Makes sense to me because they are different rules with different standards. If the puck hit him, it would be Too Many Men. If he punched/hooked/interfered with somebody, it would be roughing/hooking/interference. He isn’t a non-entity, the rules still apply to him. He just gets an exception for that one rule as long…

Came here for goatse candy jokes. Am disappoint.

Ah, the timeless “Why are people interested in things I don’t like?!” Internet comment. Never gets old.

I didn’t watch the game, saw the picture, and thought, “Huh, that dude’s offside.”

Can we stop with “Mothering is the hardest job in the world”? Cardiac surgery is much harder than mothering.

Anonymous sources talking about her/Kevin’s arrest that one time six years ago in 10... 9... 8...

I mean sure there’s been research, and years of experience with the death penalty in several states. And sure, there are a ton of problems with how it’s applied and who it’s applied to. And yes, more than one innocent person has been executed by the state.

Nope! The death penalty doesn’t deter shit. Study after study after study shows that, on top of all the other problems with how the death penalty is applied, it doesn’t deter a goddamn thing.

The act is already illegal. Jail is a bigger deterrent than unemployment, yet it happens anyway. Punishment is always a poor deterrent, but it remains our favourite tool of consequence for some reason.

Again, that’s an argument against anger management (which I have never been a fan of) and for more effective forms of therapy and remediation.

https://deadspin.com/zero-tolerance-for-domestic-violence-will-only-make-it-1787428167

There are lots of options between “a stern look” and cutting him. Mandatory counselling, variations on “community service,” fines/suspensions, and all the other intervention options used by law enforcement.

I agree with you, with one exception: I don’t think Cut/Don’t Cut are the only options. There is no magic bullet, but intervention programs have the highest success rate of any of the available solutions, and being able to model a better way actually has a benefit for society in general.

That really is a warped and simplistic view! Who said that?

By making rehabilitation a condition of his employment, you have the ability to actually change the situation for the family involved. By cutting him, the NFL actually loses any ability to positively influence the situation.

Then there are the comparisons to putting serial killers in jail, which are weird nonsense. Cutting Tyreek Hill will protect his family by making him very upset and spending more time at home?

The replies are fascinating.

Here’s a simple question for the problem solvers out there: how does putting Hill out of work make the lives of his family better?

That’s the fraction of the current US population on an NFL roster at a given time. No living NFL Hall of Famer is currently on a roster, so that number isn’t very useful.

Sounds like the coach is pissed that this stunt may derail a career in the Majors.