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

[jurb26]

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.

I understand all of that. My point was all these people with the holier than thou attitude towards Taylor saying how important it is to protect the players on all levels are completely dismissing the fact that he was in turn struck by another player. It reeks of double standard. If you want to protect the players, shouldn't both spitting AND slapping/punching/pushing/striking/whatever in the heck you want to call it after the play also be brought up in your in unbiased consideration?

 

[P Boy]

Then why are we not talking about BOTH players actions here and just Taylor's?

Because what he did was an acceptable response given the nature of the action. Is this really that difficult to understand?

 

[Sidewinder16]

How can what happens on the field NOT concern the Union?

Because what happens on the field generally does not involve employees (players) interacting with management (team/league officials).

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.

The interests of the players in relation to management. Not in relation to minor altercations between two players.

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.

It's more logical that the owners (those who make/change the rules) were behind the "hands off" policies for QBs so they could better protect their investments, therefore making more money.

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.

This just sounds dirty. The union is a group of lawyers in place to police what goes on between management and employees.

Officiating crews are in place to police what goes on between players on the field of play (and they are in turn policed by league officials).

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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.

I understand all of that. My point was all these people with the holier than thou attitude towards Taylor saying how important it is to protect the players on all levels are completely dismissing the fact that he was in turn struck by another player. It reeks of double standard. If you want to protect the players, shouldn't both spitting AND slapping/punching/pushing/striking/whatever in the heck you want to call it after the play also be brought up in your in unbiased consideration?

An interesting but false linkage. Our discussing one event does not preclude discussion of the other. Here we just choose to discuss the one matter because of it's egregious, rare, and and punk ### nature. Many times we have discussed retalitory hitting in the league, the stupidity of the same, and the undisciplined nature of players who do so. That has no necessary linkage to discussing the extraordinary event of a player spitting on another except that some wish to use any means, including false inkages and bad anologies to try to deflect and reduce the culpability of a punk. One has to question why some, including very intelligent posters such as yourself, would do so. The potential answers are obvious to those standing at arms length to the issue. The two obvious answers are blantant homerism and contrarianism for contrarianisms sake.The fact is, however, that the righteous don't need apologists. The real discussion here is whether by taking this knee jerk and unthought out protective stance the union is serving its players both now and in the future. I have suggested that if the union takes a knee jerk protective response of thugs that it's leadership is exhibiting zero thought. If that is the case it's leadership could be replaced with a trained parrot or a playbook.

 

[mad sweeney]

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.

I understand all of that. My point was all these people with the holier than thou attitude towards Taylor saying how important it is to protect the players on all levels are completely dismissing the fact that he was in turn struck by another player. It reeks of double standard. If you want to protect the players, shouldn't both spitting AND slapping/punching/pushing/striking/whatever in the heck you want to call it after the play also be brought up in your in unbiased consideration?

The spitting and the retaliation are 2 separate incidents. Technically I think Pittman should've gotten a flag, but I understand why he didn't. I can tell you this, I don't care where it happens, if someone spits in my face they're getting smacked. I don't care if it's church, court or on the field. And the ref was 2 feet away when it all happened so I will have to assume that whatever Taylor did, the ref thought he deserved a smack too. Is it right? I don't know, but if Taylor didn't spit at him (A childish and ridiculous act with NO place in football or anywhere) then we're not having this conversation. Perhaps the ref felt Pittman had been provoked enough to excuse it. There are often questionable smacks going on, some get called some don't. Don't spit, don't get smacked.

 

[jurb26]

Then why are we not talking about BOTH players actions here and just Taylor's?

Because what he did was an acceptable response given the nature of the action. Is this really that difficult to understand?

Retaliation is an acceptable responce? 1st I've ever heard of that.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Then why are we not talking about BOTH players actions here and just Taylor's?

Because what he did was an acceptable response given the nature of the action. Is this really that difficult to understand?

Retaliation is an acceptable responce? 1st I've ever heard of that.

Technically no, not under the rules of the league, but as a practical matter yes. Even the Supreme Court has recognized in their fighting words doctrine that some behaviour so begs response that even good, lawful, rational, well controlled individuals may respond.Again, why the ongoing attempts to deflect the argument to Pittman's pedestrian actions and away from taylor's extraordinary actions? You are too smart to be an apologist.

 

[P Boy]

Retaliation is an acceptable responce? 1st I've ever heard of that.

In the case of something as bad as spitting in someone's face? Yep.It does happen in the NFL where retaliation isn't penalized if what created the retaliation is severe enough.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

See I have this same problem with unions when it does not involve ball players to whom I have attactments.Take for instance the police unions who back members whose conduct is egregious and puts the entire membership in a bad light. Doing so cannot help but diminish their power in their next collective bargaining process, yet there is some stupid, ill-considered union ethos that demands solidarity with these punks. Why?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Retaliation is an acceptable responce?  1st I've ever heard of that.

In the case of something as bad as spitting in someone's face? Yep.It does happen in the NFL where retaliation isn't penalized if what created the retaliation is severe enough.

It is tantamount to an autonomic, reflexive response like the knee reflex. Tough to legislate against reflex.

 

[Nemesis]

Coming soon on CBS.............CSI: NFL

They will attempt to use DNA analysis techniques to determine if any "unnecessary" bodily fluids have been exchanged on the field.

 

[Sidewinder16]

See I have this same problem with unions when it does not involve ball players to whom I have attactments.

Take for instance the police unions who back members whose conduct is egregious and puts the entire membership in a bad light. Doing so cannot help but diminish their power in their next collective bargaining process, yet there is some stupid, ill-considered union ethos that demands solidarity with these punks. Why?

They are lawyers. It's what they do.

 

[jurb26]

Retaliation is an acceptable responce? 1st I've ever heard of that.

In the case of something as bad as spitting in someone's face? Yep.It does happen in the NFL where retaliation isn't penalized if what created the retaliation is severe enough.

Again 1st I've heard of this. Is there a rule for this, or is the left to ref judgement?As I have said in other threads, I have no problem with Taylor's punishment if he did in fact spit on Pittman. The ref seems to think he did, so be it. I have a problem with Pittman getting off free though. 2 wrongs don't make a right. What kind of message is that to send out to players? How are players supposed to know what constitutes a reasonable retaliation? There seems to be far too much gray area in this.

 

[P Boy]

Again 1st I've heard of this. Is there a rule for this, or is the left to ref judgement?As I have said in other threads, I have no problem with Taylor's punishment if he did in fact spit on Pittman. The ref seems to think he did, so be it. I have a problem with Pittman getting off free though. 2 wrongs don't make a right. What kind of message is that to send out to players? How are players supposed to know what constitutes a reasonable retaliation? There seems to be far too much gray area in this.

So you've never seen an O-lineman charge a D-lineman who took an egregious late hit on his QB & not seen the O-lineman get penalized or fined? C'mon. You watch enough football to understand what you are posting is nonsense.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Again 1st I've heard of this.  Is there a rule for this, or is the left to ref judgement?

As I have said in other threads, I have no problem with Taylor's punishment if he did in fact spit on Pittman.  The ref seems to think he did, so be it.  I have a problem with Pittman getting off free though.  2 wrongs don't make a right.  What kind of message is that to send out to players?  How are players supposed to know what constitutes a reasonable retaliation?  There seems to be far too much gray area in this.

So you've never seen an O-lineman charge a D-lineman who took an egregious late hit on his QB & not seen the O-lineman get penalized or fined? C'mon. You watch enough football to understand what you are posting is nonsense.

Sometimes I think jurb just likes to argue for argument's sake. Still, his player and game observations are among the keener ones around so I read most of his postings. (Kind of like SSOG, insightful but contrary) Wait, that discribes you too Pony Boy. Me, too, except for the insightful part.

 

[dgreen]

If two unioned employees get in an altercation, the union doesn't really care. If employee A does something to employee B and management fires employee A, the union defends employee A. Apparently this is rocket surgery.

 

[jwvdcw]

Cause refs never miss a thing, right?

They may miss things, but they didn't miss that.

I don't doubt that the spit happened, but I question whether or not it was intentional or accidental slippage while yelling.

 

[jurb26]

Again 1st I've heard of this. Is there a rule for this, or is the left to ref judgement?

As I have said in other threads, I have no problem with Taylor's punishment if he did in fact spit on Pittman. The ref seems to think he did, so be it. I have a problem with Pittman getting off free though. 2 wrongs don't make a right. What kind of message is that to send out to players? How are players supposed to know what constitutes a reasonable retaliation? There seems to be far too much gray area in this.

So you've never seen an O-lineman charge a D-lineman who took an egregious late hit on his QB & not seen the O-lineman get penalized or fined? C'mon. You watch enough football to understand what you are posting is nonsense.

I have seen several pushes and shoves go by the way side. Not shots at the head though and especially not shots as late as the one occured in this instance. Certainly you see a difference between the 2 things we are talking about here.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

[

If two unioned employees get in an altercation, the union doesn't really care. If employee A does something to employee B and management fires employee A, the union defends employee A. Apparently this is rocket surgery.
That they do so is a given. Why they do so is a mystery. Certainly there are times when the union should distance itself from behaviour if it wants to advance the profession and the welfare of it's membership. They could say this is not who we are. We are professionals with standards and we expect to be treated that way in future negotiations.

 

[jurb26]

Again 1st I've heard of this. Is there a rule for this, or is the left to ref judgement?

As I have said in other threads, I have no problem with Taylor's punishment if he did in fact spit on Pittman. The ref seems to think he did, so be it. I have a problem with Pittman getting off free though. 2 wrongs don't make a right. What kind of message is that to send out to players? How are players supposed to know what constitutes a reasonable retaliation? There seems to be far too much gray area in this.

So you've never seen an O-lineman charge a D-lineman who took an egregious late hit on his QB & not seen the O-lineman get penalized or fined? C'mon. You watch enough football to understand what you are posting is nonsense.

Sometimes I think jurb just likes to argue for argument's sake. Still, his player and game observations are among the keener ones around so I read most of his postings. (Kind of like SSOG, insightful but contrary) Wait, that discribes you too Pony Boy. Me, too, except for the insightful part.

I agree, often times we find ourselves splitting hairs a bit too much. But hey, what are message boards for.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

So in other words:Spitter > Wife Beater

 

[Rhino]

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.

The interests of the players in relation to management. Not in relation to minor altercations between two players.

Ok - I can see that arguement, and even agree with it. But Management is involved in this case.Management (the NFL) has come forward to say, we don't believe that spitting in your coworker's face is acceptable behavior. Therefore, we plan to suspend you.

The Union is coming back and telling management that they don't feel spitting in a coworker's face warrents a suspension. Thus freeing workers from any repercussions to spitting in another coworker's face.

Have I over-simplified this to a ridiculous point. Of course.

Yes there are repercussions to spitting in another players face. Taylor will certainly pay for this financially if not with a suspension. But again, I ask, is it in the Players best interest for the Union to overrule Management's decision on this matter? I don't think it is. These guys make millions. Playing time (especially during the playoffs) is of far greater value to them and their teammates than a $15,000 fine.

 

[mad sweeney]

So in other words:

Spitter > Wife Beater

WeakTry to keep on-field and off-field issues separate. And quite frankly, with Taylor's track record I doubt he's any better off-field than Pittman.

 

[jwvdcw]

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.

interesting point.

 

[dgreen]

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.

The interests of the players in relation to management. Not in relation to minor altercations between two players.

Ok - I can see that arguement, and even agree with it. But Management is involved in this case.Management (the NFL) has come forward to say, we don't believe that spitting in your coworker's face is acceptable behavior. Therefore, we plan to suspend you.

The Union is coming back and telling management that they don't feel spitting in a coworker's face warrents a suspension. Thus freeing workers from any repercussions to spitting in another coworker's face.

Have I over-simplified this to a ridiculous point. Of course.

Yes there are repercussions to spitting in another players face. Taylor will certainly pay for this financially if not with a suspension. But again, I ask, is it in the Players best interest for the Union to overrule Management's decision on this matter? I don't think it is. These guys make millions. Playing time (especially during the playoffs) is of far greater value to them and their teammates than a $15,000 fine.

I don't think the NFL has ever expressed that they plan to suspend Taylor. As far as I know, the union has simply said that they don't think Taylor would be suspended and that they will fight a suspension.

 

[jwvdcw]

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.

In the game thread before we knew that Taylor spit, all we knew was that Pittman hit him. Everyone was saying "Well he had to have been provoked somehow. No way he just hit him for no reason."Well why don't we apply the same reasoning now? Do you really think that after a big stop, Taylor just went up and spit on Pittman for no reason at all? Here is what I saw:

1.Redskins with a big stop

2.Taylor goes to talk trash

3.Pittman says something back that infuriates Taylor

4.Taylor spits

5.Pittman punches

#3 is key here. I wouldn't put it by Pittman to have said something totally personal and out of line.

 

[dgreen]

[

If two unioned employees get in an altercation, the union doesn't really care. If employee A does something to employee B and management fires employee A, the union defends employee A. Apparently this is rocket surgery.

That they do so is a given. Why they do so is a mystery. Certainly there are times when the union should distance itself from behaviour if it wants to advance the profession and the welfare of it's membership. They could say this is not who we are. We are professionals with standards and we expect to be treated that way in future negotiations.
Because they're paid by the players to fight for them according to the union agreement. I seriously doubt the union is championing the case of Rae Carruth. Taylor spit. He didn't chop off Pittman's head then dance over his headless body.

 

[jwvdcw]

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?

No! People are saying that maybe Taylor was talking trash and yelling and spit flew as he yelled. Don't tell me you've never accidentally spit when yelling. Its possible...Why else would Taylor just spit for no reason after his team made a great stop?

 

[jurb26]

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?

No! People are saying that maybe Taylor was talking trash and yelling and spit flew as he yelled. Don't tell me you've never accidentally spit when yelling. Its possible...Why else would Taylor just spit for no reason after his team made a great stop?

Bill Cowher???????

 

[dgreen]

Do you really think that after a big stop, Taylor just went up and spit on Pittman for no reason at all?

I think Taylor was trying to get Pittman to hit him or do something similar that would result in a penalty.

 

[jwvdcw]

Then why are we not talking about BOTH players actions here and just Taylor's?

Because what he did was an acceptable response given the nature of the action. Is this really that difficult to understand?

LOL...no it wasn't. If Pittman was flagged and ejected as he should've been, you don't think his coach would've been pissed at him for reacting and throwing away a free first down?

 

[Sidewinder16]

The Union is coming back and telling management that they don't feel spitting in a coworker's face warrents a suspension. Thus freeing workers from any repercussions to spitting in another coworker's face.

The union is saying that a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, $17,000 and an ejection from a game are plenty of punishment for one player spitting on another. A further suspension would be contested by the union as too much punishment for such an incident.

I don't see how anyone can say Taylor was free from any repercussions for spitting on another player.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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?

No! People are saying that maybe Taylor was talking trash and yelling and spit flew as he yelled. Don't tell me you've never accidentally spit when yelling. Its possible...Why else would Taylor just spit for no reason after his team made a great stop?

Bill Cowher???????

Now this is low. The man's got a spittle disability, like that mastiff in Turner and Hooch. He can't help himself. Taylor on the other hand has demonstrated in his life that he can keep his spittle to himself.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Now this is low. The man's got a spittle disability, like that mastiff in Turner and Hooch. He can't help himself. Taylor on the other hand has demonstrated in his life that he can keep his spittle to himself.

 

[jurb26]

Now this is low. The man's got a spittle disability, like that mastiff in Turner and Hooch. He can't help himself. Taylor on the other hand has demonstrated in his life that he can keep his spittle to himself.

I think Gregg Llyod knows all too well about this spittle disabilty.

 

[Gaylord Focker]

Video link clearly showing Taylor spat in Pittman's face....

Sorry if this exact video has been posted in the thread, but I didn't see it.

The ref had a clear view of the incident, and to quote him from the vid:

:explaining to Redskins' players:

"He hit him AFTER he spit in his face, what would you do??"

"He spit right in his face, ALMOST GOT ME, that would have been real bad."

 

[Odogs]

I just wanted to add that this is the second time he's been accused of spitting on someone. This first incident happened a week after his drunk driving arrest which happened a few months after he pulled a gun on someone. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.