October 02, 2006

Wow. I don't care what Haynesworth says about how he isn't a dirty player. Actions speak louder than words and if that action doesn't speak for itself, I don't know what would.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:17 AM on October 02, 2006

I'm suprised there won't be criminal charges. Haynesworth could of hurt Gurode a lot worse than he did.

posted by sgtcookzane at 06:20 AM on October 02, 2006

Yep, that was rather Dobler-like...but one incident should not define him, he was contrite and apologetic after the game, unlike Conrad. Chalk it up to a "heat of the moment" kinda deal, fine him and move on.

posted by mjkredliner at 08:20 AM on October 02, 2006

I agree bdaddy, I think at least a four game suspension is warranted. I also wonder if Gurode will seek criminal charges against Haynesworth. And as a Cowboys fan, I hope Gurode is okay. He was having a great start to the season.

posted by ampto11 at 08:48 AM on October 02, 2006

Agreed, bperk. After his punishment's over, his recognition of the repulsiveness of his behavior ought to count for something. But he clearly has some anger management issues that will be more damaging to his family than bad press unless he deals with them.

posted by rcade at 10:07 AM on October 02, 2006

I also wonder if Gurode will seek criminal charges against Haynesworth. I don't like the idea of this going into the court system. We see physical attacks in other sports i.e. fist-fights in hockey, and nobody presses charges. Was it dirty? yes. But let's deal with it within the confines of league fines and suspensions. There's this whole weird zone where one wonders who is the governing authority. Back to the fighting in hockey example. If the same fight were to happen between civilians in the street outside the stadium, police would break it up and arrests would be made. However, in the sporting arena it is handled with a penalty box. What if someone were to be killed? At what point does the law start to be applied?

posted by Bill Lumbergh at 10:25 AM on October 02, 2006

This idiot should be done for the season (at least). I know that football is a rough game, but this act had a pretty high potential for fatality. I mean, a 300 pounder stomping your unprotected melon into the turf? The new commish had better send a pretty serious message on this one, and Haynesworth better hope an ambitious DA doesn't decide to send one too.

posted by ctal1999 at 10:39 AM on October 02, 2006

I don't like the idea of this going into the court system. We see physical attacks in other sports i.e. fist-fights in hockey, and nobody presses charges. Just because we don't normally see it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I'll say the same thing I said in the case of the Bertuzzi incident -- lifetime ban. If the NFL allows this guy to play again and he seriously injures someone else, they're opening themselves up for a huge lawsuit for allowing someone with known anger issues back in the workplace.

posted by wfrazerjr at 12:20 PM on October 02, 2006

I think they already have, fraze. This isn't the first time he has kicked someone.

posted by tselson at 12:46 PM on October 02, 2006

I don't like the idea of this going into the court system. We see physical attacks in other sports i.e. fist-fights in hockey, and nobody presses charges. Was it dirty? yes. But let's deal with it within the confines of league fines and suspensions BL, I think if I was in the same situation I would be considering pressing charges. I understand and on some level can appreciate the hockey reference. But one thing is different in that fighting in hockey has long been an accepted means to settling an issue between the players on the ice. But what happened yesterday is not justifiable under normal football rules/conditions. He intentionally removed or helped remove his helmet and stomped on his face. He could have ruined his careeer. I don't think you can just chalk this up to football being a rough sport and let the fines and/or suspensions be sufficient punishment. Was it dirty? What this guy did is beyond dirty. Dirty is a late hit or maybe tweaking an ankle at the bottom of the pile. What this guy did is nothing short of criminal. I would personally like to see a year long suspension, but I think it will be more like 4 games. And I don't give much credit to Haynesworth for the apology either. I'm not saying the guy does not regret it, but what he did was very calculated and precise. Let's see how the new commish handles his first big on field issue.

posted by ampto11 at 12:49 PM on October 02, 2006

we see physical attacks in other sports i.e. fist-fights in hockey, and nobody presses charges. todd bertuzzi was charged with assault for the steve moore hit, and unlike this attack it occurred during play. Other hockey examples: McSorely was charged with assault for his hit on Brashear. This April, a teenage girl in New Brunswick was charged with assualt after cross-checking and rupturing the spleen of an opposing player after that player scored in overtime. Hasek almost had criminal charges pressed for attacking a guy during an inline hockey game. I don't see why this dude shouldn't be charged.

posted by fabulon7 at 12:55 PM on October 02, 2006

All I have to say to those who suggest that this should not be pursued in any legal arena as assault because it occured in the context of the game would be to consider this - Change the sport to baseball. Random batter is at the plate, his team is being blown out by a much better team and he is totally frustrated. He swats at the ball, whiffs, and strikes out to end the inning. As he leaves the field mired in his frustration, he turns around and swings his Louisville Slugger at the pitcher's head, opening up a gash and causing the pitcher to leave the game to receive stitches to close the wound. Would you suggest to me that because the assault of taking a baseball bat to the head of the pitcher occured during the game that the offender should escape criminal charges and instead face a meaningless fine and miss a few games? Come on. What happened in Nashville Sunday afternoon was in no way, shape, or form associated with the game of football. It did not occur in the course of play and had no bearing on the game. It was in fact a criminal assault just as thuggish (and illegal) as taking a baseball bat to someone's head, and as such it should be dealt with so that not only will this individual never find himself in the position where he might "lose control" and do something even worse (ban the jerk for life!), but also to ensure that other players who "live on the edge of sanity" during games have cause to stop and rethink an assault they feel like carrying out before they find themselves staring at the same consequences. Lifetime bans can go a long way to correcting criminal behavior in professional sports.

posted by Daddy Crush at 01:36 PM on October 02, 2006

I don't know about a lifetime ban, but he should definately have to sit out for at least 4 games or even the whole season. If he does it again the league will be liable for allowing him back on the field when they knew he was a danger to the other players. He needs a mental evaluation and some stress testing before he should be let back on the field.

posted by LaKeR4LiFe at 02:13 PM on October 02, 2006

I don't really know about that Bishop, but I can at least argue the point that in your scenario the fastball thrown at the batter's head would have occured during the course of gameplay. Now if a pitcher, in between innings, or batters, or whatever, takes the ball and pelts a player in the bean with it, opens them up like a overripened canteloupe, then I would classify that as assault as well and instead of retiring to the clubhouse, they should get a first-class seat in the back of a police cruiser. During the game, part of the tactics of some managers/pitchers/catchers involves intentionally hitting batters and as such it is an accepted part of the game. Everyone knows it is a possibility and they are prepared for it to a certain extent. But to remove a batter's protective head gear, then assault him in a manner that is not consistant with playing the game - that's criminal and not really up for comparison between the two. Haynesworthless commited an act far outside the scope of the game and I for one don't think there is any place in the NFL for a Thug like that who has no regard for the rules that are in place to try and keep such a violent sport from killing and maiming all of its participants. For an act this aggregious, I don't see any need for leniency nor forgiveness. He did the crime, let him do the time. I have a million reasons for needing to go rob a bank and get me a nice chunk of money - but knowing I would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law keeps me honest and legal. I can't help but think that approach would work just fine in our Pro Sports as well.

posted by Daddy Crush at 03:00 PM on October 02, 2006

They have to do something drastic to this guy or it will really get out of hand. Worse than it is. I can't see why they haven't done better in Hockey. This guy should be kicked out of football altogether. There is someone out there that would play under the rules of sportsmanship

posted by robotic197 at 03:55 PM on October 02, 2006

There is one remedy and that is to kick him out of the league. Period. He is a repeat offender and the NFL should give him the boot as they don't need to put up with shit like this. I'll bet Fischer kicks him off the team or trades him, since he probably has more balls than the league, and a better sense of right and wrong.

posted by Atheist at 04:17 PM on October 02, 2006

Bishop it would also be kind of hard to prove malicious intent with a beanball in the course of play. Even thouhg it my be relatively obvious it could be argued the batter had a chance to move or the pitch got away. This guy was basically laying on the ground defenseless and there was no question as to whether he meant to stomp on his head.

posted by scottypup at 04:37 PM on October 02, 2006

A completely disgusting move on his part. Whether this guy likes it or not, he is a role model to some kid in Tennesee. Are we going to hear about this happening in a pop warner game next? The NFL has one of the "classier" images of the 4 main sports. People like this only tarnish it. I say suspend him for the year and make him play in NFL Europe next year. Obviously, this is now a pattern and what will be his next move, pulling a Rae Carruth? The NFL needs to separate itself from him. By the way, I only caught the incident after the game... Did any of the Cowboys go after him after he pulled that stunt? Someone should have gone after him to stick up for your teammate. That would have been a bench clearer in the NBA, MLB or NHL.

posted by Stealth_72 at 09:07 PM on October 02, 2006

YouTube link here. No, none of the Cowboys came in to help, but I think they all had their backs turned while watching the TD, and by the time they saw Gurode in pain, the refs had intervened and taken Haynesworth away from the action. The scary/sad part is that you can see Haynesworth mouthing "That's bullshit, that's bullshit!" to Fisher after he got tossed. Quite a different feel from his apology. FWIW, during his daily press conference, Parcells said that Gurode ran and went to the weight room today, and Bill expects him to practice tomorrow. He wouldn't say anything about his status for the game against PHI on Sunday.

posted by Ufez Jones at 09:39 PM on October 02, 2006

I agree with most of the comments here but I feel Haynesworth committed assault in no uncertain terms so should be susceptible to criminal charges. Also, he should be suspended for the season and fined an appropriate sum (say $100,000) funds to be donated to the injured party's charity of choice.

posted by hamptgx at 11:37 PM on October 02, 2006

You know what amazes almost as much as anything here is that his first reaction was to immediately run to the official and protest the decision. The mentality of that totally confounds me. Contrast that with Zidane in the World Cup, who after he cheap shotted Materazzi, walked over to the official to find out what the call was, and then calmly walked off the field. If you're going to deliver a cheap shot, at least be man enough to accept what's coming to you.

posted by psmealey at 07:37 AM on October 03, 2006

You know what amazes almost as much as anything here is that his first reaction was to immediately run to the official and protest the decision. The mentality of that totally confounds me. Contrast that with Zidane in the World Cup, who after he cheap shotted Materazzi, walked over to the official to find out what the call was, and then calmly walked off the field. If you're going to deliver a cheap shot, at least be man enough to accept what's coming to you. this is what makes his apology less important. Anybody can apologize after they're realize they're "busted". His initial reaction of not understanding what he did wrong says more about his mental state than a well thought out, probably coordinated, public relations statement hours later. Do you believe all guys up for parole that say they're sorry for what they've done? By the way 1) he got in a fight during practice in college and then went and got a pole and went after the player before being stopped 2) he had a road rage case against him earlier this year

posted by bdaddy at 09:46 AM on October 03, 2006

I think a lot of people are missing the point of this whole story. The guy kicked another guy in the head AFTER THE WHISTLE had blown. A routine big hit happens during play, a late hit is a tackle a little after the whistle.... Kicking someone in the head, after their helmet has fallen off is obviously assault with intent to cause great bodily injury. Anyone who can't agree with that needs to take some law courses or go see a psychologist for your anger management issues.

posted by LA-4-Life at 01:08 PM on October 03, 2006

1) he got in a fight during practice in college and then went and got a pole and went after the player before being stopped 2) he had a road rage case against him earlier this year By the way, ya got any links to these happenings? I'd be interested to read them, not that I doubt it a bit.

posted by jojomfd1 at 01:33 PM on October 03, 2006

The fact that the whistle was blown is irrelevant given the activity. If he pulled a gun out and shot the dude Billy Blanks-style, would it matter if the whistle had went before or after he double-tapped the linebacker? It wouldn't. And it doesn't matter here either. That's the point.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:51 PM on October 03, 2006

1) he got in a fight during practice in college and then went and got a pole and went after the player before being stopped 2) he had a road rage case against him earlier this year By the way, ya got any links to these happenings? I'd be interested to read them, not that I doubt it a bit. just mentioned briefly in this article ESPN article

posted by bdaddy at 03:41 PM on October 03, 2006

The fact that the whistle was blown is irrelevant given the activity. If he pulled a gun out and shot the dude Billy Blanks-style, would it matter if the whistle had went before or after he double-tapped the linebacker? It wouldn't. And it doesn't matter here either. I'm going to play devil's advocate and side -- however slightly -- with LA here. Using the gun anaolgy here is ludicrous, but I understand the point. However, one of the fallbacks of those who argue these matters should be handled by the league office and not by outsiders is that it's all somehow within the parameters and boundaries of the sport, i.e. eye-gouging under the piles, gonad squeezing, etc. However, what distances Haynesworth's infractions from the others most clearly in my mind is the amount of effort it took for him to act. He had to: 1) bend down to remove Gurode's helmet 2) miss stomping him once 3) then connect on the second try This was not a late hit on the sidelines or even a roughing the passer call. This was a blatant and premeditated attempt to injure someone. That's not any part of football. It's a criminal action and should be charged as such, and this was no less criminal than someone pulling a handgun Last Boy Scout style and firing away.

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:52 PM on October 03, 2006

fraze, I don't think Weedy is saying anything about whether the action qualified as criminal assault or not. I believe his point is that this was an action that is not allowed under the rules under any circumstances -- not before the whistle, not if the steppee is holding the ball, not behind the line of scrimmage, whatever -- any more than pulling out a gun and shooting someone is allowed. Therefore, it's not any more reprehensible for having happened after the whistle, at least not in the eyes of the rules. The question of when something ceases to be just a rules violation and becomes criminal assault is an interesting one, and I think I agree with your definition, that if it's not a "part of football" -- that is, an action that if it happened at a different time, or under different circumstances, or in a slightly different way, would be legal -- then you can't make an argument that it's just a rules violation and something for the league to handle. Except...the rules themselves explicitly prohibit some actions, such as kicking, that aren't "any part of football". So there goes your nice clean separation between a rules violation and a criminal action.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:00 PM on October 03, 2006

LA-4-Life, perhaps I haven't been reading as carefully as you, but my impression is that if anyone in this thread has been comparing the face-stomping incident to a "roughing the passer" penalty, it was by way of contrast and not to argue that the two are equivalent. If I'm wrong about this, no doubt you'll be able to point to the specific comment.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:05 AM on October 04, 2006

I think the comparison was made as, "would a roughing the passer penalty be worthy of criminal charges?" So is it no different if a player hits the quarterback 1/2 second after he releases the ball, then if he waits till the play is over and the quarterback is walking to the huddle and then "sacks" him? In my mind the second part of the above would subject the offender to possible criminal charges, while the first one would be a simple "roughing the passer" penalty. I can agree that when the whistle is blown would only be important on a case by case basis.

posted by LA-4-Life at 11:46 AM on October 05, 2006