Oregon puncher Blount allowed back

#27
#27
tvolsfan said:
I know my facts. I don't care if he talked trash before the game. Why would that possibly matter to me at all? Boise State won and the guy gave Blount crap and got hit in the face in a heat of the moment incident. Big deal. It isn't like he hit an old lady. And what exactly did he do to the crowd. I know there was some problem but it isn't like he went Ron Artest on them. (And those fans deserved it, too.) Don't really see where you get "maniac with history of attitude problems." He's just a college kid. How seriously would you really punish a college student for taking a swing at someone. Getting angry and hitting someone doesn't merit a season suspension.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah you left out where before the "Punch" that he was fighting with his OWN teammates...Not the first time either...He was disiplined for fighting during practice before the season started...That kid has no right being on a football field...He has embarrassed that university on national tv and now the university has embarrassed itself by reinstating him...Being a college kid is absolutely no excuse.
 
#28
#28
VOLnMiami said:
Oh yeah you left out where before the "Punch" that he was fighting with his OWN teammates...Not the first time either...He was disiplined for fighting during practice before the season started...That kid has no right being on a football field...He has embarrassed that university on national tv and now the university has embarrassed itself by reinstating him...Being a college kid is absolutely no excuse.
Click to expand...
Previous violations for which he was already punished obviously weren't going to have an effect. He was pissed and made some bad decisions with no lasting effect. Big deal. Good move to bring him back.
 
#36
#36
If you think sucker punching someone when they are not looking is the same thing as sticking your fingers inside a facemask and not making contact, then you are beyond help.
 
#38
#38
OrangeWilly said:
I was glad that kid got punched in the face, I really dont care about either University. Its what happened after the punch that I had a problem with....either way I dont think he should have missed the season.
Click to expand...
agree. he should have just punched the guy & went to the locker room the rest was unnecessary. sometimes u gotta keep it real but not too real.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#39
#39
Mr. Two Bits said:
If you think sucker punching someone when they are not looking is the same thing as sticking your fingers inside a facemask and not making contact, then you are beyond help.
Click to expand...

So it is not as bad because he is inept and Blount should be punished because he is not.
 
Last edited:
#40
#40
It was ridiculous to suspend this guy for the whole year anyway. He deserved a long suspension -- five or six games, probably -- but the only reason he got the whole year was that Kelly was embarrassed about how badly Oregon got their ass kicked in his first game as coach. He was an idiot for scapegoating the player with that egregious suspension to begin with, and now he looks like an idiot again for reneging. It couldn't have been handled any worse.

This is why you wait until Monday before you announce anything.
 
#41
#41
Mr. Two Bits said:
If you think sucker punching someone when they are not looking is the same thing as sticking your fingers inside a facemask and not making contact, then you are beyond help.
Click to expand...

Didn't you pretty much just equate that sucker punch with child abuse?
 
#42
#42
Don't really have a problem with this. It's football and tempers rise. Yes he deserved to be suspended, but only for one game, two games maximum. Granted it doesn't (and shouldn't) happen in CFB too often but a full year and his last season... It was harsh.
 
#43
#43
kptvol said:
Didn't you pretty much just equate that sucker punch with child abuse?
Click to expand...

No. I'm not sure if that is an attempt to misrepresent or you really aren't bright enough to understand the context. Considering where I am and what I have read from you in the past, I'll go with the latter.
 
#45
#45
For what Blount did after the Boise St. game, a three game suspension would have been about right, but there were some reports that there had been some previous problems with him. Blount certainly deserved to be punished sternly for his actions. Serving a suspension for more than half of a season seems more than adequate -- probably even too harsh. The initial full season suspension appears to have been somewhat of an overreaction. Provided he's demonstrating the right attitude -- that he's learned from his mistakes, he should be given another chance.

JMHO.
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
Mr. Two Bits said:
No. I'm not sure if that is an attempt to misrepresent or you really aren't bright enough to understand the context. Considering where I am and what I have read from you in the past, I'll go with the latter.
Click to expand...

I totally understand the context. I was really hoping you'd pull out this kind of comment so I could remind you of the time you tried to say I equated Spikes' transgression with rape.
 
#47
#47
Vercingetorix said:
It was ridiculous to suspend this guy for the whole year anyway. He deserved a long suspension -- five or six games, probably -- but the only reason he got the whole year was that Kelly was embarrassed about how badly Oregon got their ass kicked in his first game as coach. He was an idiot for scapegoating the player with that egregious suspension to begin with, and now he looks like an idiot again for reneging. It couldn't have been handled any worse.

This is why you wait until Monday before you announce anything.
Click to expand...

uh, quite the contrary.
From an "OREGON" standpoint, this was handled perfectly. Kelly made a decision immediately to suspend Blount for the season - meaning there was nothing to talk about from that point forward. He could have said "indefinitely" instead, and then fielded questions every day from the media as well as his players and coaches about "when" but instead he deadened the subject. Handling it that way also meant that Blount had to take all of the initiative himself without having any assurances that he would even see the field again. If Kelly had said "he's suspended for 5 games" then everything Blount was doing in the wake of the incident would be "in order to get back on to the field" instead of "because it's the right thing to do."

So, with his decision, Kelly kept controversy and distraction out of his locker room, and put all of the onus on LGB to prove his contrition.
 
#50
#50
Wonder who would win out of the two if they duked it out on the streets?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top