Wouldn’t that be a suspension-worthy incident? I’m not sure about the disciplinary tendencies of the WTA, but I have to believe pretty much any sport would suspend a player for a physical attack like that, for maybe a month or more.

I feel like if you could merge players from the Cavs and the Rockets into one playoff team, well, you’d have a team that dribbles the ball for 22.5 seconds of each possession, then makes a bad pass to LeBron so the shot clock expires while he tries to blow past the five defenders assigned solely to him. Then they’d…

Does it sound like it’s saying “yanny” or “laurel”?

In fairness, if the call had been up to Kinsler, he would’ve been safe.

Why bring that up in this thread? No one is even talking about the Rockets right now.

Great, they may be open late, but now the Saudis are going to blockade Metro.

I still remember Hunter in that breakaway in the playoffs. Like Kuznetsov now.

I’ve never seen the Caps be so aggressive every minute of every game. The get two bad penalty calls and fall behind, and in past years they’d just start playing on their heels. But this year they just keep fighting between the blue lines, minimize penalties (and did the officials not notice that Kunitz launched off…

They are not to the point, and just repeating them doesn’t help make them so. The Lions didn’t need a third party to tell them about the indictment. Even if the rules say the third party couldn’t go back more than 7 years, the Lions should’ve known that because a lot can happen in the years prior to 2011, and somebody…

It’s your selective use of the EEOC verbiage that is the problem, although I really can’t tell if you’re saying the Lions weren’t allowed to know about the indictment, or if you’re saying they couldn’t consider the indictment because there was no conviction, or if you’re saying they shouldn’t consider the indictment…

Who gives a fat fuck? The commenter said the Lions were prohibited from considering any felony non-convictions. You drag up some dumb quote about third party background checks. That’s not the point that was made at all. They didn’t say the investigators couldn’t go back more than 7 years; they said the Lions couldn’t…

Your straw man about the arrest-conviction conflation is still there, your assertion that the EEOC rules prohibit using an arrest in making a hiring decision is still there, your dragging in something about credit reporting and third party background investigations is still there. So, I’m fine with my comment because…

Nobody said an arrest constitutes a conviction, dumbbell. You are an excellent straw man builder, but it’s a worthless talent, and yet you seem awfully proud of it. That’s a stupid way to start your comment and it only goes downhill from there. It’s funny because you think you posted a killer reply, when all you did…

The Lions could’ve spared Matt Patricia’s feelings by not hiring him, if they really cared about him.

You’re just inventing excuses. Answer my question or stay out of my part of the thread. The EEOC site says you can use information about arrests and charges as a factor in denying employment. There is nothing about Patricia that makes him a better or more qualified candidate for that job than a dozen other candidates.…

What law are you referring to, exactly? The EEOC makes no mention of any statute of limitations like that on its site, as it lays out rules and laws on hiring and background checks. In fact, there’s nothing in the web content that would preclude the Lions from making a decision based on this years-old case.

A lot of NBA teams seem to want to be the Wizards.

It’s really a problem for the NHL. Even the GSW - Rockets series is a conference final.

“If you try to piss up a rope and you fail, did you truly fail?”

NHL observers in Finland are fjine.