
To me it appears that the Steeler's have completely revamped their pass offense due to the fact their line can't block for > 3 seconds.
I have no supportive data to back me up, but it always felt like their pass plays were always play action + long developing mid/deep range routes sprinkled in with occasional WR screens/slants. This left the offense very dependent on Ben and his scrambling ability to extend plays as most were slow developing. Ever since those early defeats (and ugly wins), it seems the other way around, where they are now getting the ball out of Ben's hands quickly as a "scheme" as opposed to just an occasional mixed in play.
Of course, that may have just been due to the opponents in the 2 games I'm thinking of, but wondering if this is a planned trend moving forward. With the speed/quickness of those WR's, I think I like this model(especially given the lack of OL consistency due to injuries). Does tend to make Ben's "broken play" ability more of an infrequency, rather than a dependency.
posted by bdaddy at 02:29 PM on October 31
I believe if the season ended today,
I thought draft order ties were determined by coin flips? Too lazy to look it up, though.
posted by bdaddy at 02:12 PM on October 31
If When he gets into the HoF, his plaque should depict a phone up to his ear.
---fixed that for you
posted by bdaddy at 12:17 PM on October 25
what's funny is on PTI, Tony K. just made the argument "if you take away 2009, Arod's post-season numbers are...."
I thought it was pretty funny, given the arguments going on here on the same exclusion :-)
posted by bdaddy at 05:53 PM on October 07
If Ted Williams was hitting .40001 heading into the final (meaningless) game, would he have played knowing it could possibly mean he wasn't going to finish with a .400 average?
As yerfatma pointed out, the answer is YES, as that is exactly what he did.
posted by bdaddy at 01:53 PM on September 29
It's really to his advantage for the offcials to let play continue when he is "in the grasp"; here again you can't have it both ways
agree about "in the grasp" and I NEVER want them to call that on Ben. But I'm talking about something different...regardless of how hard it is to bring a guy down, it's illegal to throw yourself at the QB's legs while he's executing a pass. To me that's not a matter of "how hard it is to bring him down", it's a simple yes/no question..did he hit the guys in the knees? Yes? Then 15 yard penalty. Same thing about the head...doesn't matter how hard it is to bring him down, when a lineman smacks him in the head hard enough to break his nose, that's a penalty.
Now if they're running out of the pocket and they take too long to slide and get popped, I can see the ref siding on the side of the defender..but if he gets hit in head or legs in the pocket, or the pass rusher gets 2+ steps in before he hits him after ball release, then these guys should get the same call as the other QBs as that doesn't have anything to do with how dangerous of runners they are.
posted by bdaddy at 03:26 PM on September 26
You cant have both.
He SHOULD have both. He's not complaining about taking hits while he's running, it's about hits while he's in the pocket. He is getting hit late and to the head or knees in the pocket and those exact same hits against Brady or Rivers draws 15 yard penalty and heavy fines. I don't see what his being a running QB has to do with anything that he is talking about. If a QB is in the pocket, it doesn't matter what his last name is, you have to call the hits the same for all of the guys.
Roethlisberger is in the same boat..he got hit at the knees last week in the pocket and no flag...but if that happened to golden-boy?????
posted by bdaddy at 12:23 PM on September 26
There must be something else that sets him apart from those other hard nosed players in order for him to get the reputation he has among his peers
well my argument to that is what sets him apart (and may contribute to this reputation amongst his peers) is he is the only RECEIVER that really does that. DBs aren't accustomed to being lit up by their offensive counterpart like this, so I can imagine they'd be pretty pissy about the player who actually does that. I've seen Ed Reed get lit up more than a handful of times on perfectly legal plays and he gets up cussing like someone slapped his sister..I can totally picture Ed then turning in his vote for Hines for "dirtiest player", even though he's the one who should have had his head on a swivel.
And your definitions of what makes a player "dirty," formulated from the comfort of your couch, probably do not have the same gravitas as the definition of "dirty" decided upon by the guys who share the field with Ward.
Fair enough, but that's also why I said "Now it's entirely possible he does things OFFSCREEN that are dirty and warrant the distinction..I'm just saying I haven't seen them. "
posted by bdaddy at 01:11 PM on September 19
This sort of approach is also a good way to be lumped in with the dickheads.
It was something the player never said, and you associated it to him as if stating a fact, all in order to make your argument (you had to pull it out of somewhere, since it never happened I assumed it came from your ass.)
So when Ward is voted by his peers a couple years in a row to be the dirtiest player in the NFL, that means nothing to his apologists
I watch a LOT of Steelers games...the ONLY shots I've EVER seen by Ward that would be considered cheap are the blindside crackback blocks and the hits when the other players have slowed down but the whistle hasn't blown and he keeps playing. That was the whole point of my argument, is that his PEERS feel he's a cheapshot artist, but as I said, "So they were just pissed that he kept playing through the whistle while they stopped a little bit early?" I can't recall seeing him hit after a whistle, dive in late in a pile, step on a guy, dive at a guy's knees, etc...all things that I consider DIRTY. Hitting someone between the whistles even if that other guy wasn't expecting it isn't, in my mind, dirty. His peers that feel differently, IMO, are just whiny because he popped them a few times when they weren't ready but should have been. Now it's entirely possible he does things OFFSCREEN that are dirty and warrant the distinction..I'm just saying I haven't seen them.
Is that the standard you live life by?
In sports? Yes. So the counter argument is what if you feel a receiver chopping out the legs of a DB is dangerous and should be outlawed. Are the guys doing it right now dirty? What if a premier DB get's injured and the NFL decides to make it safer by only allowing blocks above the waist..Are the guys who do that today DIRTY? That's my point. Those guys doing that TODAY are playing by the rules and using it to their full advantage. They aren't dirty. If the league changes the rules because of it and they keep doing it, they're dirty..but not now.
Given your logic, if it wasn't dirty, why was it outlawed?
Because it presented an unnecessary injury risk that the NFL thought they could fix. Blocking with a 5 player wedge on kickoff teams wasn't DIRTY, but they outlawed it to reduce injury risk. Were the guys doing wedge blocks on special teams 2 years ago playing dirty?
posted by bdaddy at 09:30 PM on September 18
about how he goes out there intending to hurt people is a good way to be lumped in with the dickheads
When has ward EVER bragged about intending to hurt someone? Show me and I'll take back what i said and admit he's dirty. I won't need to though, because you're pulling that out of your ass.
posted by bdaddy at 12:00 PM on September 18
The fact that it wasn't a rule when he was doing it indicates it wasn't illegal (hence dirty). Can't get any clearer than THAT. That's like saying roy williams was a dirty player because he was tackling players by their shoulder pads before they outlawed horse collaring. He was playing within the rules, as was Ward. Now if he KEEPS doing it now that it's against the rules, then you can argue he's dirty. Before that, he's playing well within the rules. Note the same exact hit is LEGAL on punt returns, are those guys that blindsiding punt cover guys dirty? What's the difference?
posted by bdaddy at 11:56 AM on September 18
I missed the game this weekend, but on PTI Jaws was reviewing the WHY the Ravens dominated and he pointed to the fact that they were "cutting off" the backside pursuit. He then shows a long TD run to emphasize this which has the NG Hampton engaged with the center while the backside guard throws at his legs. They even highlighted the player getting chopped. I was surprised that an NFL analyst was using an illegal play to make his point, and at no point indicating it was an illegal play.
They do place a large amount of emphasis on the physical game themselves.
There's a difference between dirty and physical. One of my irks is everyone (including players) indicating Hines Ward as dirty when his hits are made between the whistles and legal (until they rewrote the rule last year, anyways). So they were just pissed that he kept playing through the whistle while they stopped a little bit early? Having a Romonowski spit on player, punch them in the head..Haynesworth stomping on players heads...Rodney Harrison diving headfirst into a pile after the guys on the ground...those are dirty plays. Blindsiding a linebacker on a crackback isn't (or at least WASN'T...it is now) a dirty play.
posted by bdaddy at 09:38 AM on September 18
I remember warren sapp talking about statistics proving the concept of always going for it on 4th down...said something like "whoever said that never had to face jerome bettis coming at you from a short field".
Not sure i completely disagree with the never punt rule (althogh i would change that to RARELY punt)....but i'd say i completely disagree about the concept of not returning punts. TDs happen about as often as turnovers on special teams at high school level...and 20 yards difference, outside of either of those extremes, is a pretty big deal
posted by bdaddy at 11:14 PM on September 15
the entire landscape of the AFC has changed.
As far as I know, the 2 teams that have represented the AFC in the Superbowl 7 of the last 10 years still have their QBs..so I wouldn't say the ENTIRE landscape has changed.
posted by bdaddy at 03:02 PM on September 09
Are you saying he was attacked because he was white and they were black? If so, just say it, so the issue can be addressed.
I think he was, just cheekily :-)
The team who was attacking has black and white players but only black players are attacking the ref.
and don't forgot at 18 seconds, when one black guy stomps on the refs head another white man comes to his aid, only to be attacked by multiple black guys and pushed offscreen as others then pull the ref to his feet.
Not sure the source of the fight, but it's pretty clear it became racial very quickly. If it wasn't about race and was only about the official, why did they all pounce on the other white guy?
posted by bdaddy at 06:44 PM on September 02
Do you also consider any five-year-old t-ball player to be a "hopeful", just because he's got dreams of playing in the majors some day?
Is a law student who takes a legal internship at a law firm a "lawyer hopeful", or simply the same as a 5 year old kid who says he wants to be a lawyer? You don't see the difference between those 2? And you call me obtuse?
Because you say so?
no, because I can see the difference between someone training for the Olympics versus everyone else who isn't actively training for the Olympics. The former is by definition an Olympic-hopeful.
What a typical unthinking knee-jerk reaction
No, your reaction to "she'll experience worse in her life" is a cop-out. Of course she will. As you pointed out, her dad may die very soon. So in that regard, her being pissed on, molested, smacked on the head daily, called fat, racial epithets, anything else..should not be scarring to her in your mind because "she'll experience worse". At what point do you feel she has a "right" to be traumatized? You seem to have a firm grasp on what is/isn't considered emotionally scarring because you are sure taking issue with me saying this incident *may* be scarring. How do YOU know this isn't traumatic for her? What makes you the expert on this? I've been talking MAY, you're the one saying definitively she doesn't have a right to be traumatized because "she'll experience worse".
if he had vomited on her, it would have meant the same
I can think of more than a few people who would be traumatized by waking to a stranger throwing up on them as well.
by insisting that the act is sexual in nature and the girl is going to be sexually scarred for life
quit putting words in my mouth.
a) I never said it was sexual in nature. My *masturbation* comment was in response to your "oh, she'll experience worse things in life"...not comparing his peeing on her to masturbation
b) I never said she was going to be scarred for life. You know what the word *may* means, right?
posted by bdaddy at 12:52 PM on August 13
The girl won't really care too much
So an 11 year old girl should be FINE with being pissed on? Seriously?
if he felt the need to try to beat a guy up over this.
so the guy wants to beat up a man PEEING on his daughter must have a Rambo complex? Are you s**tting me?
how long did this peeing go on, if the dad was in the bathroom when it happened?
From the other article the dad (and I think brother) both left the girl alone while they went to the lavatories. When they returned the dad saw a stranger peeing on his daughter. I'm still amazed you don't think his first response to that must be anger and protection. You expect him to calmly reason to the stranger pissing on his daughter "sir, would you mind putting that away..that's my daughter's leg". He actually acted as civilly as I can imagine because no punches were thrown...I think it's safe to say MOST dads would have went in fists flying. This guy must have had some measure of restraint.
posted by bdaddy at 09:27 AM on August 13
"Olympic hopeful" is perhaps a bit of a stretch
I'll stick with my statement. Yes, I do consider a single-A ballplayer in the same sentiment. He's committed as his "job" to make it to the Olympics (or MLB if you want to make that comparison), so he's a lot more "hopeful" than you or I. The sports-tie in may/may not be strong, but he certainly IS an Olympic hopeful, no stretch about it. Ask him why he's training hours on end each day and I'm sure you'll get the same answer.
. It was startling and shocking and nasty, I'm sure, but unless this girl is exceptionally lucky, she'll experience worse in her life.
What a cop out. He could have pulled out his penis and masturbated in front of that 11 year old and make that same argument, because chances are someone IS going to have something worse than that happen to them. Does that make it less traumatic?
A compassionate response would be to acknowledge the nastiness and that it shouldn't have happened, but to listen to her own authentic reaction rather than suggest to her what that should be.
Who suggested what her response should be? When I said it was the sort of thing that *may* emotionally scar her? I think that's far more compassionate than "she'll experience worse in her life"
posted by bdaddy at 09:18 AM on August 13
saw this article on another news service, but didn't realize it was an Olympic hopeful. From the other article, about an hour before landing someone (unrelated) started having chest pains and they had to find them a doctor. Must have been some eventful flight!
I realize the guy was drunk and it wasn't intentional, but that's the type of thing that may emotionally scar that girl for the rest of her life. Horrible.
posted by bdaddy at 12:12 PM on August 12
it's not a big deal. I think even people like me who aren't exactly Bryce Harper fans don't even find it a big deal. Now add it together with the kissing incident, the BP report, the articles about him taunting opponents, the stories of his peers and coaches in his league talking about how big an ass he is.... and it just formulates an opinion on the guy. And no, even that isn't a "big deal", it's just something to talk about.
I just find it as one more example (in a quickly growing list for a kid only 18) why I personally am not going to like this guy while the rest of the world felates him for the next 10-20 years.
posted by bdaddy at 09:33 AM on August 12
LOL, I knew the second I wrote that last post that someone would look for a video proving me wrong.
well I didn't expect to find anything, what with MLB's tyranny about sharing videos, but I had to post it once I saw the result was my 7 year old's favorite player :-)
posted by bdaddy at 10:14 PM on August 11
As mentioned in the last example of douchery, this isn't his first rodeo
posted by bdaddy at 10:11 PM on August 11
No ump in the Majors would eject a batter for throwing his helmet down, or throwing their bat.
Ian Kinsler would disagree :-)
posted by bdaddy at 03:05 PM on August 11
I've always felt that the biggest positive delta between watching at home and watching there is hockey.
gotta agree there. Being a southerner I never liked hockey until I saw a minor league club in person. It is a really fun game to watch in person, but something I'd never watch on TV unless it was playoffs/championship
posted by bdaddy at 10:12 AM on August 05
Again, he's 2nd in nfl history in tds and 100 yard games. He's 5th ever in yards recieving. If that isn't enough to be considered in discussions of the best, that's YOUR issue.
posted by bdaddy at 08:51 PM on August 02
Let the Hall of Fame discussion begin!
discussions? First ballot. 2nd in TDs, 100 yard games...5th in receiving yards.
posted by bdaddy at 03:17 PM on August 01
I'd love to see Barber in the black-n-gold. As a Cowboy hater, he's the one player I really respected.
posted by bdaddy at 11:02 PM on July 26
Some coaches add to this by giving out game balls to the outstanding player of the game, but then cheapening it by ensuring that every kid gets a game ball during the season.
my kid is in a very competitive 7U baseball league and even we get game balls and each player on the team gets one by the end of the year. And yes, by the end of the season the coach has to "stretch" to come up with a good reason why little Joey got the game ball when he went 0-4, but he's due. I'm with bperk..what is the issue with that? Just because we, as kids, didn't all get trophy's in this manner doesn't mean it's some emotionally destroying activity and going to ruin these kids futures because of it.
Let the kids be kids. Believe me, my group of boys are learning competitiveness (uber competitive actually), hard work, sportsmanship, and teamsmanship and the fact that little Joey got a ball when he didn't fully deserve one isn't exactly derailing any of that...it just puts a smile on little Joey's face and gives him a few hours of pride.
posted by bdaddy at 12:19 PM on July 22
This article had much different tone than the one I read on ESPN on this...in this one it seems to stop at the "stealing signs from 2nd, and that's OK..that's my fault" perspective. Girardi doesn't even sound upset in this article.
The article I read on ESPN, Girardi came across as miffed because he felt they were doing beyond stealing from 2B. He felt they were stealing from other means, which he termed "illegal". That article talked about them having to change up signs even when no one was on base, and how they felt it was disrupting his pitchers.
Here's an abbreviated version of the one I read, not sure what happened to the original (maybe it had a little too much writer's creativity) :-)
posted by bdaddy at 04:49 PM on July 18
You can easily avoid every story and post on clemens. It's easily done.
I guess I can avoid it if I fastforward through the first 5 minutes of PTI and Around the Horn every other day...but if you're a sports fan watching and reading sports news it's pretty pervasive.
posted by bdaddy at 01:28 PM on July 15
He is obviously a dominating player, but shooting off your mouth, bashing teammates, etc. does nothing but cause problems and ill-feelings
the Steelers themselves don't seem to be having any hurt feelings. And this isn't anything new..I remember a video of Greg Lloyd on the sidelines cussing at that offense telling them essentially the same thing Harrison said about Ben and Mendenhall (don't turn the ball over)
He's a character, but also the primary reason the Steelers won their last Superbowl. He is their most important player, and with the pass that was given to Rapistberger last year for deviant actions rather than just words I doubt he'll see anything more than a fine (if that).
absolutely. The "joke" is 2 years off of a defensive MVP award..that's like saying you want to get rid of Manning. As you point out, he almost single-handedly WON their previous SB, and he played great even in this last SB..they double teamed him and ran 3 step drops mainly BECAUSE of him. To your last point, I can't see how he'd see any punishment on this...even $1, since he's not part of the NFL at the moment. If they try to do retroactive punishment to him (or any other NFL player) after they were locked out then that opens the NFL up for a huge lawsuit. They've been very careful to keep their hands completely off the players, so that HAS to extend to punishment as well.
posted by bdaddy at 11:20 AM on July 14
He called him a f****t. The article linked to doesn't quote it but i read it in another blog.
posted by bdaddy at 07:31 PM on July 13
The slur itself? No. The sentiment behind it and the man it was targeted against? Yup.
posted by bdaddy at 05:20 PM on July 13
Not happy that he said it, but he's pretty much right on the money with everything he said.
posted by bdaddy at 03:27 PM on July 13
wasn't he a high-school pitcher?
sorry tron7, you beat me to it :-)
posted by bdaddy at 10:14 AM on July 01
add me to one who doesn't believe the story. Not that he may throw in the mid-80s (that doesn't seem so extraordinary to me..wasn't he a high-school pitcher?), but I just don't believe steroids adds speed to a fastball. I'm no expert, but as I understood it, pitchers use it because it aids in recovery not for speed increases. After a 5 day rest while "juicing" their arm probably feels like it's had 10-day's rest, and that would be the benefit. I just can't picture strength having that much affect on pitching speed, which is more dependent on motion/delivery than anything (which is why the fastest a pitcher can throw today with all the fitness enhancements we've seen is pretty much exactly the same as the fastest a pitcher could throw 100 years ago).
posted by bdaddy at 10:13 AM on July 01
Copyright © 2013 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.