• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Tucker, the Refs and the Fish and Chips

RavensMania said:
and he's throwing at a 70% completion percentage......even with those drops last week that could have been big yardage
Click to expand...
I don’t get the complaining about monken, I get there’s weak spots but it’s expected, overall Lamar looks really good in this offense, like he’s seeing the field, making good decisions, making GREAT throws, using his legs efficiently, it’s a really encouraging sign to see the most important player looking really comfortable and in command while the timing and execution get worked out.

For instance, if Bateman got his shit together, likely caught ONE ball, and if a bunch of guys caught wide open balls against pit, we’re undefeated, but thats not how it works because players gotta execute and those guys just flat out dropped balls and ran wrong routes.

Lamars made his share of bonehead plays as well, but overall he looks great in this system
 
Dax Hill did something similar in the Bengals game but did not get ejected. You know the Steelers loss was on our execution, but the refs costing us the Colts game is really pissing me off now that our division is winning
 
Just woke up, few random thoughts :

*London is a cool city. Would recommend.
*the british accent makes no sense please talk slowly ffs
*from the stadium it was actually hard to analyze the game and the performances/playcalling. It was however very easy to be frustrated at the refs.
*Madubuike is probably playing too good to keep.
*Stephens continues to impress
*Lamar speed is just different when you see it live. Felt like everytime he tucked it it was this close to being a huge gain.
* Nelly was a very smart signing
 
All_black_everything said:
You can’t seriously be defending his actions. Mixon is a bitch for hitting a female like that
Click to expand...
I could sort of understand where that argument is coming from if the muscle bound star athlete had hit the small woman with the same force she had hit him, but he gave her his best punch.

Not defending her actions, but she hit him knowing that she couldn't even injure him, whereas he hit her knowing it could potentially brain damage or even kill her.

To say they're both punches therefore equal is assinine.
 
All_black_everything said:
You can’t seriously be defending his actions. Mixon is a bitch for hitting a female like that
Click to expand...

I said self defense and she hit him first. Plain and simple. He then retaliated. Had it just been a weaker male who attacked Mixon I doubt you'd be defending him. Why should she be handled with kid gloves? That came out wrong...

@QtR Nevermore she hit him expecting him not to hit her back. I would guess she learned a valuable lesson that day.
 
redrum52 said:
I said self defense and she hit him first. Plain and simple. He then retaliated. Had it just been a weaker male who attacked Mixon I doubt you'd be defending him. Why should she be handled with kid gloves? That came out wrong...

@QtR Nevermore she hit him expecting him not to hit her back. I would guess she learned a valuable lesson that day.
Click to expand...
It wasn't self defense. He could have defended himself with much less violence.

You got it right when you said it was retaliation. Massive retaliation. A star RBs fist is a much deadlier weapon than a small woman's. It's like responding to a punch with a knife. You wouldn't be so keen to say both things are punches, therefore equal, if you had to chose either Joe Mixon or that small woman to punch you.

It's interesting that you said kid gloves, because that expression acknowledges that we should treat smaller, weaker opponents differently. It used to be universally accepted that it should apply to men hitting women too, before the rise of internet misogyny and all the "equal rights equal lefts" bullshit.

You say she learned a valuable lesson. She was undoubtedly in the wrong but that doesn't mean any punishment is appropriate for the crime. There has to be proportionality even in the most primative justice systems. A massive haymaker from a guy built lke a heavyweight boxer is way too far for anyone who isn't an internet misogynist.
 
QtR Nevermore said:
It wasn't self defense. He could have defended himself with much less violence.

You got it right when you said it was retaliation. Massive retaliation. A star RBs fist is a much deadlier weapon than a small woman's. It's like responding to a punch with a knife. You wouldn't be so keen to say both things are punches, therefore equal, if you had to chose either Joe Mixon or that small woman to punch you.

It's interesting that you said kid gloves, because that expression acknowledges that we should treat smaller, weaker opponents differently. It used to be universally accepted that it should apply to men hitting women too, before the rise of internet misogyny and all the "equal rights equal lefts" bullshit.

You say she learned a valuable lesson. She was undoubtedly in the wrong but that doesn't mean any punishment is appropriate for the crime. There has to be proportionality even in the most primative justice systems. A massive haymaker from a guy built lke a heavyweight boxer is way too far for anyone who isn't an internet misogynist.
Click to expand...
I just rewatched the incident because of your conversation. She pushed him in the chest but I don't think that action warranted that type of retaliation. She seemed to be no serious threat to him.
 
QtR Nevermore said:
It wasn't self defense. He could have defended himself with much less violence.

You got it right when you said it was retaliation. Massive retaliation. A star RBs fist is a much deadlier weapon than a small woman's. It's like responding to a punch with a knife. You wouldn't be so keen to say both things are punches, therefore equal, if you had to chose either Joe Mixon or that small woman to punch you.

It's interesting that you said kid gloves, because that expression acknowledges that we should treat smaller, weaker opponents differently. It used to be universally accepted that it should apply to men hitting women too, before the rise of internet misogyny and all the "equal rights equal lefts" bullshit.

You say she learned a valuable lesson. She was undoubtedly in the wrong but that doesn't mean any punishment is appropriate for the crime. There has to be proportionality even in the most primative justice systems. A massive haymaker from a guy built lke a heavyweight boxer is way too far for anyone who isn't an internet misogynist.
Click to expand...
I think the problem with this thinking is that he gets about 2 seconds to determine what's "proportionate", and everybody else gets the rest of eternity to think about, criticize it, and come up with some other arbitrary acceptable "proportionate" response.

I don't think a few seconds is sufficient to expect somebody to assess an appropriate level of violence. Especially somebody who has literally no training in doing so.

If I were in the same situation, I have no idea what I'd do. Would be dependent on dozens of factors, including my particular mood in that situation. And if somebody arbitrarily felt like my actions were "too harsh", so be it. I'd just not give a shit what they thought.
If the legal system felt my actions were too severe, then it'll be handled the way it should. And if the legal system doesn't think its important enough to process through, that's life too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top