| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sp6488
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 10026
Location: MD
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| panattack86 wrote: | | So bradys ty cobb slide is fined the same amount as socks being to low. Brady should have been fined a lot more. Just my opinion |
Oh my gosh...
Read through the thread. Gore is a second time offender and Brady is a first time offender with no history of "dirty" play. Thus, Gore received the agreed upon penalty as set out in the CBA, while Brady received the minimum punishment mandated by the CBA.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EliteTexan80
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 38201
Location: Three time Mr. fanTASTic!
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| sp6488 wrote: | | panattack86 wrote: | | So bradys ty cobb slide is fined the same amount as socks being to low. Brady should have been fined a lot more. Just my opinion |
Oh my gosh...
Read through the thread. Gore is a second time offender and Brady is a first time offender with no history of "dirty" play. Thus, Gore received the agreed upon penalty as set out in the CBA, while Brady received the minimum punishment mandated by the CBA. |
R-GOODY don't need that money, son. He gets his chedda, can't be upsetting his gal, you know. His gal Tom Brady need that money to get his hair did, get his nails did, buy some more of them Uggs boots with the fur - lookin all fly, so R-GOODY gets that money, yo.
Pimpanomics 101, son. 
_________________
| vike daddy wrote: | | EliteTexan80 wrote: | | I wanna be a mod. |
vastly over rated. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ninerfanwheelz
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 12322
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Flaccomania wrote: | | JammerHammer21 wrote: | I though it looked strange, but 10k is ridiculous.  |
Players know the rules. He shouldn't have worn his socks low. |
Agreed. My question is why do they have a rule about socks in the first place?
_________________
Deadpulse on the sig
| CaliforniaKid7 wrote: | | How does it end? Hopefully it's a guy snake cause girls don't poop. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlackandBlue
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 2484
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| fretgod99 wrote: | | BlackandBlue wrote: | That's the thing though: Rules change. They change all the time. The kick off line was arbitrary too. The league decided perhaps it'd better if they changed the arbitrary point at which teams kicked off, so they changed it.
Keeping a rule in place and then never ever ever EVER questioning ebcause it's been around forever and cus the NFL said so isn't commendable behavior, it's stubborness. |
And ... what? Replacing one arbitrary rule with another equally arbitrary rule is commendable? Replacing an arbitrary rule just for the sake of because is equally arbitrary.
That's the point you're missing. "This rule is stupid, so I shouldn't have to follow it." Because, why exactly? Why is this rule any less ridiculous than any of the other uniform rules? Why restrict shoe colors? Why disallow messages on eye black? Why are any of these things less arbitrary or objectionable?
And again, why can they fine for wearing the wrong socks but not for wearing the right socks the wrong way? |
It's not equally arbitrary. Gore did it because he thought he'd play better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tatupu_64
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 22562
Location: Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ninerfanwheelz wrote: | | Flaccomania wrote: | | JammerHammer21 wrote: | | I though it looked strange, but 10k is ridiculous. |
Players know the rules. He shouldn't have worn his socks low. |
Agreed. My question is why do they have a rule about socks in the first place? |
You have to draw the line somewhere or else you know some guys would just wear some ridiculous stuff to get attention. I guess they drew their line at sock height.
I understand why people think it is silly that players get fined, but nothing else is going to enforce them to follow the rules.
_________________
 <Rammy
#1 ET Supporter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jakuvious
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 10952
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ninerfanwheelz wrote: | | Flaccomania wrote: | | JammerHammer21 wrote: | | I though it looked strange, but 10k is ridiculous. |
Players know the rules. He shouldn't have worn his socks low. |
Agreed. My question is why do they have a rule about socks in the first place? |
Well, you have two choices when establishing rules like that. You can either make them fairly lax, and then adjust them as incidents arise, or you can make everything very cut and dry and strict from the get go, and avoid issues initially. In a sport that draws so many viewers, it is far better to just be safe in advance.
_________________
Adopt-a-Chief: Travis "Better Than Tony Moeaki" Kelce
67 catches, 862 yards, 5 TDs, one very funny obscene gesture, one fumble that wasn't a fumble, and one very trolly fumble recovery for a TD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ninerfanwheelz
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 12322
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Tatupu_64 wrote: | | ninerfanwheelz wrote: | | Flaccomania wrote: | | JammerHammer21 wrote: | | I though it looked strange, but 10k is ridiculous. |
Players know the rules. He shouldn't have worn his socks low. |
Agreed. My question is why do they have a rule about socks in the first place? |
You have to draw the line somewhere or else you know some guys would just wear some ridiculous stuff to get attention. I guess they drew their line at sock height.
I understand why people think it is silly that players get fined, but nothing else is going to enforce them to follow the rules. |
Yeah I see where they're coming from with the rule, but at the same time...it's socks
Not my money though, and I'm pretty sure it gets donated to charity, so it's nothing big at the end of the day
_________________
Deadpulse on the sig
| CaliforniaKid7 wrote: | | How does it end? Hopefully it's a guy snake cause girls don't poop. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sp6488
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 10026
Location: MD
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ninerfanwheelz wrote: | | Tatupu_64 wrote: | | ninerfanwheelz wrote: | | Flaccomania wrote: | | JammerHammer21 wrote: | | I though it looked strange, but 10k is ridiculous. |
Players know the rules. He shouldn't have worn his socks low. |
Agreed. My question is why do they have a rule about socks in the first place? |
You have to draw the line somewhere or else you know some guys would just wear some ridiculous stuff to get attention. I guess they drew their line at sock height.
I understand why people think it is silly that players get fined, but nothing else is going to enforce them to follow the rules. |
Yeah I see where they're coming from with the rule, but at the same time...it's socks
Not my money though, and I'm pretty sure it gets donated to charity, so it's nothing big at the end of the day |
Right, so it shouldn't be that difficult of a rule to follow. If it's so absurd, then the NFLPA should have contested it during CBA negotiations.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fretgod99
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19587
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BlackandBlue wrote: | | fretgod99 wrote: | | BlackandBlue wrote: | That's the thing though: Rules change. They change all the time. The kick off line was arbitrary too. The league decided perhaps it'd better if they changed the arbitrary point at which teams kicked off, so they changed it.
Keeping a rule in place and then never ever ever EVER questioning ebcause it's been around forever and cus the NFL said so isn't commendable behavior, it's stubborness. |
And ... what? Replacing one arbitrary rule with another equally arbitrary rule is commendable? Replacing an arbitrary rule just for the sake of because is equally arbitrary.
That's the point you're missing. "This rule is stupid, so I shouldn't have to follow it." Because, why exactly? Why is this rule any less ridiculous than any of the other uniform rules? Why restrict shoe colors? Why disallow messages on eye black? Why are any of these things less arbitrary or objectionable?
And again, why can they fine for wearing the wrong socks but not for wearing the right socks the wrong way? |
It's not equally arbitrary. Gore did it because he thought he'd play better. |
First thought unrelated to the second. It is equally arbitrary. If you make an arbitrary rule, you're necessarily being arbitrary with where you decide to draw the line. If you decide to move the line, you're still being arbitrary. That's just the nature of it.
And that Gore thought he'd play better is irrelevant. I'm sure a lot of players think they'll play better without the pads next year, too. Doesn't mean they won't be fined if they don't wear them. (I intentionally avoided the most obvious PED analogy here so we hopefully won't miss the forest because of all the trees.)
_________________
| MrDrew wrote: | | Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
