NFL Upholds Myles Garrett’s Suspension

Myles Garrett‘s historic suspension will stand. The NFL upheld the indefinite ban handed down to the Browns defensive end for striking Mason Rudolph in the head with the Steelers quarterback’s helmet. However, Maurkice Pouncey‘s appeal will drop his penalty from three games to two, the league announced Thursday.

Pouncey will still miss the Steelers’ rematch with the Browns, which will occur in Week 13. Pouncey will also be fined $35K. The 10th-year center will miss out on two game checks but can return for Pittsburgh’s Week 14 game in Arizona. Garrett, however, is done for the regular season and any possible playoff games.

The standout defensive end must apply for reinstatement in the offseason. With Garrett firmly in the defensive player of the year conversation, this guts the Browns, who had won two straight. The league also will fine Garrett $45K. This comes a day after the league upheld Larry Ogunjobi‘s one-game suspension. Ogunjobi will be eligible to play in the AFC North rivals’ rematch next week.

In addition to Garrett’s side arguing that the CBA does not contain precise language stipulating a ban of this nature could occur for an on-field act, they cited Antonio Smith‘s one-game suspension for swinging his helmet at Richie Incognito in 2013. Garrett also alleged the Steelers quarterback used a racial slur. The Steelers and Rudolph’s attorney deny this. The NFL looked into Garrett’s racially charged accusation and did not find evidence to support the claim, league spokesman Brian McCarthy said (Twitter link).

Of course, Garrett striking Rudolph in the head during a nationally televised game obviously differentiates this sequence from the Smith-Incognito dust-up, which did not involve clear contact. Despite the former No. 1 overall pick making the Pro Bowl last season and building an All-Pro-caliber resume leading up to his now-infamous moment, this is certainly the former Texas A&M standout’s defining NFL act to date.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

View Comments (37)
newest oldest

37 comments on “NFL Upholds Myles Garrett’s Suspension

  1. goldenmisfit

    The NFL always goes out of their way to favor the Pittsburgh Steelers and reducing the suspension just proved it.

    • highplainsdriftr

      Or defending your teammate from an attempted murder is seen as less violent than trying to murder somebody you are competing against. Could be that too.

      • Phattey

        By that logic every high schooler that gets into a fight should be tried for attempted murder

        • snotrocket

          Most high schoolers caught on camera swinging a blunt object at someone’s head would at least be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Attempted murder is a stretch.

        • highplainsdriftr

          Not at all! I teach at a high school. You ever seen teenagers fight? lol A 6’5, 270 lb football player swinging a 10 pound helmet is a whole level of danger beyond these high School boys throwing punches in poor form at each other for 3 seconds before it is broken up. And, those boys are usually minors. Not grown men. So the law would approach them in completely different ways

    • crosseyedlemon

      So in 1941 commissioner Elmer Layden and the owners got together and hatched a plan to favor Pittsburgh so that in just 78 years they would be able to upset goldenmisfit. Makes perfect sense to me.

      • gozurman1

        Lol! For @goldnenmisfit to believe that the league long favored the Steelers he has to ignore the fact that they were lovable losers for the first 39 years of their existence in the NFL, only reaching the post season once until 1972. If the league truly favored them, they would not have stunk that long

  2. JJB0811

    He should sue the league. Clearly, there isn’t any set of rules for conduct and can prove it with different varying penalties for on field fighting.

    I would love to see 1 player fight their fines/penalties legally. Their union doesn’t do much in terms of getting reductions. This would be a great opening case.

    • highplainsdriftr

      Legal loopholes and litigation. Just what the country needs. God forbid somebody has to admit their actions were wrong and deal with the consequences. Thankfully for Garrett, with a new CBA looming, we can finally address the gray area of ‘ is it a violation of NFL rules to try and brain somebody with a helmet after the play’. Because there is so much gray area in this incident who could possibly figure out who acted inappropriately

      • DarkSide830

        actually this is one of few suits that make sense. people win suits for not reading the terms on websites, im sure the ambiguity of these rules in pro sports gives such a suit legs.

        • highplainsdriftr

          Doubtful. So ultimately for Garrett to win the argument would be that the league has no say in actions not specifically addressed in the CBA? So the new CBA would have to be 100,000 pages long to cover every conceivable scenario? I’m a union member, I’m sure many of us are. And I bet most of our contracts don’t explicitly address specific acts of violence against other workers. It doesn’t mean that my workplace can’t suspend me if I attack somebody. If your argument is the league has no authority here, then it would have to go to societal laws. And Garrett can go to court for assault, then the league can discipline him after under the conduct policy

    • JJB0811

      Everyone makes valid points. My point is there are very similar circumstances and each one has a different suspensions levels. Not a game or two difference.

      I’d personally be interested in how a judge and jury would rule. I don’t think the NFL would like the verdict.

    • cubsfanbudman1908

      Because suing the league works so well for players. See: Kaepernick, Colin

    • gozurman1

      So which side should the union take? The side of the person swinging the helmet or the side of the person was struck on top of the head with the helmet?

      • gozurman1

        Plus, I believe this is the first time someone took an opposing player’s helmet of of their head, swung it at the now helmetless player and made full contact with the helmet. The only thing closer was Anthony Brown of the Texans taking Richie Igcognito’s helmet off of him and swinging it and coming close but no contact. Would be different if Brown connected and only got the suspension for 2 preseason games and 1 regular game. He got a lesser punishment because Incognito did not get hit by the helmet

      • crosseyedlemon

        They have to take sides with the person struck in the head because nobody with a working brain would expect any help from the union.

        • gozurman1

          you would think that would be the case but they are helping with the appeal for Garret. If they look to lessen the punishment for assaulting a person then they are in fact telling the person who was hit that their health and safety does not matter to them. Happens all the time in the NHL Makes about as much sense as goldenmisfit did in opening up this thread…..

  3. snotrocket

    I’m sorry sir, we no longer accept the race card at our establishment.

    • gozurman1

      Took a lot of years for them to win some stuff. Too bad the league allowed Art M. to truck the Browns to Baltimore in 96. Browns had a rich history but Model leaving when Cleveland would not help building a new stadium really ruined the cities football tradition.

      • Polish Hammer

        He was offered a chance to be part of the Gateway Project, but instead Moddell took the million$ from Baltimore and pocketed it.

    • joparx

      Having your helmet ripped off and then being hit with that helmet is so far outside the realm of reasonably predictable outcomes of playing a football game…Garrett could easily be tried in court and get jail time for this incident, doesn’t matter if Rudolph called him the worst racial slurs on earth all combined into one word, pouncey also would be completely cleared of any wrong doing and in fact because Garrett used a helmet as a weapon pouncey would’ve been legally fine if he took off his own helmet and started hitting Garrett, you are allowed to use the same amount of force in an assault and battery case as the original person…the fact that any of you defend him and want his suspension (suspension no legal problems at all) reduced is literally embarrassing

      • sufferfortribe

        Where in any of my comments, on any post, did I defend Garrett’s actions?
        Yeah, I’ll wait for your answer while you go search.
        Then we’ll see who’s embarrassing.

    • markburgh

      It was the rooneys who helped to get cleveland a team back do your research on and keep the name in cleveland but maybe they should be called the Burficts now so much head hunting before the fight

  4. TJECK109

    Love how OBJ came to Garrett’s defense today on the slur accusation. Saying he didn’t see Myles as someone who would lie or do anything like that… the man swung and hit another player in the head with a helmet and you can’t see him lying to try to save his backside? Lol. Get real

  5. markburgh

    The Nfl films mike players has mikes on sideline just like fox/nfl network Westwood one radio also im sure the nfl listened to those tapes the came out a few years ago about rAcial slurs and why did he apologize after the game and then days later play the race card i dont know should of used the mental card instead

  6. semut

    I’m not a Browns fan so it really doesn’t matter to me either way this shakes out. But the NFL rulebook says that if a player uses a helmet as a weapon it’s a 15-yard penalty and an automatic ejection.

    Where did the additional indefinite suspension come from?

Leave a Reply