Mitchell 2-gamed suspended for dirty play

Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:35 am

what just because it looks bad you all are jumping on Mitchell give me a break. if edmonton did not clutch and hold and I think his arm should not have been there at all if he was following the rules. Mitchell just wanted to get rid of his illegal arm not intentionally trying to hurt him. If you don't think piling on a qb after he is down is intent to injure then you all need your head examined. 2 games is far too much since they never penalize anyone in the cfl. I hope he appeals and wins. this is a pr move by the league cause it was caught on national tv and they don't want to seem like the idiots they are.

leo

Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:51 am

Leothelion wrote:what just because it looks bad you all are jumping on Mitchell give me a break. if edmonton did not clutch and hold and I think his arm should not have been there at all if he was following the rules. Mitchell just wanted to get rid of his illegal arm not intentionally trying to hurt him. If you don't think piling on a qb after he is down is intent to injure then you all need your head examined. 2 games is far too much since they never penalize anyone in the cfl. I hope he appeals and wins. this is a pr move by the league cause it was caught on national tv and they don't want to seem like the idiots they are.

leo

A player just can't take the law into his own hands Ltl. The fact is that it was on TV and looked pretty brutal, and since the CFLPA was revised this off season, the length of a suspension has changed from the previous limit of one game. IMHO, he lis lucky to have received such a short suspension, given that the precedent at this point, isn't more than a 1 game, it would be hard to move that to a 9 game. Eventually this should happen when a player is attempting to injure another player, but that will take time to build to that level.

Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:36 am

Leothelion wrote:what just because it looks bad you all are jumping on Mitchell give me a break. if edmonton did not clutch and hold and I think his arm should not have been there at all if he was following the rules. Mitchell just wanted to get rid of his illegal arm not intentionally trying to hurt him. If you don't think piling on a qb after he is down is intent to injure then you all need your head examined. 2 games is far too much since they never penalize anyone in the cfl. I hope he appeals and wins. this is a pr move by the league cause it was caught on national tv and they don't want to seem like the idiots they are.

leo

Ridiculous statement.

Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:39 am

David wrote:For those dismissing the teeth of a 2 game suspension, they need to get their heads around the fact this is football and not hockey. It's only an 18 game season. That would be the equivalent of a 9 game NHL suspension, which is quite lengthy in anyone's books.

Interesting thoughts too from Rob Murphy:

Let me be clear on this... What Mitchell did was wrong..But it's frustrating when you get tackled and held every play cuz of lack of talent

My thoughts on the Kalif Mitchell suspension? He should appeal it... Eskie OL have been raping opposing DLs for years...

DH

David the length of the CFL season is irrelevant to the action Mitchell took. It seems that Rottier will miss at least one game and I have heard rumor he may miss the season.

We'll know soon enough how badly Rottier was injured. At the moment Mitchell's suspension is only one more game than what is known about Rottier.

Will your position change if the outcome for Rottier changes?

Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:45 am

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/foot ... story.html

Eskimos’ Rottier forgives and forgets Lions' Mitchell incident

Lions D-lineman wrenched O-lineman’s arm during Friday’s win

BY CHRIS O'LEARY, EDMONTONJOURNAL.COM JULY 23, 2012

EDMONTON - Ask Simeon Rottier about Khalif Mitchell and the Edmonton Eskimos offensive lineman says he’s moved on. Forgiven and forgotten. If only his elbow was as cooperative as his heart.

Rottier didn’t participate in Sunday’s Eskimos practice, but he was at least wearing his No. 65, biking on the sidelines with his left arm bandaged after having it violently yanked backwards by B.C. Lions defensive lineman Khalif Mitchell during the Eskimos’ 27-14 win on Friday.

The x-rays on his arm came back negative on Sunday. The Eskimos expect him to miss Thursday’s game against the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.

Almost 48 hours after the incident, Rottier and his teammates have seen the replays of the incident. Rottier spoke about the play, with fellow offensive lineman Kyle Koch not so subtly urging him to not comment on it.

“I think the film showed it’s pretty clear that it was intentional,” Rottier said, laughing at Koch’s efforts.

“From my point of view, I just feel like I need to forgive and move on and just not let this kind of incident take away from where (this season is) going and all of the good things that have happened. The league will take care of it and we’ll move on from there.”

But, Rottier was asked, isn’t it difficult to forgive and forget something like that?

“Well yeah,” he said. “I mean, I was pretty upset at the time, but I always felt, I was brought up as a Christian. The Lord forgave me of all of my sins and everything I did, so if you look at it like that, everyone needs to be forgiven.

“From my perspective, forgiven means letting go of the bitterness and … that’s going to try and bring me down. I don’t need that, so I’m just going to let it go.”

Letting the incident go seemed to be the theme for the Eskimos on Sunday. Receiver Shamawd Chambers had a front-row seat for the play, which took place in the final minute of the first half. The rookie said he didn’t see it happen, but heard a lot after the fact.

“I saw it on tape and it looks absolutely disgusting,” he said.

“(When it actually happened) I saw (Rottier) hit the ground. I heard (Mitchell) say, ‘That’s what you get. That’s what you get for trying to do that.’

“After that, I was confused because I thought maybe (Rottier) did something to him. It was a quick moment, but I didn’t get to see anything.”

Chambers could be seen talking with Mitchell later in the game, during a stoppage in play during the fourth quarter.

“He was just looking over to the sidelines, saying some stuff to our sidelines,” Chambers recalled. “I said, ‘The game’s over. I don’t know why you’re still saying stuff and dancing around.’

“I don’t know. To me, that’s kind of ridiculous, but that’s what they do. It’s different over there. They have a great team and I don’t think that’s right for what he did.”

On the Lions’ side, head coach Mike Benevides told the Vancouver Sun on Saturday that the team was looking into what had happened.

“I didn’t know exactly what occurred (at the time). We’ll look at it a little closer on the tape,” he said.

“There’s a certain way we want to conduct ourselves. There’s a certain way we want to play. Our players are clearly aware of that. We want our players to play to the edge and be aggressive. But we do not condone anything like that (Mitchell). I will not accept any selfish acts. We will not accept anarchy.”

PAGEBREAK
Eskimos head coach Kavis Reed said the matter was in the league’s hands now.

“It’s a matter that the league is going to handle and I trust that they’re very smart about it,” he said. “We have absolute confidence that the right thing’s going to come out of this.

“Again, I have to praise the B.C. Lions organization for how they’ve handled it as well. I’ve talked to coach Benevides and he’s been very forthcoming in terms of his sincerity about hoping the play didn’t happen, but you can’t control things like that. They happen and we just have to move forward.”

Lions defensive back Dante Marsh stood up for Mitchell on Saturday, telling the Sun that his teammate wasn’t a dirty player.

“I’m not defending him just because he’s my teammate,” he said. “But he’s not a dirty, malicious guy. But I’ve got to see it on film. I don’t believe what I heard. Edmonton’s as dirty as (expletive).”

Reed didn’t take offence to Marsh’s comment.

“In the heat of the moment, guys are going to make comments and my thing is that football is a very violent game and it’s a game where you really expect controlled violence,” he said. “Our football team is taught and asked to play football very aggressively, but asked to not bend and break the rules.”

With files from Mike Beamish, Vancouver Sun

Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:53 am

Blue In BC wrote:David the length of the CFL season is irrelevant to the action Mitchell took. It seems that Rottier will miss at least one game and I have heard rumor he may miss the season. We'll know soon enough how badly Rottier was injured. At the moment Mitchell's suspension is only one more game than what is known about Rottier. Will your position change if the outcome for Rottier changes?

You're incorrectly inferring that I somehow condone or sanction Khalif's actions. I don't. I am merely pointing out to those that say, "pffft, 2 games. What's that?!?" that 2 games in relation to a football season (and not a hockey season which seems to be everyone's frame of reference in this country) is not insignificant.

While I sympathize with the injured party, I am not one to say a suspension must match the length of injury. It's just not practical. The aggrieved party can just keep their man out longer if he's a weaker player.

DH

Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:17 pm

David wrote:
Blue In BC wrote:David the length of the CFL season is irrelevant to the action Mitchell took. It seems that Rottier will miss at least one game and I have heard rumor he may miss the season. We'll know soon enough how badly Rottier was injured. At the moment Mitchell's suspension is only one more game than what is known about Rottier. Will your position change if the outcome for Rottier changes?

You're incorrectly inferring that I somehow condone or sanction Khalif's actions. I don't. I am merely pointing out to those that say, "pffft, 2 games. What's that?!?" that 2 games in relation to a football season (and not a hockey season which seems to be everyone's frame of reference in this country) is not insignificant.

While I sympathize with the injured party, I am not one to say a suspension must match the length of injury. It's just not practical. The aggrieved party can just keep their man out longer if he's a weaker player.

DH

Just wanted to jump in here and say I agree with David here. It's a dangerous path to take when we start lining up suspensions in any sport along with the length of an injury. David listed one very valid reason and I'll also list that not every man is the same with regards to health and what may have one man out indefinitely might only be a good ol' fashioned "bell rung" play with another. Why should the aggressor of the "bell rung" play get off if the action was just as harsh as the aggressor of the play that knocked a player out indefinitely? Yep, it isn't practical at all.

Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:41 pm

Mitchell and the CFLPA are appealing the suspension and the hearing will not be held until Aug 6th, so he will be at the next 2 games. Personally I hope it is reduced.

What I can not understand is why the appeal will take so long to be heard.

Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:49 pm

xon100 wrote:Mitchell and the CFLPA are appealing the suspension and the hearing will not be held until Aug 6th, so he will be at the next 2 games. Personally I hope it is reduced.

What I can not understand is why the appeal will take so long to be heard.

http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=401345

BC Lions defensive lineman Khalif Mitchell will appeal his two-game suspension for hyperextending the arm of Eskimos offensive lineman Simeon Rottier last Friday.

The league announced the appeal won't take place until the week of August 6, and that they've agreed to stay the suspension until the conclusion of the appeal, meaning Mitchell is eligible to play until the appeal decision is announced.

Mitchell will be able to suit up for the Lions' next two games - July 28 at Calgary and August 6 in Toronto.

The league originally announced the disciplinary action Monday evening after CFL commissioner Mark Cohon held a hearing via telephone with Mitchell and a representative of the CFL Players' Association.

In a team release, the Lions said they would respect the appeal process with the league.

"The BC Lions Football Club will respect the suspension appeal process between the CFL Players Association (CFLPA), Khalif Mitchell and the Canadian Football League and there will be no further comment from players, coaches or club personnel until the prescribed process described by the CFL has been carried out."

Not so sure that the appeal is a benefit for the Lions if they don't get the suspension reduced, but given the success of the league applying the suspensions in recent history, I can see this being the process for Mitchell.

Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:54 pm

I think anybody that thinks he knows Mitchell intent is just fooling themselves. my comments are true. i guess the truth hurts too much to some of you people. what i can not understand how you all can call yourselves lions fans yet criticize the team and its players. Real team fans support their team through thick and thin and don't jump to conclusions. Mark my words. Mitchell suspension will be reduced and maybe to nothing.
leo

Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:11 pm

Leothelion wrote:I think anybody that thinks he knows Mitchell intent is just fooling themselves. my comments are true. i guess the truth hurts too much to some of you people. what i can not understand how you all can call yourselves lions fans yet criticize the team and its players. Real team fans support their team through thick and thin and don't jump to conclusions. Mark my words. Mitchell suspension will be reduced and maybe to nothing.
leo

Oh great, the 'real fan' comment. Well, I guess you are right. I a real CFL fan and the Lions are my favourite team. But if you KNOW I am not a real fan, I guess I better stop renewing the season tickets I've had for years. I get letters from the club thanking me for my support. I guess I'll keep my BC LIons tickets because it means a heck of a lot more to me that they think I'm a "REAL FAN" than you do....

I don't claim to to know Mitchell's intent. I do find the behaviour disgusting. Doug Brown's perspective helps a bit, I like what he had to say. I still think Mitchell deserves a suspension and I'm going to happily cheer Mitchell on once this is behind him regardless of his appeal. I don't hate Mitchell, I hate what he did......

Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:39 pm

jcalhoun wrote:
The Saints' linebacker Jonathan Vilma is currently suing NFL commissioner Roger Goodell for defamation (a form of libel).

It's actually the other way around James.

Libel is a form of defamation. Defamation is the general term, libel the specific. Libel would refer to a form of defamation that is written. Slander is a form of defamation that is spoken.

Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:00 pm

David wrote:
Blue In BC wrote:David the length of the CFL season is irrelevant to the action Mitchell took. It seems that Rottier will miss at least one game and I have heard rumor he may miss the season. We'll know soon enough how badly Rottier was injured. At the moment Mitchell's suspension is only one more game than what is known about Rottier. Will your position change if the outcome for Rottier changes?

You're incorrectly inferring that I somehow condone or sanction Khalif's actions. I don't. I am merely pointing out to those that say, "pffft, 2 games. What's that?!?" that 2 games in relation to a football season (and not a hockey season which seems to be everyone's frame of reference in this country) is not insignificant.

While I sympathize with the injured party, I am not one to say a suspension must match the length of injury. It's just not practical. The aggrieved party can just keep their man out longer if he's a weaker player.

DH

David. I don't believe you were trying to condone sanction his actions. Players get injured all the time caused by football plays / hits.

This was not a typical type of situation nor a football play caused injury. Regrettably Mitchell went out of his way to do what he did. In a situation such as this I do believe the penalty should be linked to the actual damage. Some posters are waffling on whether he had intent to injure.

While I agree this was somewhat out of character, it seemed about as clear to the definition of intent as I have seen in years of watching football.

Reading on Bluebombers.com I was reminded that Mitchell was the player that hit one of our OL in a " private area" as a retaliation previously and was ejected from that game.

Two separate issues like that have to be at least a concern. Mitchell appealing the suspension suggests he feels he has done no wrong. That just bad for the league.

Before somebody says I can't read his mind, they're correct. How else would you interpret that action though.

Mitchell 2-gamed suspended for dirty play

Login • Register