What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Player's Union stance on spitting. (1 Viewer)

So I heard that Gene Upshaw has come out and publicly stated the Union will oppose any suspension of Taylor for spitting on Pittman. He says he is supporting a player in this, but isn't Pittman also a player. Does it make sense for the union to argue that it's employees can not expect its backing when they get publicly degraded? If you were Pittman would you feel abandoned by your union in this?(Edited because I posted before my first coffee.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elway Lives

Footballguy
The players union is just that...a union. Don't try to find logic in its decisions, you'll go crazy.Has it been confirmed that Taylor actually did spit on Pittman? Last I heard Taylor was denying it, and I didn't see anything "romo-esque" in any replay I saw.

 

shadyridr

Footballguy
:eek: He spit all the way to Chicago? Instead of a suspension he should get a trophy. That mustve been some magic loogie.
 

AB in DC

Footballguy
The players union is just that...a union. Don't try to find logic in its decisions, you'll go crazy.
What's so illogical? The union always opposes a suspension, no matter what the reason. Call it what you will, but illogical isn't the word I'd use.

Besides, only two people in the world knows what actually happened between him and Pittman, and only one of them is talking.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rayderr

Footballguy
And shouldn't have Pittman also been thrown out for throwing the punch afterwards? I thought that was an automatic ejection nowadays.

 

shadyridr

Footballguy
The players union is just that...a union.  Don't try to find logic in its decisions, you'll go crazy.
What's so illogical? The union always opposes a suspension, no matter what the reason. Call it what you will, but illogical isn't the word I'd use.

Besides, only two people in the world knows what actually happened between him and Pittman, and only one of them is talking.
The ref was standing right there. Ill take his word over anybody else's.
 

P Boy

Footballguy
Solution to spitting on another player:Make both teams go to the sidelines, put the spitter & the spitee on the field at midfield, and give the sittee a free kick in the nuts of the offender.Problem solved, let play continue.

 

jurb26

Footballguy
The players union is just that...a union. Don't try to find logic in its decisions, you'll go crazy.
What's so illogical? The union always opposes a suspension, no matter what the reason. Call it what you will, but illogical isn't the word I'd use.

Besides, only two people in the world knows what actually happened between him and Pittman, and only one of them is talking.
The ref was standing right there. Ill take his word over anybody else's.
Cause refs never miss a thing, right?
 
Did the union come out in support of Romanowski? I can't remember.I'm wondering what will happen when these two and their posse's meet up in South Beach during the off season, as is only too likely to happen.

 

onthevirg

Footballguy
I just want know why Pittman never wiped his face.
Can't find a link right now, but Pittman did wipe his face. Now, whether that was Taylor spittle he was wiping or his own, I do not know.

 

dgreen

Footballguy
And shouldn't have Pittman also been thrown out for throwing the punch afterwards? I thought that was an automatic ejection nowadays.
Yes, Pittman should have been flagged, maybe even ejected. The ref said something about Taylor's action being so egregious that he didn't flag Pittman for his actions. Sounds to me like the ref made up his own rules on that one, unless there's some rule that the ref can determine it's okay for one player to hit another.
 

apalmer

Footballguy
Cause refs never miss a thing, right?
They may miss things, but they didn't miss that.
I could name several things that refs have missed that were much worse than that. I'm sure you could too if you really thought about it.
There's a big difference between missing something (i.e., not seeing it) and seeing something that didn't actually happen. If the ref had penalized Pittman because he didn't see Taylor spit, it could be characterized as "missing it." When he says he saw spit from his vantage point two feet away, he's either hallucinating or saw it, and the odds are against hallucinating.
 

jurb26

Footballguy
Cause refs never miss a thing, right?
They may miss things, but they didn't miss that.
I could name several things that refs have missed that were much worse than that. I'm sure you could too if you really thought about it.
There's a big difference between missing something (i.e., not seeing it) and seeing something that didn't actually happen. If the ref had penalized Pittman because he didn't see Taylor spit, it could be characterized as "missing it." When he says he saw spit from his vantage point two feet away, he's either hallucinating or saw it, and the odds are against hallucinating.
OK, and what about hearing something that was never said... see the Steelers/Lions OT game a few years ago as example #1.
 

Wu-banger

Footballguy
Maybe it is a Union by-law that apprentices can spit on journeyman as sort of a wierd Players union bonding ritual.......??? Pittman deserves to be spit on IMO...but it should be his wife doing the spitting.

 

redman

Footballguy
First of all, Taylor still has playing time this year while Pittman's season is over, so it's only natural for the union to focus on the "active" player's ability to play during the playoffs.

Upshaw is simply trying to make sure that a suspension doesn't occur. He's basically said that a fine is appropriate assuming that the spitting incident did occur - and he's also not questioning (at least publicly) whether Taylor spit.

Personally, I saw nothing to indicate spitting. What's more troublesome is that if you look at the video of the incident, it doesn't appear to me like the referee was in a position to see anything, and threw the flag very quickly despite that.

It goes without saying that it's troublesome that the blow to the head was ignored despite the fact that that's supposed to be an automatic personal foul and even an automatic ejection.

 

P Boy

Footballguy
First of all, Taylor still has playing time this year while Pittman's season is over, so it's only natural for the union to focus on the "active" player's ability to play during the playoffs.

Upshaw is simply trying to make sure that a suspension doesn't occur. He's basically said that a fine is appropriate assuming that the spitting incident did occur - and he's also not questioning (at least publicly) whether Taylor spit.

Personally, I saw nothing to indicate spitting. What's more troublesome is that if you look at the video of the incident, it doesn't appear to me like the referee was in a position to see anything, and threw the flag very quickly despite that.

It goes without saying that it's troublesome that the blow to the head was ignored despite the fact that that's supposed to be an automatic personal foul and even an automatic ejection.
My vote for most convoluted post of the year.So the union is supposed to care more for the guy still playing even though he was the transgressor? What has anything to do with still playing or not playing? The union is supposed to protect ALL of its members.

It's troublesome to you that the person who got spat upon didn't get flagged for retaliation when it was a slight slap across the facemask?

C'mon. Tell me that you are fishing.

 

dgreen

Footballguy
First of all, Taylor still has playing time this year while Pittman's season is over, so it's only natural for the union to focus on the "active" player's ability to play during the playoffs.
Also, this isn't an issue between Taylor and Pittman; it's between Taylor and the league. The union is protecting their player against the league. The union is not protecting one of their players from another one of their players right now.Pittman would expect the same backing from the union.

 

jurb26

Footballguy
First of all, Taylor still has playing time this year while Pittman's season is over, so it's only natural for the union to focus on the "active" player's ability to play during the playoffs.

Upshaw is simply trying to make sure that a suspension doesn't occur. He's basically said that a fine is appropriate assuming that the spitting incident did occur - and he's also not questioning (at least publicly) whether Taylor spit.

Personally, I saw nothing to indicate spitting. What's more troublesome is that if you look at the video of the incident, it doesn't appear to me like the referee was in a position to see anything, and threw the flag very quickly despite that.

It goes without saying that it's troublesome that the blow to the head was ignored despite the fact that that's supposed to be an automatic personal foul and even an automatic ejection.
My vote for most convoluted post of the year.So the union is supposed to care more for the guy still playing even though he was the transgressor? What has anything to do with still playing or not playing? The union is supposed to protect ALL of its members.

It's troublesome to you that the person who got spat upon didn't get flagged for retaliation when it was a slight slap across the facemask?

C'mon. Tell me that you are fishing.
That video does very little for supporting the idea that Taylor actually spit on him. It also does very little for supporting the idea that the ref was in a position to see the so called spit. He was standing BEHIND Pittman at the time the said spitting occured.
 

Sidewinder16

Footballguy
Cause refs never miss a thing, right?
They may miss things, but they didn't miss that.
I could name several things that refs have missed that were much worse than that. I'm sure you could too if you really thought about it.
There's a big difference between missing something (i.e., not seeing it) and seeing something that didn't actually happen.
Like seeing Pittman not hit Taylor.
 

shadyridr

Footballguy
The ref was standing right there when Pittman punched Taylor. He then proceeded to throw a flag and eject Taylor. Taylor had to do something to get thrown out with the ref standing right there.

 

JAA

Footballguy
The PU will do everything in its power so a player is not suspended, no matter what the cause.

 
As for the video not catching the spittle in the air I say so what. I've watched any number of games in the rain and snow and you often see neither unless the cameras specifically try to focus on those fast moving drops against the lights.People saying we have not seen the visual evidence are grasping at straws. Explain the incident otherwise. No it happened, only blind homers, the purposely ignorant, or those who like to argue without actual point would maintain otherwise.Were it me I'd want my union to take a stance that getting spat upon is unacceptable. I'd want my union to say that my workplace should be lugie free, from the fans, the coaches, and opposing players. I'd want it to condemn my being exposed to such base conduct regardless of by whom initiated. I'd also not want it wasting it's clout and credibility with the league to come out on the side of a player who just debased me and the game. In short I hate mindless unions who in the short sighted goal of appearing willing to fight for the solidarity of all forget that the greater good of the membership may include condemning members who are out of line. When you stand for anything you stand for nothing.

 

Bizkiteer

Footballguy
I just want know why Pittman never wiped his face.
Or why he was allowed to swing and hit Taylor without getting a penalty called on him either. Then again, Pittman is experienced hitter...her does it off the field and on the field. :rolleyes:
 

Sidewinder16

Footballguy
The ref was standing right there when Pittman punched Taylor. He then proceeded to throw a flag and eject Taylor. Taylor had to do something to get thrown out with the ref standing right there.
:shrug: I want to say he had to do something, too. But when Pittman gets away with punching another player (with the ref standing right there) it brings the refs judgement of the situation into question.

The only problem I have with what happened to Taylor is that Pittman didn't get the same.

 

Da Guru

Fair & Balanced
So I heard that Gene Upshaw has come out and publicly stated the Union will oppose any suspension of Taylor for spitting on Pittman. He says he is supporting a player in this, but isn't Pittman also a player. Does it make sense for the union to argue that it's employees can not expect its backing when they get publicly degraded? If you were Pittman would you feel abandoned by your union in this?

(Edited because I posted before my first coffee.)
Would have they supported ROMO??
 

jurb26

Footballguy
As for the video not catching the spittle in the air I say so what. I've watched any number of games in the rain and snow and you often see neither unless the cameras specifically try to focus on those fast moving drops against the lights.

People saying we have not seen the visual evidence are grasping at straws. Explain the incident otherwise. No it happened, only blind homers, the purposely ignorant, or those who like to argue without actual point would maintain otherwise.

Were it me I'd want my union to take a stance that getting spat upon is unacceptable. I'd want my union to say that my workplace should be lugie free, from the fans, the coaches, and opposing players. I'd want it to condemn my being exposed to such base conduct regardless of by whom initiated. I'd also not want it wasting it's clout and credibility with the league to come out on the side of a player who just debased me and the game.
So, this is your retort to those who would actually like a little bit of hard evidence before coming to a finalized conclusion. Talk about grasping at straws. "Explain the incident otherwise." OK, you have 2 meatheads jawing at each other. We have a refs word (who based on the video is clearly not in a great position to see anything at the time of the claimed spitting) and one of the players word saying he was spit on. The other player says he didn't... big surprise, the 2 players contradict each other. So basically you are forming this great conclusion on only the ref’s standpoint, which is clearly less than stellar given the video evidence. We never see this spit that you so candidly speak about and not only that, we are to simply trust the word of a ref who also later altered the rules based off of his opinion of the events. Hitting Taylor is a violation and 15 yd penalty, no questions asked it does not matter if it was retaliation or not. Gee, I wonder why some my question the validity to this refs call? Nah, never in the history of football have we seen a guy strike another guy by simply loosing his cool in a jawing match. Yeah, that would have been a 1st. Every previous time involved a wad of spit to instigate the slap or punch.Now I don’t know if Taylor did or did not spit on Pittman. All I know is that looking at the video, there is certainly not proof if it. What I find hilarious is how many people love to assume guilt every chance they get. It’s OK though, since you can’t actually see the rain or snow sometimes when you are watching a game that means Taylor is guilty.

Were it me, I would want the NFL to be able to prove that an action was taken before penalizing a player for it. In this paricular case I don't see how that is possible.

 

nag'

Footballguy
Had Pittman kicked Taylor in the balls after being spat on, the Union would've spoke out against suspending Pittman also. That's just what unions do these days - try to keep their members from losing a dollar in salary no matter how just, fair or logical that penalty or suspension may be. Perfect example: MLBPA

 

ditka311

Footballguy
I'm wondering what will happen when these two and their posse's meet up in South Beach during the off season, as is only too likely to happen.
If I was Taylor, I would be worried about Pittman beating any women in the group. If I was Pittman, I would be worried that Taylor and his posse aren't afraid to use guns to get their point across. Even worse, Taylor gets off without charge.

 
We are going to eventually find out that the Ref, who was behind but to the side of Pittman got hit with the spittle as well. Pittman's reaction as well as the Ref's were so certain, unequivical, and forceful I have zero doubt this took place. I don't believe any of those arguing otherwise really have doubts as well. They just think that if they can create some minor scintilla of doubt based on the fact that the camera did not pick it up that they can justify their hero worship of this punk.You know what, I didn't see the bullet that blew JFK's skull all to hell yet I have zero doubt that a bullet it was.Still this thread is not about pathetic attempts to justify the base behavior of a punk who has time and again demonstrated his lack of class, nor is it abouta wifebeater, nor a ref so stunned at outrageous behavior that he ost his composure and ignored a rule. This thread is about a union choosing to support one member who has debased another. Please feel free to start your own thread.

 
I'm wondering what will happen when these two and their posse's meet up in South Beach during the off season, as is only too likely to happen.
If I was Taylor, I would be worried about Pittman beating any women in the group. If I was Pittman, I would be worried that Taylor and his posse aren't afraid to use guns to get their point across. Even worse, Taylor gets off without charge.
Well thought out response looking at both sides of the issue. :goodposting:
 

rifkin

Footballguy
Were it me, I would want the NFL to be able to prove that an action was taken before penalizing a player for it. In this paricular case I don't see how that is possible.
Their proof is their witness - the ref that claims he saw this action. Is there a quote from the ref yet?I'm a Redskins fan and:

-I don't know Sean Taylor personally but everything I have read of his character, intelligence, etc. leads me to think that I wouldn't put it past him to spit on an opponent. It may be unfair of me to do so, but it's an opinion I can't help but to form based on my limited knowledge. OTOH, everything I know about Pittman also leads to form the opinion that he would lie about the incident too.

-I don't think the video disproves that the ref didn't have a good view depending upon when the incident occurred. Right before the head slap, the ref could be in position to see something if it did happen.

-It does look like Pittman wiped something from his facemask.

 

Marvelous

Footballguy
Were it me, I would want the NFL to be able to prove that an action was taken before penalizing a player for it.  In this paricular case I don't see how that is possible.
Their proof is their witness - the ref that claims he saw this action. Is there a quote from the ref yet?I'm a Redskins fan and:

-I don't know Sean Taylor personally but everything I have read of his character, intelligence, etc. leads me to think that I wouldn't put it past him to spit on an opponent. It may be unfair of me to do so, but it's an opinion I can't help but to form based on my limited knowledge. OTOH, everything I know about Pittman also leads to form the opinion that he would lie about the incident too.

-I don't think the video disproves that the ref didn't have a good view depending upon when the incident occurred. Right before the head slap, the ref could be in position to see something if it did happen.

-It does look like Pittman wiped something from his facemask.
I think you all are missing the point.Taylor has already been penalized for spitting. A 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and ejection from the game. He will probably be fined. The question is: is a suspension (assume 1 game and 1/16 of his salary) on top of all that excessive?

The union will argue it is excessive. The union is not arguing any of the other sanctions against Taylor.

There is nothing for the union to argue for Pittman. He was spat on. His team got a 15 yard penalty and Pittman got a free slap at Taylor. What could the union possibly argue for Pittman here?

 
Were it me, I would want the NFL to be able to prove that an action was taken before penalizing a player for it.  In this paricular case I don't see how that is possible.
Their proof is their witness - the ref that claims he saw this action. Is there a quote from the ref yet?I'm a Redskins fan and:

-I don't know Sean Taylor personally but everything I have read of his character, intelligence, etc. leads me to think that I wouldn't put it past him to spit on an opponent. It may be unfair of me to do so, but it's an opinion I can't help but to form based on my limited knowledge. OTOH, everything I know about Pittman also leads to form the opinion that he would lie about the incident too.

-I don't think the video disproves that the ref didn't have a good view depending upon when the incident occurred. Right before the head slap, the ref could be in position to see something if it did happen.

-It does look like Pittman wiped something from his facemask.
I think you all are missing the point.Taylor has already been penalized for spitting. A 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and ejection from the game. He will probably be fined. The question is: is a suspension (assume 1 game and 1/16 of his salary) on top of all that excessive?

The union will argue it is excessive. The union is not arguing any of the other sanctions against Taylor.

There is nothing for the union to argue for Pittman. He was spat on. His team got a 15 yard penalty and Pittman got a free slap at Taylor. What could the union possibly argue for Pittman here?
They could use the opportunity to establish a code of conduct for their players that would enhance the professionalism of the union and the profession as a whole so that they are taken more seriously by the owners, the press, and the public. They could decline to affirmatively support on their own, and without Taylor's request, to defend his conduct. When ones stances are based solely on affiliation and not on cognition they lose persuasive force.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rhino

Footballguy
Were it me, I would want the NFL to be able to prove that an action was taken before penalizing a player for it.  In this paricular case I don't see how that is possible.
Their proof is their witness - the ref that claims he saw this action. Is there a quote from the ref yet?I'm a Redskins fan and:

-I don't know Sean Taylor personally but everything I have read of his character, intelligence, etc. leads me to think that I wouldn't put it past him to spit on an opponent. It may be unfair of me to do so, but it's an opinion I can't help but to form based on my limited knowledge. OTOH, everything I know about Pittman also leads to form the opinion that he would lie about the incident too.

-I don't think the video disproves that the ref didn't have a good view depending upon when the incident occurred. Right before the head slap, the ref could be in position to see something if it did happen.

-It does look like Pittman wiped something from his facemask.
I think you all are missing the point.Taylor has already been penalized for spitting. A 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and ejection from the game. He will probably be fined. The question is: is a suspension (assume 1 game and 1/16 of his salary) on top of all that excessive?

The union will argue it is excessive. The union is not arguing any of the other sanctions against Taylor.

There is nothing for the union to argue for Pittman. He was spat on. His team got a 15 yard penalty and Pittman got a free slap at Taylor. What could the union possibly argue for Pittman here?
The Union could argue for Pittman that it's not OK for another player to spit on him. I think Ditkaless Wonders really hits the nail on the head. If this incident happened in Week 5 instead of the playoffs, would the situation be different? Just because Pittman is done for the year does that make it OK to spit on him?What precedent is the Union setting here? If you spit on an opponent we will go to bat for you. Never mind that we are ignoring the interests of the "victim" here. (granted... Pittman is no chior boy...)

Would it make any difference if Pittman had not thrown the slap/punch? Would you all think differently then? Just because Pittman retaliated doesn't lessen what Taylor did in the first place.

And for those arguing that the "spitting" didn't even take place and that there is no proof... if that were the case, don't you think the Union would be making that their number one focus in the arguement for Taylor? Instead, the Union is well aware that it DID happen, and now they are in "damage control" mode, throwing out the "Crime doesn't Fit the Punishment" defense.

 

Quez

Footballguy
Pittman should not be allowed to participate in any team activity for the next few weeks :lmao:

 

Sidewinder16

Footballguy
What precedent is the Union setting here? If you spit on an opponent we will go to bat for you.
This has been said before, but apparently needs to be said again. What happened on the field is not the union's concern (directly). Their only concern is what may happen between a player (Taylor) and his employer (Redskins/NFL).There is no precedent being set here. The union has, and will continue to, "go to bat" for players that the league and/or a team may be considering punishing.

To address the thread title, I seriously doubt the union has an official stance on the spitting (or Pittmans hit). They will have a stance on what, if any, punishments may result from the spitting (or the hitting).

 

P Boy

Footballguy
:lmao: Are people here actually making the accusation that Taylor didn't spit & that the ref made it up - and then saw Pittman slap (it wasn't a punch or a viscious slap by any means, contrary to some here prone to exaggeration) Taylor and did nothing about it to enforce what he made up? To what end? :tinfoilhat:
 
:lmao:

Are people here actually making the accusation that Taylor didn't spit & that the ref made it up - and then saw Pittman slap (it wasn't a punch or a viscious slap by any means, contrary to some here prone to exaggeration) Taylor and did nothing about it to enforce what he made up? To what end?

:tinfoilhat:
The contortions of apologists can be humorous.
 

Rhino

Footballguy
What precedent is the Union setting here?  If you spit on an opponent we will go to bat for you.
This has been said before, but apparently needs to be said again. What happened on the field is not the union's concern (directly). Their only concern is what may happen between a player (Taylor) and his employer (Redskins/NFL).There is no precedent being set here. The union has, and will continue to, "go to bat" for players that the league and/or a team may be considering punishing.

To address the thread title, I seriously doubt the union has an official stance on the spitting (or Pittmans hit). They will have a stance on what, if any, punishments may result from the spitting (or the hitting).
How can what happens on the field NOT concern the Union? The purpose of the Union is to protect the interests of the players. All the players. Not just the ones who are risking being suspended by the league.I don't have time to research it now, but I'm sure at some point in the history of the Leauge and the Union there has been an instance when the Union has protested a rule or policy on the field that endangered or was not in the best interest of the players. I don't know - it seems logical that the Union probably was behind many of the "hands off" policies on quarterbacks. Someone with more time or knowledge than me could surely dig this up.

Bottom Line - a Union represents the best interests of ALL it's members. And it is not in the best interest of ALL the members to defend one member who violates another member.

 

jurb26

Footballguy
:lmao:

Are people here actually making the accusation that Taylor didn't spit & that the ref made it up - and then saw Pittman slap (it wasn't a punch or a viscious slap by any means, contrary to some here prone to exaggeration) Taylor and did nothing about it to enforce what he made up? To what end?

:tinfoilhat:
The eyes can be misleading at times. Ask Ditkaless Wonders, he often times fails to see both rain and snow that is actually coming down in games. The ears can be too, ask the ref who "heard" heads rather than tails in the Pitt/Det game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jurb26

Footballguy
Bottom Line - a Union represents the best interests of ALL it's members. And it is not in the best interest of ALL the members to defend one member who violates another member.
Then why are we not talking about BOTH players actions here and just Taylor's?
 

mad sweeney

Footballguy
Bottom Line - a Union represents the best interests of ALL it's members. And it is not in the best interest of ALL the members to defend one member who violates another member.
Then why are we not talking about BOTH players actions here and just Taylor's?
Because Pittan was neither flagged nro fined for it so he's a non factor in it. The dud had it right when he said the union deals with players and their employers, not their play.And if you haven't seen it on ESPN, Taylor was fined $17K, didn't say he was suspended.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top