Gronk's hit after the whistle on Buffalo's Tre'Davious White was wildly uncharacteristic for the goofy tight end that seems to be universally loved, but that doesn't make up for the fact that it was a vicious act.
I think the most asinine takes I've heard about this situation are the homers who claim his reaction was justified because he got held/interfered with before the interception. "He's fed up with not getting calls his whole career!" That may be so, but launching into the back of an opponents head after the whistle is no way to start having calls go your way. I mean, this was even before talks of a suspension, people were justifying the hit itself, regardless of the consequences. Can you imagine if Travis Kelce had done this to Devin McCourty in the season opener? Oh my god, everyone in the New England area would be calling for him to be suspended for the year. So anyone saying Gronk's hit was justified because he was held, get out of my face with that. Erroneous.
Now onto the actual punishment for the hit: a one-game suspension that Gronk tried to appeal, but the league upheld. I think that's rational. For a fanbase that constantly (and rightfully) criticizes the way that the NFL handles issues, it's awfully hypocritical to disagree with penalizing a hit to the head of a defenseless player. I mean, White was on the ground, the whistle had blown, and a 6'6" 265 pound frame willingly launched itself into the back of his head. Again, if an opponent had done that to a Patriot, nobody in New England would say it was justified. I'm not saying Gronk is a bad guy in any sense. Emotions run high on game day, he messed up, he apologized, and now he's paying the price.
A lot of people's issue with the Gronk suspension is the "inconsistency" in similar acts and their respective punishments this season. I've heard many mention the two-game suspensions of Michael Crabtree and Aqib Talib being reduced to one-game after an appeal.
I'd say the one comparable aspect of the two scenarios is that neither Gronkowski's hit or the fist fight are football plays. Both scenarios are extracurricular bologna. But what it comes down to is that Crabtree and Talib were both willingly throwing fists. Neither player was "defenseless" by any means. They hate each other and they wanted to settle it in a way that wasn't just playing football.
Another scenario that has been brought up is Tampa Bay's Mike Evans absolutely blasting Saints' cornerback Marshon Lattimore a few weeks back.
Evans was suspended one-game for this act, which should say everything there is to say about Gronk's suspension. Evans knowingly wrecked a defenseless Lattimore after the whistle. It was a non-football play. It was a reckless move. It was highly dangerous, and there's no place in the game for stuff like that. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Another scrap that the NFL brought in the month of November came between Jacksonville's Jalen Ramsey and Cincinnati's A.J. Green.
Again, it's important for fans to recognize the difference between a situation like this and the Gronkowski hit. These two players exchanged shoves, and one could maybe make the argument that Ramsey was "defenseless" for a split second before Green put him in a chokehold. Punches were thrown, but I think it's a little different than the Talib vs. Crabtree fight where two guys are dancing on their feet and squaring up. Neither Ramsey or Green received a suspension, just heavy fines. You could argue that there are inconsistencies in punishments for fist fights during the game, but Gronk's hit on White was far from a fist fight.
Monday night's matchup between the Bengals and Steelers brought two suspensions, both one-game, for Pittsburgh's JuJu Smith-Schuster and George Iloka. Iloka's suspension was successfully appealed, whereas Smith-Schuster will be out this week against Baltimore for his monster block on the league's #1 scum bag Vontaze Burfict.
To be honest, I'm a little iffy about this suspension, although I can understand where the league is coming from. We all witnessed an absolute bloodbath on Monday night that certainly got out of hand. I don't think JuJu would be sitting out a week if: 1) the violence of that game as a whole didn't generate so much negative PR for the NFL, and 2) JuJu didn't stand over Burfict after the hit. I don't necessarily blame him for asserting his dominance after the hit; a 21 year old rookie wide receiver dropping a brick house of a linebacker is an impressive feat. He was probably feeling on top of the world. Still, a dumb move that most likely led to his suspension, but as a fan I didn't hate the act of standing over Burfict and staring him in the eyes. A dumb move, but a ballsy one.
So back to Gronk. The only one of these scenarios that was similar to Gronkowski's shenanigans is the Mike Evans hit, which also received a one-game suspension. I think for the first time in our lives, the NFL has shown some form of consistency in penalization.
I genuinely believe that Gronk feels terrible about his actions, as he stated. I don't think it was likely that we'd see him do something like this again anyway, but the one-game suspension will reinforce that. That's the whole point of punishment: to reinforce that the mistake won't happen again.
If you're complaining about the one-game suspension of Rob Gronkowski, you're a fool. It always sucks to see one of your best players forced to sit out a game, but that's on him. If the Patriots lose to the Dolphins on Monday night, the issues that come along with that will go beyond the absence of a star tight end. The good news is that Gronk will be back for the Pittsburgh game, and for now that should be every Patriot fans' biggest concern.
No comments:
Post a Comment