NFL Forum :: - RBFrank Gore fined for second violation of uniform policy

Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

FAQ Register Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

FootballsFuture.com Home

RBFrank Gore fined for second violation of uniform policy
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

sp6488

Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 6230
Location: MD

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:00 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.
_________________

Tzimisce wrote:

I'm sorry you're drowning in a sea of delusion.
I won't be sorry when the Ravens finish 8-8.

EliteTexan80

Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 37197
Location: Three time Mr. fanTASTic!

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:17 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

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. Laughing

_________________

iPwn, Kempes and Flaccomania: The official sig makers for THE ET80!

ninerfanwheelz

Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 10870
Location: Kempes on the sig

Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:16 am Post subject:

Flaccomania wrote:

JammerHammer21 wrote:

I though it looked strange, but 10k is ridiculous. Confused

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?
_________________

latinoaustino wrote:

Hater s gon hat

BlackandBlue

Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 1070

Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:39 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.

Tatupu_64

Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 17052
Location: Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:13 am Post subject:

ninerfanwheelz wrote:

Flaccomania wrote:

JammerHammer21 wrote:

I though it looked strange, but 10k is ridiculous. Confused

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.
_________________

Props to the Ramster
Seattle's Original Bruce Irvin Supporter
ET and Mebane's Biggest Supporter

FFMD2 13 GM

Jakuvious

Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 4624

Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:27 am Post subject:

ninerfanwheelz wrote:

Flaccomania wrote:

JammerHammer21 wrote:

I though it looked strange, but 10k is ridiculous. Confused

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.
_________________

ninerfanwheelz

Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 10870
Location: Kempes on the sig

Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:37 am Post subject:

Tatupu_64 wrote:

ninerfanwheelz wrote:

Flaccomania wrote:

JammerHammer21 wrote:

I though it looked strange, but 10k is ridiculous. Confused

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?

Yeah I see where they're coming from with the rule, but at the same time...it's socks Laughing

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
_________________

latinoaustino wrote:

Hater s gon hat

sp6488

Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 6230
Location: MD

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:46 am Post subject:

ninerfanwheelz wrote:

Tatupu_64 wrote:

ninerfanwheelz wrote:

Flaccomania wrote:

JammerHammer21 wrote:

I though it looked strange, but 10k is ridiculous. Confused

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?

Yeah I see where they're coming from with the rule, but at the same time...it's socks Laughing

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.
_________________

Tzimisce wrote:

I'm sorry you're drowning in a sea of delusion.
I won't be sorry when the Ravens finish 8-8.

fretgod99

Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 17823

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:06 pm Post subject:

BlackandBlue wrote:

fretgod99 wrote:

BlackandBlue wrote:

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?

Display posts from previous:

       FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11

Page 11 of 11

Jump to:

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