Mike Tomlin Intentionally Disrupted KO Return: Proof! (1 Viewer)

[Dickies]

I don't care either way about the draft picks, but it seems really harsh to take them away. I thought Tomlin should have been suspended for the rest of the season (whether they make the playoffs or not)

 

[Godsbrother]

The punishment deserved to be more severe because he did not admit that it was intentional. He is a liar and should be suspended.

If the NFL thought it was intentional the they should have suspended him for life and I believe they would have.

 

[ROCKET]

Mike Tomlin = Woody Hayes

 

[Anarchy99]

PIT will earn compensatory picks and then lose them, leaving them with whatever draft picks they would have had initially.

 

[Faust]

Mike Tomlin hop likely to yield downgrade for officials

 

[Godsbrother]

PIT will earn compensatory picks and then lose them, leaving them with whatever draft picks they would have had initially.

The Steelers lost a lot to FA last year. Losing all of their compensatory picks would be a huge price to pay.

 

[The Hank]

PIT will earn compensatory picks and then lose them, leaving them with whatever draft picks they would have had initially.

I doubt they would lose them all, they had a mass exodus this past offseason and that will yield multiple picks (including a likely 3rd rder in Wallace, a 4th/5th for Lewis, and 5th or later for Allen, Mundy among others)

I wouldnt be surprised if one of those gets docked in the end, which will hurt.

 

[mbuehner]

The punishment deserved to be more severe because he did not admit that it was intentional. He is a liar and should be suspended.

If the NFL thought it was intentional the they should have suspended him for life and I believe they would have.

<_<

 

[Godsbrother]

Mike Tomlin hop likely to yield downgrade for officials

Deservedly so. The officials should have at the very least thrown a 15 yard unsportsmanlike and possibly awarded a TD.

That said, the NFL has to do a better job at policing this all of the time. I see coaches in the white area and sometimes on the field every game that I go to.

 

[Anarchy99]

I forgot about them losing Wallace, so maybe one or two of their late compensatory picks.

 

[McGarnicle]

Mike Tomlin hop likely to yield downgrade for officials

I hope they have enough qualified officials left for the playoffs.

 

[Bayhawks]

NFL to consider forfeiture or modification of draft pick(s) once NFL Draft order is set.



The draft order should have no bearing on the pick forfeited. Rooney was very influential On Goodell getting the commish gig so this isn't surprising.

Yeah, the NFL is doing this b/c everyone will have more or less forgotten about this come draft time, so not stripping a draft pick won't cause an uproar. BS

My exact thoughts. The 100K is a joke, Rooney will probably give him an undisclosed Christmas bonus to cover that. These franchises are run by billionaires, what's 100K or even a million dollars to them? The only punishment that has any impact is the loss of draft picks. Those can't be bought back. For what it's worth I don't hate Tomlin or the Steelers but I believe the precedent was set with the taking on draft picks over spygate/bountygate and this scenario compromises the integrity of the game regardless of intent. The Jets should have lost picks as well over this and if they had I bet this would have never happened again. 100K/500k fines are meaningless. I think loss of draft pick(s) should be mandatory in these situations.

So people actually believe this is on par with a team employing the practice of spying on another team repeatedly to get a competitive advantage, or an entire team defense taking part in a bounty program designed to injure other players?

The fine is to Tomlin, not the team. $100K is a massive amount of money to him. Will the Steelers pay it for him? Who knows, but Mike Tomlin is not a billionaire.

I personally believe it was intentional, and I believe he should be fined. Tomlin was a freaking ####### for doing it, intentional or not. And just about every Steelers fan I know believes he did it on purpose.

But there's a lot of wishful thinking in here if people actually put Tomlin spontaneously doing something like this, intentional or not, on par with what the Patriots or Saints did. That was an organizational issue. This was a personal mistake.

Yes, it is exactly on par. You break NFL rules, you get punished for it.

So a player who gets called for holding a lot (breaking the NFL rules) should result in some kind of penalty for the franchise he plays for?

What about a DB who gets called for PI often? Should his team have to forfeit draft picks as a result?

Obviously there are different level of NFL rules, and you are ignorant if you don't recognize that.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Mike Tomlin = Woody Hayes

Worse. Woody isn't a liar.

 

[McGarnicle]

Lots of diverging opinions in this thread, but it's refreshing that no one has played the race card.

 

[Witz]

NFL to consider forfeiture or modification of draft pick(s) once NFL Draft order is set.



The draft order should have no bearing on the pick forfeited. Rooney was very influential On Goodell getting the commish gig so this isn't surprising.

Yeah, the NFL is doing this b/c everyone will have more or less forgotten about this come draft time, so not stripping a draft pick won't cause an uproar. BS

My exact thoughts. The 100K is a joke, Rooney will probably give him an undisclosed Christmas bonus to cover that. These franchises are run by billionaires, what's 100K or even a million dollars to them? The only punishment that has any impact is the loss of draft picks. Those can't be bought back. For what it's worth I don't hate Tomlin or the Steelers but I believe the precedent was set with the taking on draft picks over spygate/bountygate and this scenario compromises the integrity of the game regardless of intent. The Jets should have lost picks as well over this and if they had I bet this would have never happened again. 100K/500k fines are meaningless. I think loss of draft pick(s) should be mandatory in these situations.

So people actually believe this is on par with a team employing the practice of spying on another team repeatedly to get a competitive advantage, or an entire team defense taking part in a bounty program designed to injure other players?

The fine is to Tomlin, not the team. $100K is a massive amount of money to him. Will the Steelers pay it for him? Who knows, but Mike Tomlin is not a billionaire.

I personally believe it was intentional, and I believe he should be fined. Tomlin was a freaking ####### for doing it, intentional or not. And just about every Steelers fan I know believes he did it on purpose.

But there's a lot of wishful thinking in here if people actually put Tomlin spontaneously doing something like this, intentional or not, on par with what the Patriots or Saints did. That was an organizational issue. This was a personal mistake.

Yes, it is exactly on par. You break NFL rules, you get punished for it.

As for the bolded, feel free to share a link where there was any evidence of gaining a competitive advantage, and don't act like the Steelers, or any other team didn't use the same tactics. Just because the Pats got caught, doesn't mean they were the only one doing it.

Pats fans still trying to justify their teams actions.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Mike Tomlin = Woody Hayes

Worse. Woody isn't a liar.

JV soccer star, simmer down.

 

[Cheesedawg]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

You really are stupid.

 

[PatsFanCT]

NFL to consider forfeiture or modification of draft pick(s) once NFL Draft order is set.



The draft order should have no bearing on the pick forfeited. Rooney was very influential On Goodell getting the commish gig so this isn't surprising.

Yeah, the NFL is doing this b/c everyone will have more or less forgotten about this come draft time, so not stripping a draft pick won't cause an uproar. BS

My exact thoughts. The 100K is a joke, Rooney will probably give him an undisclosed Christmas bonus to cover that. These franchises are run by billionaires, what's 100K or even a million dollars to them? The only punishment that has any impact is the loss of draft picks. Those can't be bought back. For what it's worth I don't hate Tomlin or the Steelers but I believe the precedent was set with the taking on draft picks over spygate/bountygate and this scenario compromises the integrity of the game regardless of intent. The Jets should have lost picks as well over this and if they had I bet this would have never happened again. 100K/500k fines are meaningless. I think loss of draft pick(s) should be mandatory in these situations.

So people actually believe this is on par with a team employing the practice of spying on another team repeatedly to get a competitive advantage, or an entire team defense taking part in a bounty program designed to injure other players?

The fine is to Tomlin, not the team. $100K is a massive amount of money to him. Will the Steelers pay it for him? Who knows, but Mike Tomlin is not a billionaire.

I personally believe it was intentional, and I believe he should be fined. Tomlin was a freaking ####### for doing it, intentional or not. And just about every Steelers fan I know believes he did it on purpose.

But there's a lot of wishful thinking in here if people actually put Tomlin spontaneously doing something like this, intentional or not, on par with what the Patriots or Saints did. That was an organizational issue. This was a personal mistake.

Yes, it is exactly on par. You break NFL rules, you get punished for it.

So a player who gets called for holding a lot (breaking the NFL rules) should result in some kind of penalty for the franchise he plays for?

What about a DB who gets called for PI often? Should his team have to forfeit draft picks as a result?

Obviously there are different level of NFL rules, and you are ignorant if you don't recognize that.

That's not even remotely the same. But you know that already.

 

[Bayhawks]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

You really are stupid.

Says the genius that thought he had "proof" that Tomlin's act was intentional? That really hurts, coming from you.

 

[Bayhawks]

NFL to consider forfeiture or modification of draft pick(s) once NFL Draft order is set.



The draft order should have no bearing on the pick forfeited. Rooney was very influential On Goodell getting the commish gig so this isn't surprising.

Yeah, the NFL is doing this b/c everyone will have more or less forgotten about this come draft time, so not stripping a draft pick won't cause an uproar. BS

My exact thoughts. The 100K is a joke, Rooney will probably give him an undisclosed Christmas bonus to cover that. These franchises are run by billionaires, what's 100K or even a million dollars to them? The only punishment that has any impact is the loss of draft picks. Those can't be bought back. For what it's worth I don't hate Tomlin or the Steelers but I believe the precedent was set with the taking on draft picks over spygate/bountygate and this scenario compromises the integrity of the game regardless of intent. The Jets should have lost picks as well over this and if they had I bet this would have never happened again. 100K/500k fines are meaningless. I think loss of draft pick(s) should be mandatory in these situations.

So people actually believe this is on par with a team employing the practice of spying on another team repeatedly to get a competitive advantage, or an entire team defense taking part in a bounty program designed to injure other players?

The fine is to Tomlin, not the team. $100K is a massive amount of money to him. Will the Steelers pay it for him? Who knows, but Mike Tomlin is not a billionaire.

I personally believe it was intentional, and I believe he should be fined. Tomlin was a freaking ####### for doing it, intentional or not. And just about every Steelers fan I know believes he did it on purpose.

But there's a lot of wishful thinking in here if people actually put Tomlin spontaneously doing something like this, intentional or not, on par with what the Patriots or Saints did. That was an organizational issue. This was a personal mistake.

Yes, it is exactly on par. You break NFL rules, you get punished for it.

So a player who gets called for holding a lot (breaking the NFL rules) should result in some kind of penalty for the franchise he plays for?

What about a DB who gets called for PI often? Should his team have to forfeit draft picks as a result?

Obviously there are different level of NFL rules, and you are ignorant if you don't recognize that.

That's not even remotely the same. But you know that already.

Yes, I did.

Just as you knew that a period of sustained cheating (like BB and the Pats were guilty of) is not even remotely the same as a random, unplanned violation of the NFL's rules about where an NFL coach can stand.

 

[Franknbeans]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it.

Mike Tomlin was never going to face suspension.

This season, the NFL put together a new "advisory committee" spearheaded by Troy Vincent ( who converted from a pretty good defensive back to one of the most ruthless player reps in the history of any pro sport with collective bargaining) to "help" teams find more minority candidates to interview, to aid the fulfillment of the goals of the Rooney Rule.

Translation - Black lobbyists and black power brokers in the league don't want opportunity or equality, they want inequality shifted in their favor and they want jobs and they want anyone who won't give them one, for any reason, to need to justify and explain themselves to a formal inquiry set up by the league.

Mike Tomlin is often cited as an example of a black coach who got a job because he was previously seen as an unknown but the "Rooney Rule" process afforded him an opportunity.

With Leslie Frazier about to get whacked this offseason, and most of the notable black coordinators in the league are on the defensive side of the ball and given that Hue Jackson is seen as a power hungry narcissist by many in the league, the NFL administration is not going to hang out Mike Tomlin to dry, so that every Rooney Rule search will dreg up a Tomlin suspension for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game.

It's not politically correct to say a black person has no integrity even if, by merit, the question exists about their integrity. It's just not how our society or the league works. In the same way that blacks can never be racist no matter what they say in our culture and the league in general, the NFL , the Rooneys and the rest of the owners do not want the political/social firestorm that will associate a black head coach being severely punished for what amounts to a perception of a lack of sportsmanship or integrity.

From a league marketing standpoint, Tomlin is seen purely and solely as black long before he is considered a coach or a man.

It's not politically correct to say it, but being black in this case, esp with the league searching for more black coaches and executives, works in his favor in terms of how this is resolved. Except, we aren't allowed to say that either in our culture or the league, that blacks have any kind of advantage simply for being black and the implied PR fallout.

not this #### again

Tomlin should be fined for doing a horrible coaching job for the past two seasons

 

[PatsFanCT]

NFL to consider forfeiture or modification of draft pick(s) once NFL Draft order is set.



The draft order should have no bearing on the pick forfeited. Rooney was very influential On Goodell getting the commish gig so this isn't surprising.

Yeah, the NFL is doing this b/c everyone will have more or less forgotten about this come draft time, so not stripping a draft pick won't cause an uproar. BS

My exact thoughts. The 100K is a joke, Rooney will probably give him an undisclosed Christmas bonus to cover that. These franchises are run by billionaires, what's 100K or even a million dollars to them? The only punishment that has any impact is the loss of draft picks. Those can't be bought back. For what it's worth I don't hate Tomlin or the Steelers but I believe the precedent was set with the taking on draft picks over spygate/bountygate and this scenario compromises the integrity of the game regardless of intent. The Jets should have lost picks as well over this and if they had I bet this would have never happened again. 100K/500k fines are meaningless. I think loss of draft pick(s) should be mandatory in these situations.

So people actually believe this is on par with a team employing the practice of spying on another team repeatedly to get a competitive advantage, or an entire team defense taking part in a bounty program designed to injure other players?

The fine is to Tomlin, not the team. $100K is a massive amount of money to him. Will the Steelers pay it for him? Who knows, but Mike Tomlin is not a billionaire.

I personally believe it was intentional, and I believe he should be fined. Tomlin was a freaking ####### for doing it, intentional or not. And just about every Steelers fan I know believes he did it on purpose.

But there's a lot of wishful thinking in here if people actually put Tomlin spontaneously doing something like this, intentional or not, on par with what the Patriots or Saints did. That was an organizational issue. This was a personal mistake.

Yes, it is exactly on par. You break NFL rules, you get punished for it.

So a player who gets called for holding a lot (breaking the NFL rules) should result in some kind of penalty for the franchise he plays for?

What about a DB who gets called for PI often? Should his team have to forfeit draft picks as a result?

Obviously there are different level of NFL rules, and you are ignorant if you don't recognize that.

That's not even remotely the same. But you know that already.

Yes, I did.

Just as you knew that a period of sustained cheating (like BB and the Pats were guilty of) is not even remotely the same as a random, unplanned violation of the NFL's rules about where an NFL coach can stand.

Link to any evidence?

 

[Ghost Rider]

As for the bolded, feel free to share a link where there was any evidence of gaining a competitive advantage, and don't act like the Steelers, or any other team didn't use the same tactics. Just because the Pats got caught, doesn't mean they were the only one doing it.

Link to any evidence?

 

[Bayhawks]

NFL to consider forfeiture or modification of draft pick(s) once NFL Draft order is set.



The draft order should have no bearing on the pick forfeited. Rooney was very influential On Goodell getting the commish gig so this isn't surprising.

Yeah, the NFL is doing this b/c everyone will have more or less forgotten about this come draft time, so not stripping a draft pick won't cause an uproar. BS

My exact thoughts. The 100K is a joke, Rooney will probably give him an undisclosed Christmas bonus to cover that. These franchises are run by billionaires, what's 100K or even a million dollars to them? The only punishment that has any impact is the loss of draft picks. Those can't be bought back. For what it's worth I don't hate Tomlin or the Steelers but I believe the precedent was set with the taking on draft picks over spygate/bountygate and this scenario compromises the integrity of the game regardless of intent. The Jets should have lost picks as well over this and if they had I bet this would have never happened again. 100K/500k fines are meaningless. I think loss of draft pick(s) should be mandatory in these situations.

So people actually believe this is on par with a team employing the practice of spying on another team repeatedly to get a competitive advantage, or an entire team defense taking part in a bounty program designed to injure other players?

The fine is to Tomlin, not the team. $100K is a massive amount of money to him. Will the Steelers pay it for him? Who knows, but Mike Tomlin is not a billionaire.

I personally believe it was intentional, and I believe he should be fined. Tomlin was a freaking ####### for doing it, intentional or not. And just about every Steelers fan I know believes he did it on purpose.

But there's a lot of wishful thinking in here if people actually put Tomlin spontaneously doing something like this, intentional or not, on par with what the Patriots or Saints did. That was an organizational issue. This was a personal mistake.

Yes, it is exactly on par. You break NFL rules, you get punished for it.

So a player who gets called for holding a lot (breaking the NFL rules) should result in some kind of penalty for the franchise he plays for?

What about a DB who gets called for PI often? Should his team have to forfeit draft picks as a result?

Obviously there are different level of NFL rules, and you are ignorant if you don't recognize that.

That's not even remotely the same. But you know that already.

Yes, I did.

Just as you knew that a period of sustained cheating (like BB and the Pats were guilty of) is not even remotely the same as a random, unplanned violation of the NFL's rules about where an NFL coach can stand.

Link to any evidence?

Seriously? They cheated (ie-broke NFL rules) all the way back to 2000, which is far worse than Tomlin having the spontaneous, idiotic thought "maybe if I 'accidentaly' wander onto the field, I can keep Jacoby from scoring." You know this, but you are deliberately being dense by saying they are "exactly on par."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3392047

Feb. 13, 2008: During a 1-hour, 40-minute meeting with Goodell, Specter says the commissioner told him Belichick had been taping the sidelines since 2000. "There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter says.

 

[Mookie]

The punishment deserved to be more severe because he did not admit that it was intentional. He is a liar and should be suspended.

If the NFL thought it was intentional the they should have suspended him for life and I believe they would have.

A lifetime ban? Come on now. Why didn't that happen to any of the Saints coaches when they lied during the BountyGate investigation?

I have a hard time believing that anyone can be so gullible as to take Tomlin's word that it was just a case of him spacing out on the sidelines watching the Jumbotron. It's absurd, but what really irks me is that Tomlin makes this absurd claim, and everyone takes him at his word even though there is IMO overwhelming evidence that it was intentional. In my view, the NFL is rewarding him for lying through his teeth.

If Tomlin had fessed up that he got caught up in the intensity of the game and momentarily lost his mind, I would be OK with the same fine - $100K - that the Jets got. In Sal Alosi's case, he fessed up and the Jets took full responsibility, even though he was behind the white area when it happened, which IMO was more of a more gray situation than Tomin's (He was on the bloody field hindering the guy with the ball!). Of course, Alosi got suspended and ultimately fired for his honesty while Tomlin receives no added penalty for his lies and lack of accountability.

 

[Jercules]

NFL to consider forfeiture or modification of draft pick(s) once NFL Draft order is set.



The draft order should have no bearing on the pick forfeited. Rooney was very influential On Goodell getting the commish gig so this isn't surprising.

Yeah, the NFL is doing this b/c everyone will have more or less forgotten about this come draft time, so not stripping a draft pick won't cause an uproar. BS

My exact thoughts. The 100K is a joke, Rooney will probably give him an undisclosed Christmas bonus to cover that. These franchises are run by billionaires, what's 100K or even a million dollars to them? The only punishment that has any impact is the loss of draft picks. Those can't be bought back. For what it's worth I don't hate Tomlin or the Steelers but I believe the precedent was set with the taking on draft picks over spygate/bountygate and this scenario compromises the integrity of the game regardless of intent. The Jets should have lost picks as well over this and if they had I bet this would have never happened again. 100K/500k fines are meaningless. I think loss of draft pick(s) should be mandatory in these situations.

So people actually believe this is on par with a team employing the practice of spying on another team repeatedly to get a competitive advantage, or an entire team defense taking part in a bounty program designed to injure other players?

The fine is to Tomlin, not the team. $100K is a massive amount of money to him. Will the Steelers pay it for him? Who knows, but Mike Tomlin is not a billionaire.

I personally believe it was intentional, and I believe he should be fined. Tomlin was a freaking ####### for doing it, intentional or not. And just about every Steelers fan I know believes he did it on purpose.

But there's a lot of wishful thinking in here if people actually put Tomlin spontaneously doing something like this, intentional or not, on par with what the Patriots or Saints did. That was an organizational issue. This was a personal mistake.

Yes, it is exactly on par. You break NFL rules, you get punished for it.

So a player who gets called for holding a lot (breaking the NFL rules) should result in some kind of penalty for the franchise he plays for?

What about a DB who gets called for PI often? Should his team have to forfeit draft picks as a result?

Obviously there are different level of NFL rules, and you are ignorant if you don't recognize that.

That's not even remotely the same. But you know that already.

Yes, I did.

Just as you knew that a period of sustained cheating (like BB and the Pats were guilty of) is not even remotely the same as a random, unplanned violation of the NFL's rules about where an NFL coach can stand.

Link to any evidence?

I'd like to hear some specifics. Instead of having a guy sit with a pen and paper, watching and recording defensive signals, the Pats had a guy recording them with a camera because, as Belichick admitted in his interview with Armen Keteyian, "it was a more efficient way of doing it." The combination of using a camera and having the cameraman on the sidelines is what constituted the violation--it was necessary playing @NYJ because the press box didn't face the home sidelines, so they couldn't have the cameraman up in the press box (which is perfectly legal).

I'm also wondering where the '7 years of cheating' thing comes from, because even if you assume they used a cameraman from Belichick's first game and on (which is fair), I'm given to understand the rule outlawing cameras on the sidelines wasn't established until 2006.

Belichick was probably lying when he said he misinterpreted the rule--truth was, he ignored it because he figured no one would care.

If I'm wrong somewhere in this feel free to enlighten me.

 

[PatsFanCT]

As for the bolded, feel free to share a link where there was any evidence of gaining a competitive advantage, and don't act like the Steelers, or any other team didn't use the same tactics. Just because the Pats got caught, doesn't mean they were the only one doing it.

Link to any evidence?

Pretty sure he made the claim. I don't think "Because I said so" is a valid link.

And I'm sure I can find the link of Jimmy Johnson saying the Cowboys did it all the time, and so did everyone else. I'm just not going to waste my time, since it's just falling on deaf ears.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

My exact thoughts. The 100K is a joke, Rooney will probably give him an undisclosed Christmas bonus to cover that. These franchises are run by billionaires, what's 100K or even a million dollars to them? The only punishment that has any impact is the loss of draft picks. Those can't be bought back. For what it's worth I don't hate Tomlin or the Steelers but I believe the precedent was set with the taking on draft picks over spygate/bountygate and this scenario compromises the integrity of the game regardless of intent. The Jets should have lost picks as well over this and if they had I bet this would have never happened again. 100K/500k fines are meaningless. I think loss of draft pick(s) should be mandatory in these situations.

So people actually believe this is on par with a team employing the practice of spying on another team repeatedly to get a competitive advantage, or an entire team defense taking part in a bounty program designed to injure other players?

The fine is to Tomlin, not the team. $100K is a massive amount of money to him. Will the Steelers pay it for him? Who knows, but Mike Tomlin is not a billionaire.

I personally believe it was intentional, and I believe he should be fined. Tomlin was a freaking ####### for doing it, intentional or not. And just about every Steelers fan I know believes he did it on purpose.

But there's a lot of wishful thinking in here if people actually put Tomlin spontaneously doing something like this, intentional or not, on par with what the Patriots or Saints did. That was an organizational issue. This was a personal mistake.

Yes, it is exactly on par. You break NFL rules, you get punished for it.

So a player who gets called for holding a lot (breaking the NFL rules) should result in some kind of penalty for the franchise he plays for?

What about a DB who gets called for PI often? Should his team have to forfeit draft picks as a result?

Obviously there are different level of NFL rules, and you are ignorant if you don't recognize that.

That's not even remotely the same. But you know that already.

Yes, I did.

Just as you knew that a period of sustained cheating (like BB and the Pats were guilty of) is not even remotely the same as a random, unplanned violation of the NFL's rules about where an NFL coach can stand.

Link to any evidence?

Seriously? They cheated (ie-broke NFL rules) all the way back to 2000, which is far worse than Tomlin having the spontaneous, idiotic thought "maybe if I 'accidentaly' wander onto the field, I can keep Jacoby from scoring." You know this, but you are deliberately being dense by saying they are "exactly on par."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3392047

Feb. 13, 2008: During a 1-hour, 40-minute meeting with Goodell, Specter says the commissioner told him Belichick had been taping the sidelines since 2000. "There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter says.

yeah, it was such a serious offense they let it go on for 7 years before doing anything about it.

trying to trip a kick returner can obviously have a direct impact on the game being played.

give it up, homers.

 

[PatsFanCT]

So yeah, like I said. Link to any evidence of cheating? According to Goodall, there was no competitive advantage at all.

Sure, they broke the rules, just like Tomlin, the Saints, the old Broncos, 49ers, and Raiders, and probably plenty of other broken rules by any number of teams. How does one team get called cheaters, and all the others don't?

Pretty simple. Because it's the hated Pats.
Let's just forget the fact that video taping from the sideline was allowed until 2006. And that the league sent a memo about it before the 2007 season, to EVERY team, that it wasn't allowed anymore. Yet Belichick was the only one doing it before then.

Haters gonna hate.

 

[Jercules]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it.

Mike Tomlin was never going to face suspension.

This season, the NFL put together a new "advisory committee" spearheaded by Troy Vincent ( who converted from a pretty good defensive back to one of the most ruthless player reps in the history of any pro sport with collective bargaining) to "help" teams find more minority candidates to interview, to aid the fulfillment of the goals of the Rooney Rule.

Translation - Black lobbyists and black power brokers in the league don't want opportunity or equality, they want inequality shifted in their favor and they want jobs and they want anyone who won't give them one, for any reason, to need to justify and explain themselves to a formal inquiry set up by the league.

Mike Tomlin is often cited as an example of a black coach who got a job because he was previously seen as an unknown but the "Rooney Rule" process afforded him an opportunity.

With Leslie Frazier about to get whacked this offseason, and most of the notable black coordinators in the league are on the defensive side of the ball and given that Hue Jackson is seen as a power hungry narcissist by many in the league, the NFL administration is not going to hang out Mike Tomlin to dry, so that every Rooney Rule search will dreg up a Tomlin suspension for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game.

It's not politically correct to say a black person has no integrity even if, by merit, the question exists about their integrity. It's just not how our society or the league works. In the same way that blacks can never be racist no matter what they say in our culture and the league in general, the NFL , the Rooneys and the rest of the owners do not want the political/social firestorm that will associate a black head coach being severely punished for what amounts to a perception of a lack of sportsmanship or integrity.

From a league marketing standpoint, Tomlin is seen purely and solely as black long before he is considered a coach or a man.

It's not politically correct to say it, but being black in this case, esp with the league searching for more black coaches and executives, works in his favor in terms of how this is resolved. Except, we aren't allowed to say that either in our culture or the league, that blacks have any kind of advantage simply for being black and the implied PR fallout.

It's definitely a political decision, I can appreciate your thorough recognition of that.

But given the fact that this league is a billion-dollar empire built on the blood and sweat of poor black youth, many of whom wind up destroyed neurologically (a Pandora's Box opening as we speak), don't you think your thinly-veiled contempt for the 'affirmative action' going on here is a little much?

 

[McGarnicle]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it.

Mike Tomlin was never going to face suspension.

This season, the NFL put together a new "advisory committee" spearheaded by Troy Vincent ( who converted from a pretty good defensive back to one of the most ruthless player reps in the history of any pro sport with collective bargaining) to "help" teams find more minority candidates to interview, to aid the fulfillment of the goals of the Rooney Rule.

Translation - Black lobbyists and black power brokers in the league don't want opportunity or equality, they want inequality shifted in their favor and they want jobs and they want anyone who won't give them one, for any reason, to need to justify and explain themselves to a formal inquiry set up by the league.

Mike Tomlin is often cited as an example of a black coach who got a job because he was previously seen as an unknown but the "Rooney Rule" process afforded him an opportunity.

With Leslie Frazier about to get whacked this offseason, and most of the notable black coordinators in the league are on the defensive side of the ball and given that Hue Jackson is seen as a power hungry narcissist by many in the league, the NFL administration is not going to hang out Mike Tomlin to dry, so that every Rooney Rule search will dreg up a Tomlin suspension for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game.

It's not politically correct to say a black person has no integrity even if, by merit, the question exists about their integrity. It's just not how our society or the league works. In the same way that blacks can never be racist no matter what they say in our culture and the league in general, the NFL , the Rooneys and the rest of the owners do not want the political/social firestorm that will associate a black head coach being severely punished for what amounts to a perception of a lack of sportsmanship or integrity.

From a league marketing standpoint, Tomlin is seen purely and solely as black long before he is considered a coach or a man.

It's not politically correct to say it, but being black in this case, esp with the league searching for more black coaches and executives, works in his favor in terms of how this is resolved. Except, we aren't allowed to say that either in our culture or the league, that blacks have any kind of advantage simply for being black and the implied PR fallout.

It's definitely a political decision, I can appreciate your thorough recognition of that.

But given the fact that this league is a billion-dollar empire built on the blood and sweat of poor black youth, many of whom wind up destroyed neurologically (a Pandora's Box opening as we speak), don't you think your thinly-veiled contempt for the 'affirmative action' going on here is a little much?

What does one have to do with the other? Gekko's post was about hiring practices. The brain injury issue is a separate matter entirely and affects all players regardless of race.

 

[fantasycurse42]

It's definitely a political decision, I can appreciate your thorough recognition of that.

But given the fact that this league is a billion-dollar empire built on the blood and sweat of poor black youth, many of whom wind up destroyed neurologically (a Pandora's Box opening as we speak), don't you think your thinly-veiled contempt for the 'affirmative action' going on here is a little much?

I was looking for the ethnic breakdown in the NFL... Pretty funny that this is the first result on google, swimtown pools - I guess this is good info for pool product suppliers to have on their website

http://www.swimtownpools.com/racial-breakdown-of-mlb-nba-nfl-a/271.htm#

 

[mbuehner]

This thread spun into the abyss in a hurry.

 

[Jercules]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it.

Mike Tomlin was never going to face suspension.

This season, the NFL put together a new "advisory committee" spearheaded by Troy Vincent ( who converted from a pretty good defensive back to one of the most ruthless player reps in the history of any pro sport with collective bargaining) to "help" teams find more minority candidates to interview, to aid the fulfillment of the goals of the Rooney Rule.

Translation - Black lobbyists and black power brokers in the league don't want opportunity or equality, they want inequality shifted in their favor and they want jobs and they want anyone who won't give them one, for any reason, to need to justify and explain themselves to a formal inquiry set up by the league.

Mike Tomlin is often cited as an example of a black coach who got a job because he was previously seen as an unknown but the "Rooney Rule" process afforded him an opportunity.

With Leslie Frazier about to get whacked this offseason, and most of the notable black coordinators in the league are on the defensive side of the ball and given that Hue Jackson is seen as a power hungry narcissist by many in the league, the NFL administration is not going to hang out Mike Tomlin to dry, so that every Rooney Rule search will dreg up a Tomlin suspension for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game.

It's not politically correct to say a black person has no integrity even if, by merit, the question exists about their integrity. It's just not how our society or the league works. In the same way that blacks can never be racist no matter what they say in our culture and the league in general, the NFL , the Rooneys and the rest of the owners do not want the political/social firestorm that will associate a black head coach being severely punished for what amounts to a perception of a lack of sportsmanship or integrity.

From a league marketing standpoint, Tomlin is seen purely and solely as black long before he is considered a coach or a man.

It's not politically correct to say it, but being black in this case, esp with the league searching for more black coaches and executives, works in his favor in terms of how this is resolved. Except, we aren't allowed to say that either in our culture or the league, that blacks have any kind of advantage simply for being black and the implied PR fallout.

It's definitely a political decision, I can appreciate your thorough recognition of that.

But given the fact that this league is a billion-dollar empire built on the blood and sweat of poor black youth, many of whom wind up destroyed neurologically (a Pandora's Box opening as we speak), don't you think your thinly-veiled contempt for the 'affirmative action' going on here is a little much?

What does one have to do with the other? Gekko's post was about hiring practices. The brain injury issue is a separate matter entirely and affects all players regardless of race.

"Translation - Black lobbyists and black power brokers in the league don't want opportunity or equality, they want inequality shifted in their favor"--I'm unimpressed with this particular comment, but it's all overtly political and this is probably not the place for it.

And yes, the neurological issue affects all players but those players are predominantly black, just as management and ownership is predominantly white--if you think affirmative action is straight up evil, fine, but if there's a bone in your body sympathetic to it the NFL is certainly the place to start.

If those 'black lobbyists' had anything to do with the 'bountygate' players' suspensions getting vacated, then more power to them.

 

[Jercules]

This thread spun into the abyss in a hurry.

True. Sorry.

 

[mad sweeney]

Not a shock the biggest troll on the board thinks this punishment isn't serious.

A quick breakdown reveals the severity:

Tomlin earns around $5.5MM a year - 10% to an agent, so now $5MM... All in at such high wages, he loses about 40% of that to the boogey man. His salary brings him home $3MM a year. He loses 3 & 1/3% of his annual income.

For a common man earning $100k, taking home about $66k, that equals about $2,200 dollars. I think most would be unhappy with their employer docking $2,200 out of their pockets.

$100k is a lot of money, even to a guy worth north of $10 million.

Except for the fact that Tomlin still has $2,900,000 left while the other dude has $63,800.

I don't think you fully grasped that post.

Yes, he did. He just put it in perspective for the homers.

 

[mbuehner]

And yes, the neurological issue affects all players but those players are predominantly black, just as management and ownership is predominantly white--if you think affirmative action is straight up evil, fine, but if there's a bone in your body sympathetic to it the NFL is certainly the place to start.

Millionaires arguing with billionaires is the place to start?

 

[McGarnicle]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it.

Mike Tomlin was never going to face suspension.

This season, the NFL put together a new "advisory committee" spearheaded by Troy Vincent ( who converted from a pretty good defensive back to one of the most ruthless player reps in the history of any pro sport with collective bargaining) to "help" teams find more minority candidates to interview, to aid the fulfillment of the goals of the Rooney Rule.

Translation - Black lobbyists and black power brokers in the league don't want opportunity or equality, they want inequality shifted in their favor and they want jobs and they want anyone who won't give them one, for any reason, to need to justify and explain themselves to a formal inquiry set up by the league.

Mike Tomlin is often cited as an example of a black coach who got a job because he was previously seen as an unknown but the "Rooney Rule" process afforded him an opportunity.

With Leslie Frazier about to get whacked this offseason, and most of the notable black coordinators in the league are on the defensive side of the ball and given that Hue Jackson is seen as a power hungry narcissist by many in the league, the NFL administration is not going to hang out Mike Tomlin to dry, so that every Rooney Rule search will dreg up a Tomlin suspension for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game.

It's not politically correct to say a black person has no integrity even if, by merit, the question exists about their integrity. It's just not how our society or the league works. In the same way that blacks can never be racist no matter what they say in our culture and the league in general, the NFL , the Rooneys and the rest of the owners do not want the political/social firestorm that will associate a black head coach being severely punished for what amounts to a perception of a lack of sportsmanship or integrity.

From a league marketing standpoint, Tomlin is seen purely and solely as black long before he is considered a coach or a man.

It's not politically correct to say it, but being black in this case, esp with the league searching for more black coaches and executives, works in his favor in terms of how this is resolved. Except, we aren't allowed to say that either in our culture or the league, that blacks have any kind of advantage simply for being black and the implied PR fallout.

It's definitely a political decision, I can appreciate your thorough recognition of that.

But given the fact that this league is a billion-dollar empire built on the blood and sweat of poor black youth, many of whom wind up destroyed neurologically (a Pandora's Box opening as we speak), don't you think your thinly-veiled contempt for the 'affirmative action' going on here is a little much?

What does one have to do with the other? Gekko's post was about hiring practices. The brain injury issue is a separate matter entirely and affects all players regardless of race.

"Translation - Black lobbyists and black power brokers in the league don't want opportunity or equality, they want inequality shifted in their favor"--I'm unimpressed with this particular comment, but it's all overtly political and this is probably not the place for it.

And yes, the neurological issue affects all players but those players are predominantly black, just as management and ownership is predominantly white--if you think affirmative action is straight up evil, fine, but if there's a bone in your body sympathetic to it the NFL is certainly the place to start.

If those 'black lobbyists' had anything to do with the 'bountygate' players' suspensions getting vacated, then more power to them.

Gekko has posted stuff in the past that suggests he works in the league or is more familiar with its internal operations and scuttlebutt than the average joe. Whether that is the case or not is speculation. People also say the tone and content has changed over the years and it could be an alias used by more than one person. Regardless, the race thing veers way off course of the topic at hand and IMO has no place here. Ditto the brain trauma issue which is not racial in the first place nor does it have anything to do with Tomlin.

 

[Space_Case]

In the end, it doesn't really matter what Tomlin intended or not.

Does it make the NFL Shield look bad? Yes or No? If the answer is Yes, then someone has to pay/suffer for it.

In which direction will the situation cost the league money? Usually this answer mitigates the first issue to a degree.

The Rooney family, along with the Mara family and Steven Tisch and Bob Kraft are the major players in the massive TV deals that the NFL gets from the major networks.

My verdict based on my personal understanding of league politics - Tomlin and the Steelers will receive some type of formal punishment, but Roger Goodell is going to let the Rooney family decide how much and how badly it's going to be.

What did Richie Incognito do? Or not do? It doesn't matter, he made the shield look bad ( While somehow managing to incite three minority demographics with powerful lobbies while he was at it), so he has to suffer for it.

IMHO, to the NFL, right and wrong are irrelevant. What Tomlin did was raise questions about the integrity of the shield and the refs. And once you lose that, you lose it for good with the general public. David Stern literally handed Dwayne Wade and the Miami Heat their first championship, but every time Wade went to the free throw line for getting looked at too hard or breathed on, Stern ruined the credibility of the entire game, all the NBA refs and the integrity of the logo itself.

What did Big Ben do that hotel employee or the girl in the bathroom? He was never formally convicted of a crime. Doesn't matter, he hurt the image of the shield, he had to suffer.

The NFL doesn't factor in how things are, they only factor in how things look. For those of you arguing over Tomlin's intentions, I don't understand why. What he meant won't make a difference in whether he is punished or not. In so much as that goes, IMHO, he's already guilty.

I'll say this much, that smile/grin at the end didn't help. Whatever he was going to get punishment wise to start, it probably doubled in cost as replays shown nationally showed that cheese eating grin on his face.

In the end, Goodell works for the owners, and not all owners are created and treated equally. Goodell will do what the Rooneys want him to do. Mike Tomlin is not worth turning over the billion dollar applecart that the Rooneys help push for the league and all owners. Tomlin will be punished, but probably less so than if it was another coach with a less powerful owner.

I agree with this post. I think the NFL is headed in the wrong direction. The league has gone downhill quickly since Goodell took over. It IS all about the money now, like the rest of society unfortunately. I am about done with being a spectator. Go ahead NFL, put skirts on the quarterbacks only to call roughing when its one of the "chosen teams". The officiating is horrible! Bring back the replacement refs. As the money goes, so goes the league.

 

[voiceofunreason]

Not a shock the biggest troll on the board thinks this punishment isn't serious.

A quick breakdown reveals the severity:

Tomlin earns around $5.5MM a year - 10% to an agent, so now $5MM... All in at such high wages, he loses about 40% of that to the boogey man. His salary brings him home $3MM a year. He loses 3 & 1/3% of his annual income.

For a common man earning $100k, taking home about $66k, that equals about $2,200 dollars. I think most would be unhappy with their employer docking $2,200 out of their pockets.

$100k is a lot of money, even to a guy worth north of $10 million.

Except for the fact that Tomlin still has $2,900,000 left while the other dude has $63,800.

I don't think you fully grasped that post.

Completely off base. 100k is nothing for someone like him. Lets say you need 60k to live. So that means the average guy has 6k to spend on luxury items. He loses almost half of that. Tomlin still has almost 3 million to completely waste. He'll never know the difference. Plus Tomlin should have 10 million in the bank, the other guy probably has 5 grand. Money is nothing to people in the NFL.

 

[Copeman]

Not a shock the biggest troll on the board thinks this punishment isn't serious.

A quick breakdown reveals the severity:

Tomlin earns around $5.5MM a year - 10% to an agent, so now $5MM... All in at such high wages, he loses about 40% of that to the boogey man. His salary brings him home $3MM a year. He loses 3 & 1/3% of his annual income.

For a common man earning $100k, taking home about $66k, that equals about $2,200 dollars. I think most would be unhappy with their employer docking $2,200 out of their pockets.

$100k is a lot of money, even to a guy worth north of $10 million.

Except for the fact that Tomlin still has $2,900,000 left while the other dude has $63,800.

I don't think you fully grasped that post.

Yes, he did. He just put it in perspective for the homers.

No, he didn't. Not one bit.

 

[Copeman]

Not a shock the biggest troll on the board thinks this punishment isn't serious.

A quick breakdown reveals the severity:

Tomlin earns around $5.5MM a year - 10% to an agent, so now $5MM... All in at such high wages, he loses about 40% of that to the boogey man. His salary brings him home $3MM a year. He loses 3 & 1/3% of his annual income.

For a common man earning $100k, taking home about $66k, that equals about $2,200 dollars. I think most would be unhappy with their employer docking $2,200 out of their pockets.

$100k is a lot of money, even to a guy worth north of $10 million.

Except for the fact that Tomlin still has $2,900,000 left while the other dude has $63,800.

I don't think you fully grasped that post.

Yes, he did. He just put it in perspective for the homers.

No, he didn't. Not one bit.

Yes, he did.

No infinity.

 

[Bayhawks]

So yeah, like I said. Link to any evidence of cheating? According to Goodall, there was no competitive advantage at all.

Sure, they broke the rules, just like Tomlin, the Saints, the old Broncos, 49ers, and Raiders, and probably plenty of other broken rules by any number of teams. How does one team get called cheaters, and all the others don't?

Pretty simple. Because it's the hated Pats.
Let's just forget the fact that video taping from the sideline was allowed until 2006. And that the league sent a memo about it before the 2007 season, to EVERY team, that it wasn't allowed anymore. Yet Belichick was the only one doing it before then.

Haters gonna hate.

Where's the cheating? You said it yourself. It was against the rules. Belichick admitted to doing it, all the way back as 2000.

So according to you, Belichick doing it repeatedly (throughout the 2006 season, and into 2007) is the same as Tomlin ONE TIME breaking a rule. Yeah, that makes sense.

Homers gonna blindly defend their teams and attack others.

 

[McGarnicle]

Gekko has posted stuff in the past that suggests he works in the league or is more familiar with its internal operations and scuttlebutt than the average joe. Whether that is the case or not is speculation. People also say the tone and content has changed over the years and it could be an alias used by more than one person. Regardless, the race thing veers way off course of the topic at hand and IMO has no place here. Ditto the brain trauma issue which is not racial in the first place nor does it have anything to do with Tomlin.

Tomlin's race absolutely, IMHO, has a factor in his level of punishment.

If Richie Incognito was black or Jonathan Martin was white, that would be a factor in how the press would treat the matter, how much press it would get and how much the NFL would respond.

The NFL clearly cares about perception and how the league is seen by the public and the appearance of professionalism and integrity. This is the same league that has spotters at games to ensure players are in uniform compliance. This is the same league threatening sanctions against players over the color of their cleats. This is the same league that has players wear pink for a month to broaden the leagues demographic appeal to specific consumers so it can further appeal to it's own advertisers.

Mike Tomlin's name and his hiring by the Steelers is COMMONLY used by pro Rooney Rulers in the league to cite how the Rooney Rule has a positive effect on owners giving more opportunity to names out side of the "hot list" of coaching candidates. The league has actively said publicly, and also internally, how it wishes to increase the minority representation in the coaching ranks and the league's front offices.

Do you really think the league was going to suspend Tomlin for a year or six months or four games for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game, so he could be labeled a cheater, so that when each time his name comes up through the league's new advisory committee, someone could say, "Oh yeah, that guy, the cheater right?"

David Shaw of Stanford is on the "hot list" of coaching candidates specifically because his base is offensive pedigree and he is African American. But most of the African American candidates in the league are on the defensive side of the ball - Ray Horton, Leslie Frazier when he gets clipped,Keith Butler, Ken Norton Jr. And the few guys on the offensive side of the ball, Bobby Turner and Hue Jackson, no one wants to hire for other reasons.

If Big Ben was black, in a bathroom with a white college girl, it makes a difference. Chris Paul is one of the most high profile NBA players and one of the most marketable athletes in the Western world. He also said he'd prefer to play for a black coach. Now if Kevin Love, a white player raised in LA and playing in Minnesota said that? There would be a firestorm, suspensions, death threats, demands for fines and bannings and protests. Jeremy Lin frequently cites that while traveling for Harvard, that racial slurs were used against him on the road regularly by fans and sometimes by other players on other teams. Can you imagine if a black player came forward and said predominately white players threw racial slurs at him during games?

It's simply more socially acceptable in the Western world, esp in pro sports, to be racist against Asians or whites or males or heterosexuals, but not in reverse, you'd better watch yourself before you say something negative about women in general, gays in sports, African Americans and occasionally Jews. Like any big business, the NFL must take a moderate tone, that tone is derived by general perception, that perception is driven by the media and the media is more influenced by some lobbyist groups than others. Sorry to break to you a reality of everyday life in the modern Western world. Yes, when Chris Rock makes fun of white people in stand up, it's considered comedy, but if Jerry Seinfeld starting ragging on African Americans and all their flaws for comedy for 45 minutes on a national stage, how do you think that is going to play out?

People here. some are, are saying Tomlin's level of punishment is based on a contrast compared to Bounty Gate or Spy Gate. Some, as I also have suggested, have inferred that being a coach working for the powerful Rooney family makes a difference.

I'm saying being black makes a difference. The entire difference? I doubt that. But as it weighs into the court of public opinion and perception and considering the league's desire to expand minority hiring, I don't see that as a huge stretch. There are not a lot of black head coaches in the NFL, soon, after the season ends, there will likely be fewer, the list of practical candidates is short and many lack the offensive pedigree/QB1 developmental background that so many franchises want now. I don't think it's a stretch that the league wants to not muddy the name of it's classical example of why minority hiring works and sully the name of the rules namesake owner, one of the major power brokers in the massive TV deals that league gets.

What we have here is what we always have in the Shark Pool, Patriots homers versus Steelers homers versus Saints homers, all talking over each other trying to see whose team and owners and players are the biggest scum bags.

And I'm the only one saying it doesn't matter what you really did, what really happened, or the truth, all that matters is what the public perceives and how things look, and that alone is enough to get you hammered for simply tarnishing the shield, whether you meant it or not.

The Rooney Rules very existence implies RACE MATTERS in the NFL. But there are folks here who want to argue it doesn't matter here and here, when it's actually working for someone's favor instead of the notion of some long ingrained cultural and social bias against it. If it matters, IT MUST MATTER BOTH WAYS. How is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Honestly, IMHO, some of you guys could stand to turn down your overcharged homerism and actually shut up and listen from time to time, you might actually learn how the league truly operates.

I find it interesting that Belichick was not suspended either and would be interested in your take on that. Granted the punishment was much more severe than Tomlin's, but the offense was about 1000 times worse as well. I would argue it was worse than Bountygate, where Payton got a whole year suspension. I'm guessing Kraft's influence was a big part of determining Belichick's punishment?

 

[treat88]

Not going to dive into the what constitutes an appropriate punishment debate here....but why in the blue hell can't it be expected that the refs simply enforce the rules on the book?

Seriously, if his actions warrant a 15 yard penalty just enforce that. If his actions warrant a TD being awarded just enforce that. Those seem to be the two possible outcomes in terms of what's currently on the books.

If the league thinks that interference warrants a 100k fine...why not add that to the penalties associated with that infraction? Trying to penalize based on intent or degree is asinine. Did he break the rule? Yes or no? If yes, which he clearly did, the penalty shouldn't be discretionary.

I simply don't understand why there can't be a clearly delineated, coherent set of rules with the associated penalties for breaking them being black and white for all to see and which the refs are accountable to enforce on the field. Sure there will always be exceptions that fall through the cracks, but the ambiguity associated with the punishments that Gooddell comes up with is what really pisses me off.

 

[McGarnicle]

Not going to dive into the what constitutes an appropriate punishment debate here....but why in the blue hell can't it be expected that the refs simply enforce the rules on the book?

Seriously, if his actions warrant a 15 yard penalty just enforce that. If his actions warrant a TD being awarded just enforce that. Those seem to be the two possible outcomes in terms of what's currently on the books.

If the league thinks that interference warrants a 100k fine...why not add that to the penalties associated with that infraction? Trying to penalize based on intent or degree is asinine. Did he break the rule? Yes or no? If yes, which he clearly did, the penalty shouldn't be discretionary.

I simply don't understand why there can't be a clearly delineated, coherent set of rules with the associated penalties for breaking them being black and white for all to see and which the refs are accountable to enforce on the field. Sure there will always be exceptions that fall through the cracks, but the ambiguity associated with the punishments that Gooddell comes up with is what really pisses me off.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=700244&p=16272761

 

[Jercules]

Gekko has posted stuff in the past that suggests he works in the league or is more familiar with its internal operations and scuttlebutt than the average joe. Whether that is the case or not is speculation. People also say the tone and content has changed over the years and it could be an alias used by more than one person. Regardless, the race thing veers way off course of the topic at hand and IMO has no place here. Ditto the brain trauma issue which is not racial in the first place nor does it have anything to do with Tomlin.

Tomlin's race absolutely, IMHO, has a factor in his level of punishment.

If Richie Incognito was black or Jonathan Martin was white, that would be a factor in how the press would treat the matter, how much press it would get and how much the NFL would respond.

The NFL clearly cares about perception and how the league is seen by the public and the appearance of professionalism and integrity. This is the same league that has spotters at games to ensure players are in uniform compliance. This is the same league threatening sanctions against players over the color of their cleats. This is the same league that has players wear pink for a month to broaden the leagues demographic appeal to specific consumers so it can further appeal to it's own advertisers.

Mike Tomlin's name and his hiring by the Steelers is COMMONLY used by pro Rooney Rulers in the league to cite how the Rooney Rule has a positive effect on owners giving more opportunity to names out side of the "hot list" of coaching candidates. The league has actively said publicly, and also internally, how it wishes to increase the minority representation in the coaching ranks and the league's front offices.

Do you really think the league was going to suspend Tomlin for a year or six months or four games for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game, so he could be labeled a cheater, so that when each time his name comes up through the league's new advisory committee, someone could say, "Oh yeah, that guy, the cheater right?"

David Shaw of Stanford is on the "hot list" of coaching candidates specifically because his base is offensive pedigree and he is African American. But most of the African American candidates in the league are on the defensive side of the ball - Ray Horton, Leslie Frazier when he gets clipped,Keith Butler, Ken Norton Jr. And the few guys on the offensive side of the ball, Bobby Turner and Hue Jackson, no one wants to hire for other reasons.

If Big Ben was black, in a bathroom with a white college girl, it makes a difference. Chris Paul is one of the most high profile NBA players and one of the most marketable athletes in the Western world. He also said he'd prefer to play for a black coach. Now if Kevin Love, a white player raised in LA and playing in Minnesota said that? There would be a firestorm, suspensions, death threats, demands for fines and bannings and protests. Jeremy Lin frequently cites that while traveling for Harvard, that racial slurs were used against him on the road regularly by fans and sometimes by other players on other teams. Can you imagine if a black player came forward and said predominately white players threw racial slurs at him during games?

It's simply more socially acceptable in the Western world, esp in pro sports, to be racist against Asians or whites or males or heterosexuals, but not in reverse, you'd better watch yourself before you say something negative about women in general, gays in sports, African Americans and occasionally Jews. Like any big business, the NFL must take a moderate tone, that tone is derived by general perception, that perception is driven by the media and the media is more influenced by some lobbyist groups than others. Sorry to break to you a reality of everyday life in the modern Western world. Yes, when Chris Rock makes fun of white people in stand up, it's considered comedy, but if Jerry Seinfeld starting ragging on African Americans and all their flaws for comedy for 45 minutes on a national stage, how do you think that is going to play out?

People here. some are, are saying Tomlin's level of punishment is based on a contrast compared to Bounty Gate or Spy Gate. Some, as I also have suggested, have inferred that being a coach working for the powerful Rooney family makes a difference.

I'm saying being black makes a difference. The entire difference? I doubt that. But as it weighs into the court of public opinion and perception and considering the league's desire to expand minority hiring, I don't see that as a huge stretch. There are not a lot of black head coaches in the NFL, soon, after the season ends, there will likely be fewer, the list of practical candidates is short and many lack the offensive pedigree/QB1 developmental background that so many franchises want now. I don't think it's a stretch that the league wants to not muddy the name of it's classical example of why minority hiring works and sully the name of the rules namesake owner, one of the major power brokers in the massive TV deals that league gets.

What we have here is what we always have in the Shark Pool, Patriots homers versus Steelers homers versus Saints homers, all talking over each other trying to see whose team and owners and players are the biggest scum bags.

And I'm the only one saying it doesn't matter what you really did, what really happened, or the truth, all that matters is what the public perceives and how things look, and that alone is enough to get you hammered for simply tarnishing the shield, whether you meant it or not.

The Rooney Rules very existence implies RACE MATTERS in the NFL. But there are folks here who want to argue it doesn't matter here and here, when it's actually working for someone's favor instead of the notion of some long ingrained cultural and social bias against it. If it matters, IT MUST MATTER BOTH WAYS. How is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Honestly, IMHO, some of you guys could stand to turn down your overcharged homerism and actually shut up and listen from time to time, you might actually learn how the league truly operates.

I find it interesting that Belichick was not suspended either and would be interested in your take on that. Granted the punishment was much more severe than Tomlin's, but the offense was about 1000 times worse as well. I would argue it was worse than Bountygate, where Payton got a whole year suspension. I'm guessing Kraft's influence was a big part of determining Belichick's punishment?

A vehement condemnation of homerism, followed immediately by a Patriot-hating fishing expedition. GordonGekko is about to swan dive off the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Not a shock the biggest troll on the board thinks this punishment isn't serious.

A quick breakdown reveals the severity:

Tomlin earns around $5.5MM a year - 10% to an agent, so now $5MM... All in at such high wages, he loses about 40% of that to the boogey man. His salary brings him home $3MM a year. He loses 3 & 1/3% of his annual income.

For a common man earning $100k, taking home about $66k, that equals about $2,200 dollars. I think most would be unhappy with their employer docking $2,200 out of their pockets.

$100k is a lot of money, even to a guy worth north of $10 million.

Except for the fact that Tomlin still has $2,900,000 left while the other dude has $63,800.

I don't think you fully grasped that post.

Yes, he did. He just put it in perspective for the homers.

No, he didn't. Not one bit.

Yes, he did.

No infinity.

####! You win!

 

[treat88]

Not going to dive into the what constitutes an appropriate punishment debate here....but why in the blue hell can't it be expected that the refs simply enforce the rules on the book?

Seriously, if his actions warrant a 15 yard penalty just enforce that. If his actions warrant a TD being awarded just enforce that. Those seem to be the two possible outcomes in terms of what's currently on the books.

If the league thinks that interference warrants a 100k fine...why not add that to the penalties associated with that infraction? Trying to penalize based on intent or degree is asinine. Did he break the rule? Yes or no? If yes, which he clearly did, the penalty shouldn't be discretionary.

I simply don't understand why there can't be a clearly delineated, coherent set of rules with the associated penalties for breaking them being black and white for all to see and which the refs are accountable to enforce on the field. Sure there will always be exceptions that fall through the cracks, but the ambiguity associated with the punishments that Gooddell comes up with is what really pisses me off.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=700244&p=16272761

Does go to the accountability issue somewhat, but it begs the question why it takes an incident like this to earn a downgrade...was every other crew downgraded for not enforcing the same rule which was repetitively broken in every game played all season? Referring to the restricted area rule here.

If there is a rule on the books, the associated penalties should be on the books as well when it is broken.

 

[Zigg]

I am not sure of the rationale for penalizing the organization unless you think the team was behind the action, condoned it or tried to cover it up.

You over-punish to send a message. "Blame" and "deserve" don't matter. Having to prove something was condoned would be essentially impossible, anyway -- the league doesn't even factor that in.

You don't think Tom Benson personally signed off on Bountygate, do you? Or personally signed off on the resulting investigation obstruction? Yet the Saints' franchise was fined and stripped of some draft picks.

The NFL concluded that Benson knew about it and instead of notifying the NFL he instructed his GM to put an end to it (which he ultimately did not). The NFL also said that Payton knew about DC Gregg Wilson's bounty scheme, didn't do anything about and tried to cover it up.

So here you have an organization which knew they were violating league policy but didn't notify the NFL or at the very least put an end to it. I think that is a big difference.

IMO you should punish someone for an illegal action, preventing an illegal action or covering up an illegal action. Unless you think the Steelers knew that Tomlin was going to step on to the field to interfere then I am not sure why you are punishing the organization for the act of one individual.

The NFL concluded what they felt made them look like they care about players, they don't. The NFL's only concern is the bottom line. Mike Tomlin's actions had no impact on the bottom line, the Saints did. This in the only consideration Goodell and company care about.