Suh can play against the Cowboys

[brewer229]

And my point is, I think it was completely unintentional. Look at it again. He stops looking in Rodgers direction just as Rodgers starts to fall. From that point, where Rodgers AND his legs wind up are completely out of Suh's view.

Suh grazes one of Rodgers legs with his right foot and at the same time pulls his body BACK from the hold of the OL......you can see his arms go back just slightly like everyones do when they are trying to gain their balance.....and with his momentum already going backwards, takes a natural step back and lands on Rodgers leg.

All of that without ever looking back anywhere near Rodgers direction.

As Tony pointed out. Didn't stomp, twist, or jump......just stepped back.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000451231/article/nfl-reviewing-suhs-step-on-aaron-rodgers

Here is a good view. Especially the :51 to :57 second mark.....you can see exactly what I'm talking about.

Either way.

Go Lions!

That's fine. It still looks like to me while his second foot was on him he was aware at that point, I still think he purposely put his full weight on the ankle with that casual step off.

Since he didn't stomp or jump is the reason he only got 70k vs suspension. Prior acts were not taken into account, if they felt no intent I don't think they would find 70k, if they thought it was a complete accident there wouldn't be a fine or at least not nearly that high.

Do you buy the numb feet excuse? Do you believe a player would do nothing about cold feet the whole game? To me I would of warmed them up after I realized they were so bad I couldn't feel a giant round object raised 6" above the ground.

 

[mhughes0021]

I think what suh said or did didnt make a difference. The backlash from guys like polian, perrera and the head ref calling in to tell the nfl there was no intent is was got the sentence reduced. Thats how the nfl works....they care about their image...not the players.

 

[inkfreq]

That's fine. It still looks like to me while his second foot was on him he was aware at that point, I still think he purposely put his full weight on the ankle with that casual step off.

Since he didn't stomp or jump is the reason he only got 70k vs suspension. Prior acts were not taken into account, if they felt no intent I don't think they would find 70k, if they thought it was a complete accident there wouldn't be a fine or at least not nearly that high.

Do you buy the numb feet excuse? Do you believe a player would do nothing about cold feet the whole game? To me I would of warmed them up after I realized they were so bad I couldn't feel a giant round object raised 6" above the ground.

You are still propagating the myth that if the arbiter found no guilt, he wouldn't have fined him.

As has been said quite a few times now, the arbiter doesn't have that right, or even the right at all to assign guilt.

The NFL found him guilty of intent, and there is no overturning that in arbitration. The arbitration process simply decides whether or not the punishment fits within the rules outlined in the collective bargaining agreement, which in this case the punishment did not.

If the NFL had never referenced hsi prior infractions, maybe the suspension would have stuck. But by calling him a "repeat offender" when he was removed from that list, the arbiter decided they punished him under a term that no longer applied.

If Cotrell found it to be 100% unintentional, it wouldn't have mattered. He couldn't remove all punishment, and a fine would have still been levied.

 

[boogerlovejoy]

That's fine. It still looks like to me while his second foot was on him he was aware at that point, I still think he purposely put his full weight on the ankle with that casual step off.

Since he didn't stomp or jump is the reason he only got 70k vs suspension. Prior acts were not taken into account, if they felt no intent I don't think they would find 70k, if they thought it was a complete accident there wouldn't be a fine or at least not nearly that high.

Do you buy the numb feet excuse? Do you believe a player would do nothing about cold feet the whole game? To me I would of warmed them up after I realized they were so bad I couldn't feel a giant round object raised 6" above the ground.

Do I buy the numb feet excuse? Lol....not at all. That's where him being an idiot comes in. Just say it was an accident and move on. The guy is an immature ass.....there is no question about that.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Cotrell is famous for lessening or taking away fines and suspensions. As much as he works for the NFL he also works for the player union.

 

[boogerlovejoy]

I think what suh said or did didnt make a difference. The backlash from guys like polian, perrera and the head ref calling in to tell the nfl there was no intent is was got the sentence reduced. Thats how the nfl works....they care about their image...not the players.

This.

Public image > right or wrong.

 

[inkfreq]

Do I buy the numb feet excuse? Lol....not at all. That's where him being an idiot comes in. Just say it was an accident and move on. The guy is an immature ass.....there is no question about that.

Doesn't matter what he said. He said exactly what his lawyer told him to say. Like any person smart enough to listen to the man he paid to give him advice.

Rule #1 in a court room or an arbitration hearing, do exactly what the lawyer tells you to do, or you may lose even more money.

A lawyer is not a P.R. guy. His job is too keep as much money in his clients pocket, and his own, as possible, and it doesn't matter to him who hates his client when it's over.

And only a complete moron would pay a lawyer millions, and then ignore his advice.

 

[Mitchrapp]

So the lawyer gave him the idea his feet were numb?

 

[boogerlovejoy]

Doesn't matter what he said. He said exactly what his lawyer told him to say. Like any person smart enough to listen to the man he paid to give him advice.

Rule #1 in a court room or an arbitration hearing, do exactly what the lawyer tells you to do, or you may lose even more money.

A lawyer is not a P.R. guy. His job is too keep as much money in his clients pocket, and his own, as possible, and it doesn't matter to him who hates his client when it's over.

And only a complete moron would pay a lawyer millions, and then ignore his advice.

If the best his lawyer could come up with was....."my feet were numb"...... It's time for a new lawyer.

 

[Mitchrapp]

My thought, maybe Hope - Suh goes to another team and Detroit has him on their schedule and Suh steps on Matt.

 

[tonyballs]

And that's the difference between us. I'm all good man. I'm happy he's playing, but he's guilty of being a dirty player, and stepping onserious, but when you take a second step behind you and put the weight down, you intend to hurt someone.

I don't call people names like yourself. That's your level. Shout at people and call them names when they don't agree with you. I find it hilarious giving me the "you mad bro?" crap when you are the angriest person on here.

Your opinion he did it on purpose. My opinion he didn't. None of it matters....

I'm angry?? Angry at what?? Naaahh bro, you got it all wrong. I'm not mad. I just call it like i see it. You're a chode.....see? No anger.

 

[inkfreq]

If the best his lawyer could come up with was....."my feet were numb"...... It's time for a new lawyer.

From a lawyer's perspective, it makes 100% perfect sense. You don't need a quality answer, just one they can't argue with.

There is not one person in the world who can say his feet weren't numb, making it an escape proof excuse. Lawyers don't craft elaborate or even good stories, they like the one's that give an explanation without being able to be argued with.

 

[tonyballs]

If the best his lawyer could come up with was....."my feet were numb"...... It's time for a new lawyer.

Come up with a better excuse...lol

 

[inkfreq]

From a lawyer's perspective, it makes 100% perfect sense. You don't need a quality answer, just one they can't argue with.

There is not one person in the world who can say his feet weren't numb, making it an escape proof excuse. Lawyers don't craft elaborate or even good stories, they like the one's that give an explanation without being able to be argued with.

To elaborate on that a bit... let's examine the case of Kobe Bryant when he was accused of rape. His semen was found inside the girls underwear.

Publically, Kobe said it was consensual and apologize to his wife with a diamond ring worth more than I will make in my lifetime. But behind the scenes, his lawyers were giving him a different story for the witness stand if it went to a criminal trial.

Kobe's lawyers advised him to say the girl passed out, and after she was out cold, he jacked off to some porn and used her underwear to clean up, explaining the presence of the DNA.

I watched the interview with his lawyer where he basically said that would have been the defense. No one can prove he didn't, and the burden of proof in court lies with the accuser. In a rape case, that burden of proof is extremely high, which is why so many high profile people from Roethlisberger to Cosby have gone without even being charged.

Is it a stupid story? Absolutely. But it is plausible, and no one can prove it's not.

The "my feet were numb" excuse is no different. I can tell you for absolute fact my feet have been cold enough that if I stepped on someone, I might not have even known I did it. No one can argue with it or prove his feet weren't dead numb.

It's a perfect lawyer story, and it's exactly the type of shit they tell people to say.

 

[cheeno]

Same excuse he gave the cop for speeding into that drinking fountain. His feet were numb so he couldn't feel the accelerator. It's kind of his go to now.

 

[brewer229]

You are still propagating the myth that if the arbiter found no guilt, he wouldn't have fined him.

As has been said quite a few times now, the arbiter doesn't have that right, or even the right at all to assign guilt.

The NFL found him guilty of intent, and there is no overturning that in arbitration. The arbitration process simply decides whether or not the punishment fits within the rules outlined in the collective bargaining agreement, which in this case the punishment did not.

If the NFL had never referenced hsi prior infractions, maybe the suspension would have stuck. But by calling him a "repeat offender" when he was removed from that list, the arbiter decided they punished him under a term that no longer applied.

If Cotrell found it to be 100% unintentional, it wouldn't have mattered. He couldn't remove all punishment, and a fine would have still been levied.

He could of given less than a 70K fine.

For what it is worth.

"Although I accept that your feet may have been cold on a late December day in Green Bay, it is difficult for me to believe that you did not feel Aaron Rodgers? leg under you as you stepped on him twice,? Cottrell wrote. ?While you may not have consciously intended to cause injury to the opposing player that you stepped on, I nonetheless believe that you could have avoided?and had the responsibility to avoid?making such dangerous contact with your opponent?s leg?twice. Your conduct was a clear violation of the Playing Rules and was outside the normal course of the game of football. It must be emphasized that illegal acts that jeopardize the safety of other players, as was certainly the case here, will not be tolerated in this League.?

 

[dubbsco]

Oh come on, the few people on here know better than that guy. He didn't mean to, total accident.

 

[Mitchrapp]

There, so it's over. Cottrell didn't buy it and thought he was aware of what he was doing. Just didn't think it was suspension worthy.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I'm waiting for the fn idiot response in short order..

 

[inkfreq]

He could of given less than a 70K fine.

For what it is worth.

"Although I accept that your feet may have been cold on a late December day in Green Bay, it is difficult for me to believe that you did not feel Aaron Rodgers? leg under you as you stepped on him twice,? Cottrell wrote. ?While you may not have consciously intended to cause injury to the opposing player that you stepped on, I nonetheless believe that you could have avoided?and had the responsibility to avoid?making such dangerous contact with your opponent?s leg?twice. Your conduct was a clear violation of the Playing Rules and was outside the normal course of the game of football. It must be emphasized that illegal acts that jeopardize the safety of other players, as was certainly the case here, will not be tolerated in this League.?

Absolutely true. But would it have made a difference?

The amount of the fine didn't do anything to public opinion. The fact that there was a fine at all has given the presumption of a finding of guilt from an arbiter who doesn't find guilt or innocents.

70K... 10K... 200K...Warhammer 40K... whatever it was, it enforced in people's minds that he "must have been guilty" when that was not the purpose or principle of the hearing.

An arbiter can only find for guilt or innocence in the case of a direct rule violation. For example, going back to Suh's block low and from behind on Sullivan. If no rule was violated at all, the arbiter can declare such and remove all penalty.

In the case of malicious intent, no specific rule was violated and the suspension was issued at the commissioner's discretion, which he has the right to do up to 2 games for pretty much anything he doesn't really like.