What should Hunt's punishment be?

[oldpinepoint]

If you think that punch is bad you should see what happens on the bottom of a pile.

 

[Pat Kelly]

He literally punched a guy in the face. That isn't even an exaggeration. Have YOU ever played a sport in your life?

To put things in perspective, Albert Haynesworth got a 5 game suspension for stomping someone in the face. No, this isn't as bad as that (the guy didn't have a helmet on), but then again, nobody is pushing for a 5 game suspension, either. Saying that punching someone in the face isn't a big deal screams "I'm a 13 year old kid who is hopped up on Mountain Dew and Madden, and I've never left the couch for anything other than pizza and microwaveable TV dinners." I'm not saying that's what you are, but it's what you sound like. Punching someone out of frustration is not the way things are handled in the working world, and it shows a complete lack of control/discipline and maturity. It doesn't fly on the pee wee level and it doesn't fly on the professional level. It shouldn't fly on the collegiate level.

Jeez you sound angry. Fights happen dude, I was in a pretty bad one once, but you move on. He threw a weak little punch that would've been just a fifteen yard penalty just two years ago. He served a penalty I don't think it was bad.

Drink a little less mountain dew.

 

[Pat Kelly]

He literally punched a guy in the face. That isn't even an exaggeration. Have YOU ever played a sport in your life?

To put things in perspective, Albert Haynesworth got a 5 game suspension for stomping someone in the face. No, this isn't as bad as that (the guy didn't have a helmet on), but then again, nobody is pushing for a 5 game suspension, either. Saying that punching someone in the face isn't a big deal screams "I'm a 13 year old kid who is hopped up on Mountain Dew and Madden, and I've never left the couch for anything other than pizza and microwaveable TV dinners." I'm not saying that's what you are, but it's what you sound like. Punching someone out of frustration is not the way things are handled in the working world, and it shows a complete lack of control/discipline and maturity. It doesn't fly on the pee wee level and it doesn't fly on the professional level. It shouldn't fly on the collegiate level.

And stomping on a dudes unmasked face is a horrible comparison. I think Haynesworth should've been punished more than what he was for that. He threw a weak lefthanded punch that didn't even hurt the guy, I would've been unsurprised if the referees kept him in the game.

 

[Pat Kelly]

He literally punched a guy in the face. That isn't even an exaggeration. Have YOU ever played a sport in your life?

To put things in perspective, Albert Haynesworth got a 5 game suspension for stomping someone in the face. No, this isn't as bad as that (the guy didn't have a helmet on), but then again, nobody is pushing for a 5 game suspension, either. Saying that punching someone in the face isn't a big deal screams "I'm a 13 year old kid who is hopped up on Mountain Dew and Madden, and I've never left the couch for anything other than pizza and microwaveable TV dinners." I'm not saying that's what you are, but it's what you sound like. Punching someone out of frustration is not the way things are handled in the working world, and it shows a complete lack of control/discipline and maturity. It doesn't fly on the pee wee level and it doesn't fly on the professional level. It shouldn't fly on the collegiate level.

And this is different than an office, obviously that kind of action would be much more out of character. And he was punished. He was thrown out of the game. I know he punched a guy in the face, don't talk down to me.

 

[nzm136]

Battery Definition-
Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the act of creating apprehension of such contact.

In the United States, criminal battery, or simply battery, is the use of force against another, resulting in harmful, offensive or s e xual contact.[1] It is a specific common law misdemeanor, although the term is used more generally to refer to any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, and may be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances. Battery was defined at common law as "any unlawful touching of the person of another by the aggressor himself, or by a substance put in motion by him."[2] In most cases, battery is now governed by statutes, and its severity is determined by the law of the specific jurisdiction.

If I grab someone in a football game under his pads and pancake him to the turf, it is OK. If I do that to anyone on the street it is felony assault. So Yeah, it does matter where you do something.

In general, if Someone does not want to be touched and you touch them, it is battery. That is the definition and actually is the law. Trust me I know.

On the football field throwing a punch is a penalty just like a facemask.

Last I checked he isn't in the working world and isn't going to be there for a few more years. He is still a kid playing a game. I wish my son made as few mistakes as Hunt as I have a kid the same age.

Comparing this incident and "doing the minimum" to Ped State aren't in the same realm or reality and you need to pump the brakes with your comparisons.

What it screams is I am a kid and made a mistake and already served my penalty under the rules. If you want to unjustly and outside of the rules penalize A KID for a mistake, maybe you should quit your job and get a job with the NCAA itself and be in charge of the transfer rules.

You sound like a guy that never made a mistake or was penalized for it and for that I applaud you. You also sound like a guy that never played a sport. I played football all the way through my senior year of HS and I clocked a few guys for holding and a bunch of other dirty S&*t just like the kid that hit Hunt from behind to the helmet.

You also sound like you are better than me and everybody else and are allowed to pass judgement on all of us. For that I applaud you as well.

For starters, you want to tort of battery (as opposed to the crime) as it has a lower standard and would thus be more beneficial to your argument. I guess you know that because I should "trust [you]" because you "know [the law]" (rolls eyes). The tort of battery consists of: "the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent."

Your half-baked argument breaks down because by virtue of playing football the other player consents to reasonably foreseeable physical contact (aka contact that both a reasonable person and the other player wouldn't deem offensive).

Straight sucker-punching a guy in the face isn't part of football. Nobody agrees to that risk by playing football, and such contact is reasonably offensive. It does not matter if it is on a football field, a parking lot, or anywhere else (other than a boxing ring). Location does not matter.

That said, contact that is part of the game (i.e. blocks, tackles, etc.) are reasonable foreseeable and non-offensive in the context of football.

Much like you clearly don't understand the judicial system or the country (well state in this case) in which you live, you also CLEARLY don't understand how the NCAA works. The NCAA establishes MINIMUM punishments with the understanding that conferences and schools can go above the MINIMUM. Hunt served the MINIMUM punishment. Punishing a player beyond the MINIMUM (I keep saying that because I'm not sure you understand the concept) is not only well within the rules, it is actively encouraged.

In summary, almost everything you wrote is wrong, and I only sound like a saint because you sound like a jerk with serious anger management problems ("I clocked a few guys for holding and a bunch of other dirty S&*t just like the kid that hit Hunt from behind to the helmet.") who has a kid who is an absolute screw up ("I wish my son made as few mistakes as Hunt as I have a kid the same age" - Your description, not mine - I've never het him and thus pass no personal judgment.). That is a remarkably low bar.

 

[nzm136]

And stomping on a dudes unmasked face is a horrible comparison. I think Haynesworth should've been punished more than what he was for that. He threw a weak lefthanded punch that didn't even hurt the guy, I would've been unsurprised if the referees kept him in the game.

So basically, you only think battery matters when is doesn't suit your arbitrary and half-baked Mountain Dew-fueled agenda?

Our starting QB punched a guy on the field in front of TV cameras and 41k fans, and you are completely OK with that because "was barely anything."

Then, when another player strikes someone's head, you want to bring down fire and brimstone.

...and you think that's completely consistent? I don't you if your orange glasses are so thick you're blind, or if you're just stupid, but you're a special snowflake.

 

[Cuse'91]

For starters, you want to tort of battery (as opposed to the crime) as it has a lower standard and would thus be more beneficial to your argument. I guess you know that bYour half-baked argument breaks down because by virtue of playing football the other player consents to reasonably foreseeable physical contact (aka contact that both a reasonable person and the other player wouldn't deem offensive).

Straight sucker-punching a guy in the face isn't part of football. Nobody agrees to that risk by playing football, and such contact is reasonably offensive. It does not matter if it is on a football field, a parking lot, or anywhere else (other than a boxing ring). Location does not matter.

That said, contact that is part of the game (i.e. blocks, tackles, etc.) are reasonable foreseeable and non-offensive in the context of football.

Football hasn't risen to hockey status, yet...

 

[ClkWrkOrange]

I think that this is an interesting question. On one hand, there is no defense for his actions, and they were embarrassing to the school, the team, and himself. Furthermore, they were the epitome of unprofessional. On the other hand, it was a 6 inch punch to a guy's helmet after a questionably late hit. More violent things happen all the time in football. And, adding an interesting twist, he is vital to the team, and this is a very important stretch of the season. These are the very winnable games (i.e. as opposed to Clemson and FSU) and are vital towards gaining bowl eligibility for the 3rd straight year (4th in 5 years). Not only would that be eat for perception and fan experience, it would be fantastic for recruiting.

It's obvious that Hunt should be punished, but where should the line be drawn? What should the punishment be? Discuss.

He should be ejected for the rest of the Villanova game.

 

[sabach]

I think Terrell is a good kid who made a mistake in the heat of the moment. I think that he should be suspended for the next game. The issue is not deterrence. I am sure Terrell has already learned his lesson. SU should have higher standards than the minimum as I believe they do in other areas of the athletic program.

 

[CuseOnly]

For starters, you want to tort of battery (as opposed to the crime) as it has a lower standard and would thus be more beneficial to your argument. I guess you know that because I should "trust [you]" because you "know [the law]" (rolls eyes). The tort of battery consists of: "the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent."

Your half-baked argument breaks down because by virtue of playing football the other player consents to reasonably foreseeable physical contact (aka contact that both a reasonable person and the other player wouldn't deem offensive).

Straight sucker-punching a guy in the face isn't part of football. Nobody agrees to that risk by playing football, and such contact is reasonably offensive. It does not matter if it is on a football field, a parking lot, or anywhere else (other than a boxing ring). Location does not matter.

That said, contact that is part of the game (i.e. blocks, tackles, etc.) are reasonable foreseeable and non-offensive in the context of football.

Much like you clearly don't understand the judicial system or the country (well state in this case) in which you live, you also CLEARLY don't understand how the NCAA works. The NCAA establishes MINIMUM punishments with the understanding that conferences and schools can go above the MINIMUM. Hunt served the MINIMUM punishment. Punishing a player beyond the MINIMUM (I keep saying that because I'm not sure you understand the concept) is not only well within the rules, it is actively encouraged.

In summary, almost everything you wrote is wrong, and I only sound like a saint because you sound like a jerk with serious anger management problems ("I clocked a few guys for holding and a bunch of other dirty S&*t just like the kid that hit Hunt from behind to the helmet.") who has a kid who is an absolute screw up ("I wish my son made as few mistakes as Hunt as I have a kid the same age" - Your description, not mine - I've never het him and thus pass no personal judgment.). That is a remarkably low bar.

My initial argument was joking when I said you technically could charge everyone in football with battery, maybe you missed it. I was poking fun at your earlier post in this thread where YOU SAID HE COMMITTED BATTERY. Which is ridiculous using your same argument where you consent to contact on the football field. It is reasonable to assume that a kid could get hit in the face with a fist or other such body part on the football field whether intentional or not. Or under the pile have your fingers twisted, etc., etc.

And yes, by the virtue of playing football you consent to contact obviously. Again, you are proving my point about it making a difference where you do something, on the field or off it. YOU said that it didn't matter where something took place as I recall. It is also not likely that a kid on the football field is going to press charges because he got punched in the helmet and no injury took place.

If what he did took place off the field, arrest him (Delone Carter). But it didn't happen off the field and he served his penalty for what took place.

Where did I say that I "know the law"? Don't put words in my mouth and you don't know what state I live in. Your "rolls eyes" comment just shows how how above me you are. Tort vs. crime to prove a point on an internet thread, really?

Yes, the NCAA establishes what they feel are REASONABLE penalties for actions on the football field. YOU are saying that they are the minimum just because the league has the option to do more if they choose. Like a lot of fans on here, I think the punishment that he already served fits what he did.

What I can't believe is that you are I think a fan of SU football advocating that our starting QB be given what to me would be an unreasonable punishment. This is a difference of opinion that we will never agree on.

On a personal note, you don't know my son and calling him a screw up is completely out of line. EVERY kid makes mistakes and if you didn't when you were a kid, good for you. Terrel has not to my knowledge made many mistakes like this and you don't know what mistakes my son has made. You and your children must be perfect, I am fairly certain of this based on your attitude and statements.

"You sound like a saint and I sound like a jerk with anger management issues" - Um No, you sound like you are holier than thou, I am better than everyone guy that passes judgment on people you have never met along with name calling which I will not do.

That being said, I am done arguing with you.

 

[#FRANchise]

So basically, you only think battery matters when is doesn't suit your arbitrary and half-baked Mountain Dew-fueled agenda?

Our starting QB punched a guy on the field in front of TV cameras and 41k fans, and you are completely OK with that because "was barely anything."

Then, when another player strikes someone's head, you want to bring down fire and brimstone.

...and you think that's completely consistent? I don't you if your orange glasses are so thick you're blind, or if you're just stupid, but you're a special snowflake.

So if you we're playing a game of backyard football, and got in a confrontation with a friend while playing, resulting in said friend punching you in the jaw, would you want that person arrested for criminal battery? Would you want that person to be punished further than him not being able to play with your group for the rest of the afternoon?

 

[Halfmooncuse]

Thank God it wasn't a hay maker. Hitting a guy in the helmet with your fist Hunt could have been out a longer time with a broken hand. Not smart in so many ways.

 

[Pat Kelly]

So basically, you only think battery matters when is doesn't suit your arbitrary and half-baked Mountain Dew-fueled agenda?

Our starting QB punched a guy on the field in front of TV cameras and 41k fans, and you are completely OK with that because "was barely anything."

Then, when another player strikes someone's head, you want to bring down fire and brimstone.

...and you think that's completely consistent? I don't you if your orange glasses are so thick you're blind, or if you're just stupid, but you're a special snowflake.

Agenda? You really can't fix stupid dude... oh my god...