Sean Taylor Spitting Video (merged)

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I think from the original angle you can't see the spit because it falls to the ground pretty quickly right in front of ST, so his body blocked out the view of the spit.

I don't understand why people are so hung up on Pittman not getting a penalty. Even if Pittman got a penalty, ST was still kicked out and that was the part of this whole thing that really could have hurt us.

Well I don't think one ought to be kicked out of a game for it. I just personally don't think it is that bad. Because of that it pisses me off that a guy like Sean Taylor gets punished but the other equally wrong player doesn't. I don't think Pittman should get kicked out for his role but I do think it is incumbent upon the refs to call games fairly and obey the rules. The video proving he spit did two things. It proved to me he spit and it proved to me that Mike Carey made an arbitrary decision that one thing was worse than the other. So much worse in fact that apparently breaking the rules directly in front on a ref was ok. What that does is it allows everyone to globaly castiagte Taylor and it lets Pittman off scott free both in the game and ultimately the media. That changes perceptions of the incident and perceptions of Taylor that affect how he is treated during games. Now he gets watched more closely and all of a sudden maybe that perfectly timed hit gets a penalty or something like that. It puts Taylor unfairly in the cross hairs for something that was really basically harmless. If both guys get penalties the situation gets dissolved more benignly and none of us are having this discussion I think. Offsetting penalties get talked about for three seconds on the broadcast and they move on. I am sure we can all agree that the penalty was called for but the ejection seemed awful quick and uncalled for. It makes one wonder why Taylor was held to a higher standard?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Well I don't think one ought to be kicked out of a game for it. I just personally don't think it is that bad. Because of that it pisses me off that a guy like Sean Taylor gets punished but the other equally wrong player doesn't. I don't think Pittman should get kicked out for his role but I do think it is incumbent upon the refs to call games fairly and obey the rules. The video proving he spit did two things. It proved to me he spit and it proved to me that Mike Carey made an arbitrary decision that one thing was worse than the other. So much worse in fact that apparently breaking the rules directly in front on a ref was ok. What that does is it allows everyone to globaly castiagte Taylor and it lets Pittman off scott free both in the game and ultimately the media. That changes perceptions of the incident and perceptions of Taylor that affect how he is treated during games. Now he gets watched more closely and all of a sudden maybe that perfectly timed hit gets a penalty or something like that. It puts Taylor unfairly in the cross hairs for something that was really basically harmless. If both guys get penalties the situation gets dissolved more benignly and none of us are having this discussion I think. Offsetting penalties get talked about for three seconds on the broadcast and they move on. I am sure we can all agree that the penalty was called for but the ejection seemed awful quick and uncalled for. It makes one wonder why Taylor was held to a higher standard?

I agree with FRPLG. Nobody on this site has been able to rationalize why spitting should be considered worse than throwing a punch. The reason for that is it can't be rationalized. One act is gross. The other act hurts.

Carey acted rashly in deciding to eject Taylor and not punish Pittman whatsoever. Carey saw the spit, was appalled, and reacted immediately by throwing the flag and ejecting Taylor on the spot. He did not discuss things with his crew, he did not take any time to think about how to punish both parties fairly, he just acted as soon as he saw the spit. The punishment didn't fit the crime because Carey's reaction was partially driven by his disgust.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I agree with FRPLG. Nobody on this site has been able to rationalize why spitting should be considered worse than throwing a punch. The reason for that is it can't be rationalized. One act is gross. The other act hurts.

Carey acted rashly in deciding to eject Taylor and not punish Pittman whatsoever. Carey saw the spit, was appalled, and reacted immediately by throwing the flag and ejecting Taylor on the spot. He did not discuss things with his crew, he did not take any time to think about how to punish both parties fairly, he just acted as soon as he saw the spit. The punishment didn't fit the crime because Carey's reaction was partially driven by his disgust.

In my book, spitting is worse than throwing a punch because it's such a total lack of class and sportsmanship.

In the heat of the battle, punches will fly on occassion and to me that's much more understandable than someone resorting to the punk-ass action of spitting at someone.

I can still respect someone who gets heated and throws a punch. But someone who spits I just lose all respect for.

Now don't get me wrong, I still think ST is a heck of a player and I'd rather have him on our side, but in the end he's a punk with alot of growing up to do. He could have cost his team the game, and that's a very selfish and immature thing to do.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

In my book, spitting is worse than throwing a punch because it's such a total lack of class and sportsmanship.

In the heat of the battle, punches will fly on occassion and to me that's much more understandable than someone resorting to the punk-ass action of spitting at someone.

I can still respect someone who gets heated and throws a punch. But someone who spits I just lose all respect for.

Now don't get me wrong, I still think ST is a heck of a player and I'd rather have him on our side, but in the end he's a punk with alot of growing up to do. He could have cost his team the game, and that's a very selfish and immature thing to do.

Unbelievable. Guess what Matty, your personal beliefs regarding spitting vs punching are very inconsistent with UNITED STATES LAW. You punch someone, that's Assault & Battery. You spit on someone, that's Assault.

Get off your high horse, man. It's ridiculous. Your respect for somebody should have NOTHING to do with how punishments are levied. Nor should Mike Carey's respect. Punishments should not be decided by the amount of respect lost by the self-righteous.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Unbelievable. Guess what Matty, your personal beliefs regarding spitting vs punching are very inconsistent with UNITED STATES LAW. You punch someone, that's Assault & Battery. You spit on someone, that's Assault.

Get off your high horse, man. It's ridiculous. Your respect for somebody should have NOTHING to do with how punishments are levied. Nor should Mike Carey's respect. Punishments should not be decided by the amount of respect lost by the self-righteous.

I'm sure you're well aware that what happens on a football field is FAR different from what happens on the street.

Otherwise guys would be getting arrested left and right.

Sorry if I'm on a high horse to you, I simply think spitting is a more heinous act than throwing a punch, and alot of people in the NFL seem to agree.

You don't hear about guys getting fined $17,500 for throwing a punch, do you?? I wonder why.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm sure you're well aware that what happens on a football field is FAR different from what happens on the street.

Otherwise guys would be getting arrested left and right.

Sorry if I'm on a high horse to you, I simply think spitting is a more heinous act than throwing a punch, and alot of people in the NFL seem to agree.

You don't hear about guys getting fined $17,500 for throwing a punch, do you?? I wonder why.

I couldn't care less about the fine, the fine means nothing to me. $17,000 to Sean Taylor is nothing, and if the NFL really thought the act was so heinous, they would have fined Taylor more, not less, than they fined Clinton Portis for wearing the wrong socks, for crying out loud.

And I realize that the NFL is a different world, a world where hitting is part of the game. The thing we really should be asking ourselves is why don't the refs throw a flag everytime someone throws a punch? A lot of the time, the refs just break up the action and don't throw flags. Why? Because they don't want to tip the competitive balance of a game. So why should spitting be treated any different? Why would you eject a player for spitting, thus influencing one team's ability to compete? What is the basis for this judgment? It's an emotional reaction, specifically the emotion of disgust. If you're letting emotions rule your judgments, you are by definition not being fair.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I couldn't care less about the fine, the fine means nothing to me. $17,000 to Sean Taylor is nothing, and if the NFL really thought the act was so heinous, they would have fined Taylor more, not less, than they fined Clinton Portis for wearing the wrong socks, for crying out loud.

And I realize that the NFL is a different world, a world where hitting is part of the game. The thing we really should be asking ourselves is why don't the refs throw a flag everytime someone throws a punch? A lot of the time, the refs just break up the action and don't throw flags. Why? Because they don't want to tip the competitive balance of a game. So why should spitting be treated any different? Why would you eject a player for spitting, thus influencing one team's ability to compete? What is the basis for this judgment? It's an emotional reaction, specifically the emotion of disgust. If you're letting emotions rule your judgments, you are by definition not being fair.

Fines aren't levied for punches because they are a more understandable element of the game than spitting. It's understood that players may lose their cool and throw a punch, but it's not acceptable to spit. It's a social norm in the NFL I guess.

Just curious, if the roles were reversed, if Pittman spit at Taylor, would you have the same exact opinion of the incident?? I'm sure you'll say yes for the sake of supporting your "unemotional views", but I'm inclined to think you wouldn't have the same view.

[hurrykaine]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm sure you're well aware that what happens on a football field is FAR different from what happens on the street.

Sorry if I'm on a high horse to you, I simply think spitting is a more heinous act than throwing a punch, and alot of people in the NFL seem to agree.

You don't hear about guys getting fined $17,500 for throwing a punch, do you?? I wonder why.

Sorry to stray a little bit, but I think a large part of the stigma associated with spitting is first cultural and then personal. Football is seen as an old school game played by men with honor, and as long as men act like men (hit, punch, kick), our conditioned minds are trained to think nothing of it.

Spitting is interesting because it isn't seen as a very "manly" thing to do around these parts, and because the "disgust factor" against bodily secretions is ingrained in most of our minds. Hence the description of the act as vile, disgusting, heinous, etc.

Take for e.g., the Arab world. Many of the Iraqi prisoners that were subject to the atrocities in Abu Ghraib prison have come out saying that they'd rather have been shot than sexually humiliated in the way they were. Me, on the other hand, I'd whack off in front of a woman in uniform than take a bullet to the head anyday (but that's just me). Its both cultural and personal.

[EternalEnigma21]

Originally Posted by hurrykaine

I'd whack off in front of a woman in uniform than take a bullet to the head anyday (but that's just me). Its both cultural and personal.

Where is this prison again??? do they let you in for free?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by hurrykaine

Sorry to stray a little bit, but I think a large part of the stigma associated with spitting is first cultural and then personal. Football is seen as an old school game played by men with honor, and as long as men act like men (hit, punch, kick), our conditioned minds are trained to think nothing of it.

Spitting is interesting because it isn't seen as a very "manly" thing to do around these parts, and because the "disgust factor" against bodily secretions is ingrained in most of our minds. Hence the description of the act as vile, disgusting, heinous, etc.

Take for e.g., the Arab world. Many of the Iraqi prisoners that were subject to the atrocities in Abu Ghraib prison have come out saying that they'd rather have been shot than sexually humiliated in the way they were. Me, on the other hand, I'd whack off in front of a woman in uniform than take a bullet to the head anyday (but that's just me). Its both cultural and personal.

nice take

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Unbelievable. Guess what Matty, your personal beliefs regarding spitting vs punching are very inconsistent with UNITED STATES LAW. You punch someone, that's Assault & Battery. You spit on someone, that's Assault.

OK, actually, that's wrong. Spitting on someone is battery. Creating the reasonable apprehension in someone that you are going to spit on them is assault.

[EternalEnigma21]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

OK, actually, that's wrong. Spitting on someone is battery. Creating the reasonable apprehension in someone that you are going to spit on them is assault.

And here come the lefties LOL

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by canthetuna

And here come the lefties LOL

huh?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

OK, actually, that's wrong. Spitting on someone is battery. Creating the reasonable apprehension in someone that you are going to spit on them is assault.

You are correct sir, nice call!

A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. A defendant who emphatically pokes the plaintiff in the chest with his index finger to emphasize a point may be culpable for battery (although the damages award that results may well be nominal). A defendant who spits on a plaintiff, even though there is little chance that the spitting will cause any injury other than to the plaintiff's dignity, has committed a battery.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/per...t_battery.html

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

You are correct sir, nice call!



http://www.expertlaw.com/library/per...t_battery.html

I stand corrected on the spitting being battery. So then by US Law, hitting someone and spitting on someone is considered equal. That still doesn't explain why officials levy a harsher punishment for spitting than they do for punching. They should be the same. If I had it my way, Taylor and Pittman would have been flagged for offsetting penalties. One for spitting, the other for losing his cool and retaliating with a punch.

And there would have been no ejections if I were reffing. People may get grossed out, but I'd rather let the players play through fights and spitting. I don't like the concept of tipping the competitive balance of a game just because someone spat.