A Florida fan who takes what Spikes did seriously
I'm a Florida graduate and fan who often reads and enjoys the various SEC blogs around here. I haven't posted before but feel compelled to now, mainly because parts of the Florida assessment of the Spikes situation are embarrassing. I cross-posted to the 3 blogs where I thought it was applicable, I apologize if that isn’t supposed to be done and feel free to remove if that’s the case.
Unlike what mlmintampa says, I believe it most definitely IS Meyer’s responsibility to suspend someone for something like this. This is not a chop block or a facemask in the middle of a full speed play, this is digging at someone’s eyeballs. Everyone needs to stop trying to rationalize and downplay this. And the result of the action, whether or not Ealey actually got hurt, doesn’t change the action itself and means absolutely nothing here.
I understand both Tebow and Spikes had their eyes poked badly during the game and had to be treated. I understand Ealey took a cheap shot at Ahmad Black’s neck. I understand Georgia did this and Georgia did that. I understand this stuff "happens all the time." I understand that if this had happened the exact same way, with the exact same camera work, in the East Carolina Memphis game on Tuesday, we probably would have never heard about it. None of that makes it the least bit excusable.
I don't care if it "happens all the time," never gets caught, and always goes unpunished (which I believe it more or less does). Fact is, it did get caught this time and needs to be firmly punished, because one day it may result in someone having a life-altering injury. Being #1 in this day and age means you are constantly in the spotlight. It also means many people hate you, even more than they otherwise do (if they otherwise do), even if they only reason you give them is winning football games. They will look for, and find, anything you do like this and blow it up. You are held to a higher standard, and you should WANT to be held to a higher standard. And just like people use you as an example with regards to all the things you do so well, you should expect to have an example made of you when you engage in a behavior, common or not, that needs to stop.
The CBS broadcast does not show beyond a shadow of a doubt anything Georgia did that was quite this egregious (of course with the focus towards the ball at the end of the play, the usual almost immediate cut-away from the big picture in between plays, etc., it definitely doesn’t prove that something this bad didn’t happen the other way either). If UGA players really were intentionally trying to cause serious harm to you or your teammates, you should stand up for yourself and your brothers, and do it well. But there are ways that you can very firmly stand up for yourself without trying to cause serious harm in return. “Butbutbutbut they did it first!!!” is not an excuse for doing it yourself, whether or not they did. And Georgia’s lineman would not be a terrible teammate if they didn’t “put a helmet into Spikes knee” in return, they’d be a terrible and dirty sportsman. Again, stand up for yourself and your teammates the right way.
So you think Georgia players have been acting more than a little cheap and dirty lately. Fine, let them act that way. Think about the 41-17 scoreboard, the 17-3 record the past 20 years, and how pathetic it is that they are now resorting to uniform gimmicks and other nonsense in a hopeless attempt to gain some traction in this “rivalry.”
I put “rivalry” in quotes because . . . well its 17-3 in the past 20 years for goodness sakes! Georgia is 17-3 against Vanderbilt in the past 20 years. They are 17-3 against Kentucky in the past 20 years. Does Georgia consider Vanderbilt an arch rival? Does it consider Kentucky a vaunted nemesis? Of course they don’t.
If Georgia players are really gouging you and your teammates in the eye, if Ealey really spit in your face, whatever it is, just smile and remember that he might as well be playing for Kentucky or Vandy, if that’s what it takes to calm down. You, and the football program you joined, have (has) proven yourself (itself) far better than him and the football program he joined, and you should be better than him in how you conduct yourself between plays and off the field as well. There is no need to come down to his level and act like a thug just because you think he is acting like a thug. And that message should have been sent by Meyer with at least a full game suspension.
Although Spikes has participated in his fair share of foolery (see 2008, the punt vs. LSU, the bit of extra-curricular activity with Moreno, etc.), this is a first-time offense for this sort of far more serious act, and he is not “Junior-Rosecrans dirty”. Trust me, if stuff this bad had happened before, it also would have been all over youtube, with the same calls for the electric chair from the more dramatic of the Florida haters. I also understand it was in the heat of the moment and wasn’t an isolated incident, and you have to evaluate in context and with provocation in mind, whether or not the provocation was the same act of eye gouging or was spitting, trash-talking, or whatever. I’m sure the film (not the CBS broadcast) that Slive and Meyer have paint more of the provocation picture, or lack thereof, than we’ll be allowed to see.
22-year old kids do some dumb *&#$. With the first-time nature and context in mind, I would be personally satisfied with a full game suspension, harsh internal punishment (I know someone who works in the athletic department and has seen it, you don’t want any of Meyer’s private internal punishments, trust me), and an ultimatum that another such incident results in immediate removal from the team, because this type of behavior doesn’t reflect who we want to be. I’d feel the same way if it was Spikes or Sorrentino.
If someone wants to argue for 2 or 3 games, we can amicably agree to disagree. If someone wants to argue for less than a full game for something of this nature, or for something extreme like removal from the team, considering the context, I won’t agree to disagree with you, I think you are wrong. And I think Meyer is wrong here, no matter what prior provocation he saw on the game tape. This is just a little too serious of an act for a slap on the wrist.
0 recs |
50 comments
Comments
A rational, reasonable response.
I would not have thought it possible to receive such a thing from a Gator fan. My compliments, negativeEV.

by vineyarddawg on Nov 2, 2009 6:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
is it possible
to not insult all Gator fans in your some what compliment. Gator fans are just like every other ncaa football fan, I am so sick of every fan thinking they are different.
by Hook85 on Nov 6, 2009 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Go back and read the posting in response to which vineyarddawg was commenting
There are some backhanded jabs at us in there, as well.
It’s all part of the game. Don’t take it personally.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Nov 7, 2009 8:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is is possible...
… but not necessary. Have I previously mentioned how I feel about Florida? (I hate Florida.)
Seriously, though, don’t take it personally, Hook85. The rivalry between our two schools is an institutional one, not a personal one, and I hold no personal animosity towards any Gator fans I know (or, for that matter, towards any Gator fan or coach, no matter how much I may lambast their them on the blog).
As Kyle says, good-natured ribbing is part of the rivalry. It’s no different than a Gator fan saying on his blog, “I thought all Georgia fans were ignorant hicks who wanted nothing more than to get big tires on their pickup trucks, but you have proven me wrong, Vineyarddawg. My compliments.” I wouldn’t take personal offense to that. In fact, I would take it as it was intended… a compliment.
by vineyarddawg on Nov 7, 2009 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well said
I hope we can do our part to convince you that it is, in fact, a rivalry. I’m sure many Georgia fans thought the same thing after our 15-4 run from 1971 to 1989.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Nov 2, 2009 7:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
All I could think was "wow" and thank you
this is the kind of stuff we both expect, and love, to see around here. I tip my hat to you.
by tankertoad on Nov 2, 2009 11:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well said.
It is rather unfortunate that you have to distinguish yourself from other Gator fans this way, but thank you.
My impression of Spikes (and this was true before the game) is that he was a thug long before anyone on the Georgia team provoked him and he will be a thug at the next level. Only there he will be surrounded by many many more.
You analogy that this is not truly a “rivalry” from Florida’s point of view is understandable. I mean, Mark had a right to be upset when his players danced on the Vandy V. Vandy? Come on.
My feelings are that it’s the 2007 celebration that the UF players feel intense about, not the prospect of losing to Georgia.
Good luck in the championship game. I am sure Mark Ingram will be wearing a face shield.
GO DAWGS.
by Lakepoets on Nov 3, 2009 8:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
The consequence that is ignored by those (not just Gator fans, by the way) who just want to say, “This kind of thing happens all the time” or “He was just retaliating for something that happened earlier” is this: When you see something like this happen and you don’t take action against it, you are effectively condoning it regardless of how strong your words against it are.
I teach high school English. 95% of the students in my classes have cell phones, which are not allowed in the school. Some of them use them for cheating on tests. I know this and the students know this. It happens quite often. If I catch someone doing so and don’t punish them, however, I am sending the message that such action is not that big a deal. And the behavior will continue, if not get worse.
By the way, I also saw the Florida player’s helmet get ripped off and the late hit on Tebow that didn’t get called (amazingly). I was ashamed of both.
Will
by wqueenjr on Nov 3, 2009 10:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well rats!
Now we know there’s an English teacher on the board, some of us will have to clean up our act! (joking, well mostly.)
by podunkdawg on Nov 3, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's also the fact to consider
that Ealey didn’t get his eyes poked at all. But don’t let that get in the way of your outrage.
Ealey said Spikes didn’t get to his eyes. “I had my eyes closed,” Ealey said. “He really didn’t gouge my eyes. …I was just trying to get up as fast as I can.” Ealey even posted an update on his Facebook page to let friends know that he was fine. “I just said that my eyes were OK,” He said .“It was 20-20. He didn’t really get my hands close to my eyes.”
by wangalusa on Nov 3, 2009 5:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Right…so if one of our players had tried to gouge Tebow’s eyes, you wouldn’t be at all opposed to one of us coming to your blog and saying the same thing? Tell us honestly.
"When life gives you lemons, just say 'F*ck the lemons,' and bail."
by Bravely going forward on Nov 3, 2009 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, "wangalusa" is not someone you should waste your time on, as evidenced by his comments here
http://www.alligatorarmy.com/2009/11/2/1111788/a-florida-fan-who-takes-what
This goes waaay to far: “God man I hope YOU don’t have kids, because when they’re old enough to think for themselves they’ll realize what an insufferable prick you are and you’ll die alone in a home somewhere.”
Geez…
"When life gives you lemons, just say 'F*ck the lemons,' and bail."
by Bravely going forward on Nov 3, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, that goes double for you, buddy.
by wangalusa on Nov 3, 2009 8:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
;)
"When life gives you lemons, just say 'F*ck the lemons,' and bail."
by Bravely going forward on Nov 3, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In other words
Mr. Spikes should be charged with aggravated assault, but not battery? He clearly intended to eye gouge. Ealey wears a face shield or visor. Do you think that MIGHT be why Mr. Spikes did not succeed?
by Lakepoets on Nov 3, 2009 5:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
The fact that Ealey had his eyes closed does not provide cover to Spikes. If you shoot me in the chest and I survive because I was wearing a bulletproof vest, it doesn’t mean you weren’t trying to kill me.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Nov 3, 2009 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But there's no evidence whatever
that Spikes was actually trying to gouge Ealey’s eyes. That’s the point.
by wangalusa on Nov 3, 2009 8:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
Because sticking your fingers inside an opposing player’s facemask and rooting around in the vicinity of his eyes is explicable . . . how else, exactly?
By the way, Spikes said the following: “I accept responsibility for my actions and I accept the consequences of my actions. I would like to apologize to my team and the coaching staff and Washaun Ealey. Football is a very physical and emotional game, but there is no excuse for my actions.” Apparently, he thinks he did something inexcusable.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Nov 3, 2009 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, right!
There is no more evidence that Spikes was trying to gouge Ealey’s eyes, blind him, cause permanent injury, etc., than there is that he was administering a hockey-style “face wash” or, as has been speculated elsewhere, wiping Ealey’s spit back on his own face.
Spikes apologized for his actions, and I don’t blame him after the hissy fit kicked up by a digital lynch mob concerned with seeing only what they want to—he really didn’t have a choice.
I still maintain that while sticking your hand in an opponent’s face mask isn’t a good idea, and his suspension was warranted (I’d have been OK with a full game), Spikes’ act on Saturday was neither remarkable nor particularly heinous.
There just isn’t anything out there to make me think that’s true (in fact, I’d argue that in view of Ealey’s lack of reaction to the play, the fact he wasn’t injured at all, and his comments linked above, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to NO eye gouge), and there certainly isn’t anything to justify all the purple-faced righteous indignation from rival fans interested in getting in any shot they can at the Gators, as has been the case all year.
by wangalusa on Nov 3, 2009 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
My better judgement tells me not to continue posting...
… but I guess I’m not having a good “judgement week.”
After wangalusa’s comments, I would normally just post

and be done with it.
It seems clear, however, that Mr. lusa is, surprisingly, not a troll. Bravely Going Forward posted a link to the Alligator Army thread, but I feel compelled to post some quotes here.
negativeEV appears to have posted the same rant on Brandon Spikes’ indiscretion on both Dawg Sports and Alligator Army blogs. The following replies are pasted directly from the Alligator Army entry.
(…)
I gave up pretending to care about "class" or "standards" a while ago. Winning makes me happy. Seeing a UF player poke an UGA player in the eye does not make me happy, but it doesn’t make me upset either. So, and this is just my personal feelings, winning is at least 1000x as important as playing with "sportsmanship" or "class" or anything like that. I just don’t care. I don’t want to see us turn into 1980s Miami, but if that’s the cost of ruling college football, so be it. I don’t care what any UGA fan cares about anything, and I don’t care what the national perception is. Scoreboard, scoreboard, scoreboard. It’s all there is. -by Giant Catfish
Also, and this is just a guess…
but I bet many fans, Gator or otherwise, feel the same way I do, they just don’t want to admit to it. I understand that. I pretended to care for many years. So, UF rivals, dance on the field, do the Gator chomp, go crazy. It’ll probably upset in the moment, but I won’t remember that feeling a year later. I will remember the score, though. -by Giant Catfish
I feel exactly the same way
Especially when you consider that arguments about "class" and "sportsmanship" are often just ways for losers to make themselves feel better about their failings. -by wangalusa
I would like to be able to say that I don’t think Giant Catfish’s comments reflect the positions of most Florida fans in general. I would like to be able to say that… but I can’t. That wangalusa shares his position simply proves that he’s supporting the wrong team.
by vineyarddawg on Nov 3, 2009 9:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I stand by that quote.
Antiquated ideas like “class,” “standards” and even “sportsmanship” are nothing more than tools—words with no real meaning that are used as weapons when someone doesn’t like what someone else is doing.
Winning matters. It’s the only objective measure of success.
by wangalusa on Nov 3, 2009 9:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"It's the only objective measure of success"
However, winning is only an objective measure of success when it is done by following the rules of the game. When you win by breaking the rules, you have lost all the objectiveness, and forfeited your “win.”
by podunkdawg on Nov 3, 2009 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok
so i agree class and sportsmanship are good things. no one wants to lose their life or livelihood from playing a game. but in response to podunkdawg, spikes’ actions had nothing to do with the outcome of the game, and therefore should be looked at in the correct and proper light. a cheap shot taken by a man in a high emotional state against a person that felt no effects of that action. while some on here equate what spikes did to “shooting someone with a bullet proof vest on” i can hardly make that connection. ealey stated that he never even felt the finger on his face, and im guessing that wasnt because spikes couldnt get them in there. im guessing spikes did something in the heat of the moment (as bad as it was) and probably realized the consequences of that action if he were to continue to attempt it. in other words i really dont think spikes had any intent to blind or severely hurt washaun. i think he did it cuz he was pissed and he felt it had been done to him, so he did it to piss off washaun (which turns out it didnt even accomplish that). to think that a player such as spikes (one that has played football his entire life) would create the intent to severely injure another person over a game that wasnt even turning out to be that hard of a battle, is a little bit irrational. thats like saying that whoever gouged spikes (allegedly) intended to permanently damage him (which i would not believe for a second) or that one player who leveled tebow intended to permanently damage him (which again i would never believe). outside of rodney harrison i dont think there are football players out there playing on a high level that would ever want to permanently injure another player. so yes, this guy can sit on his soap box and seem to be the higher person, but most gator fans (myself included as well as wang and catfish i assume) agree that what spikes did was wrong, we just dont think he deserves the severe outcry he is receiving. i would think that most football players would echo that sentiment. things happen in football, and although that doesnt explain away what spikes did, it also should give many the perspective that what spikes did is not out of the ordinary on any given saturday.
Buffalo, that's where it's at baby. - Adam 'Pacman' Jones
by silverstreak3k on Nov 4, 2009 12:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently, your head coach disagrees
By the way, I didn’t equate what Spikes did with shooting someone. I was using an analogy.
Also, I’d go back and re-read wangalusa’s comments if I were you . . . I don’t think he agrees with you that Spikes did a thing in the world that was the least bit wrong.
All that said, I appreciate the effort at reasonableness.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Nov 4, 2009 7:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
With respect, Kyle,
that’s not what I said:
I still maintain that while sticking your hand in an opponent’s face mask isn’t a good idea, and his suspension was warranted (I’d have been OK with a full game), Spikes’ act on Saturday was neither remarkable nor particularly heinous.
Wrong? Yes. OMG THE WORST OFFENSE EVER COMMITTED ON A FOOTBALL FIELD? No.
by wangalusa on Nov 4, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My comment is not related
to what spikes or any other player did in this game or any other. It is specifically rebutting the comments above it from wangalusa. His statement sounded an awful lot like “win at all costs and who cares about the rules, because winning is the only objective measure of success.”
I know I’m not alone in thinking that if you break all the rules in order to win the game, you’ve lost all the objectivity and so you just don’t get to call that winning.
by podunkdawg on Nov 4, 2009 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a difference
between arbitrary, vague notions of “class” and “sportsmanship” and the clearly defined rules of the game. I can’t think of a single instance of Florida winning a game due to violating the latter, but I’m sure rival fans can point out dozens of examples of perceived offenses against the former.
If you read Giant Catfish’s argument carefully, he’s not arguing for winning by cheating, he’s arguing for just winning, and not worrying about whether others think you’re doing it “the right way,” whatever that means.
That’s the point: rules are rules, but “class” is in the eye of the beholder.
by wangalusa on Nov 4, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Arbitrary & vague notions
yet there is a game rule against “unsportsmanlike conduct” and one we have all argued needs to be more clearly defined in the rules, and more consistently applied by the refs. So apparently “sportsmanship” is part of the rules isn’t it?
by podunkdawg on Nov 4, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's not.
The idea of “sportsmanship” only exists in any meaningful form in the rules which attempt to formalize it.There is a list of specific actions that are prohibited. That’s not the same as the idea of “sportsmanship.”
It’s an important difference.
by wangalusa on Nov 4, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So am I to understand
that your position is you don’t care how your team wins as long as they play by the established rules? This is a very different statement than “win at all costs, who cares about the rules.”
As I said above, “my comment is not related to what spikes or any other player did in this game or any other. It is specifically rebutting the comments above it from wangalusa. His statement sounded an awful lot like ‘win at all costs and who cares about the rules, because winning is the only objective measure of success.’”
If that is not your position, then fine, there is no debate. I interpreted your comments as stated and perhaps that was a misinterpretation on my part.
by podunkdawg on Nov 4, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
I never said “win at all costs, who cares about the rules.” Rules are rules. They exist in a codified, black-and-white form that everyone has agreed to abide by. I think they should be followed.
Ideas like “sportsmanship” and “class,” on the other hand, don’t really mean anything concrete, so I don’t get upset when someone is accused of not adhering to the offended party’s idea of what they mean.
by wangalusa on Nov 4, 2009 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is an important difference . . .
. . . but not one the rules make in the manner you suggest.
Rule 9-1 (“Conduct of Players and Others Subject to Rules”), Section 2 (“Unsportsmanlike Conduct Fouls”), contains the following language in Article 1:
There shall be no unsportsmanlike conduct or any act that interferes with orderly game administration on the part of players, substitutes, coaches, authorized attendants or any other persons subject to the rules, before the game, during the game or between periods.
Under Article 1, a subpart states that “[s]pecifically prohibited acts and conduct include” certain enumerated actions, with respect to which Paragraph 1 under that subpart states (with emphasis added):
No player, substitute, coach or other person subject to the rules shall use abusive, threatening or obscene language or gestures, or engage in such acts that provoke ill will or are demeaning to an opponent, to game officials or to the image of the game, including but not limited to:
A list of eight instances of prohibited conduct follows, but, as the concluding clause indicates, these are provided for clarification and do not represent an exhaustive list.
You are simply mistaken when you attempt to limit the unsportsmanlike conduct rule to “a list of specific actions.” It is that, but, by its own terms, it is not just that. When the list of specific actions is expressly prefaced by the statement that it “includ[es] but [is] not limited to” that list, the only reasonable interpretation is that it is not limited to the items included on that list.
The rule itself states unequivocally that “[t]here shall be no unsportsmanlike conduct” and defines “unsportsmanlike conduct” as including “acts that provoke ill will or are demeaning to . . . the image of the game.” This comment thread, and the defenses of Brandon Spikes’s action on the grounds that Saturday’s game was “chippy,” prove that Spikes committed an “act[] that provoke[d] ill will.” If that standard did not call for an exercise of judgment, though, the prohibition against conduct “demeaning to . . . the image of the game” certainly leaves room for interpretation.
(Paragraph 2 of that provision, incidentally, deals with prohibited actions by the player in possession of the ball at the end of a play, forbidding, inter alia, “[a]ny other unsportsmanlike act or actions that delay the game.” Once again, this clearly is a matter of interpretation, and the word being interpreted once again is “sportsmanship.”)
Reasonable fans may disagree over what constitutes unsportsmanlike conduct, and an argument certainly may be made for the proposition that this rule is flawed precisely because it is not limited to enumerated instances of conduct. Whether the rule ought to be what you say it is, though, is a separate conversation; for good or ill, the rule is not what you claim it to be, and the rule itself presupposes that the idea of “sportsmanship” exists in a meaningful form even outside the rules that attempt to formalize it.
As Potter Stewart might have put it, I can’t define sportsmanship, but I know it when I see it. When I read your comments, wangalusa, I don’t see it.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Nov 4, 2009 8:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Two separate things, here.
As you note, the rules prohibit specific actions, and all other actions that, by satisfying specific criteria, fall into the category of "unsportsmanlike conduct." This is by no means the same as a narrow definition of "sportsmanship," which is a far more nebulous concept.
Potter Stewart actually kind of gets at the argument I’m trying to make here. His line immediately preceding the one you quote is: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so." This is because, like "obscenity," "sportsmanship" is not something that has a single, useful, concrete definition.
You’re right that the rules do presuppose the existence of an idea of "sportsmanship," but they do not attempt to define it. Could this be because such a definition is either a) non-existent, or b) irrelevant?
by wangalusa on Nov 4, 2009 10:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i hereby defer
and bow to the amazingness of Kyle and his legal argument. This is why Kyle went to law school and I didn’t, well that and lots & lots of $$$$.
by podunkdawg on Nov 4, 2009 10:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is their prerogative
If they want to be classless and unsportsmanlike in their endeavor to win, we can’t fault them for that. We can hate them for that however. We now simply know who we’re dealing with. If we go to Lincoln to play Nebraska, we’ll know we’re dealing with the most classy fans in college football. If we go to Jacksonville to play Florida (or any other team goes to Gainesville), we’ll know we’re dealing with the most classless fans in college football. They’ve decided to let class and sportsmanship take a back seat to winning (or no seat at all). And they’ve accomplished that. Congratulations; you’re great and an ass. I personally am not impressed by that. Florida fans obviously don’t care what we’re impressed by. Again their prerogative to do so. And their true colors shine.
by marktheshark on Nov 4, 2009 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair point
I would avoid casting the net too broadly—-skigator93 has never been anything but classy on his visits here; Year2 likewise conducts himself in a respectable manner; Gatorpilot generally behaves in a manner with which I cannot find fault, although we have our strong differences of opinion upon some points; etc.—-but you’re certainly right about those who have attempted to defend actions that the perpetrator himself acknowledged expressly were inexcusable.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Nov 4, 2009 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
did
anyone else Spikes headbutt Ealey at the start of the game? Just some food for thought in terms of context. Whether he got a hold of Ealey’s eyes or not, whether Ealey or other Dawgs say they aren’t mad, doesn’t matter. If Spikes feels that he had to “retaliate” in this particular way, then that makes him even less of a man. But either way, he purposefully intended to injure another player. That’s called dirty, it is childish and has remotely nothing to do with winning.
Yes, that is my son. Yes, that is a bottle of Crown.
by BCDawg97 on Nov 4, 2009 8:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
"purposefully intended to injure another player"
Did you even read Ealey’s comments on this? Its pretty clear from what he said that Spikes’ intent wasn’t to purposefully injure. Things got a little heated in a football game. Spikes apologized. Ealey cleared him. That should be the signal for people to put the pitchforks down.
by falcontom on Nov 4, 2009 9:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
I read the comments. And that’s fine if Ealey cleared him. But that’s called Ealey taking the high road, something Spikes wasn’t able to do. Spikes is a good enough player to let his play do the talking (like say, I don’t know, maybe a pick-6).
But be honest, what exactly was Spikes’ intent then? What, he was rooting around in Ealey’s helmet to help him get something out of his eye? “Oh, excuse me sir, I see an eyelash in there. Please let me help you get that out.” Oh I now, he dropped his NC championship ring and saw it go into Ealey’s helmet and didn’t want to lose it. Please…
I’ve put my pitchfork down, but you guys have to take off the orange/blue glasses
Yes, that is my son. Yes, that is a bottle of Crown.
by BCDawg97 on Nov 4, 2009 10:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
This is exhausting.
I need a nap. ;-)
Will
by wqueenjr on Nov 4, 2009 3:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
lol…priceless
"When life gives you lemons, just say 'F*ck the lemons,' and bail."
by Bravely going forward on Nov 5, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
here's the sad part:
“She earned a master’s degree in 1971 and an educational specialist degree from the University of Florida in 1974.”
by podunkdawg on Nov 6, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well as this thread started with Spikes actions
as it turns out the SEC stepped in and suspended him for a game. And the old ball Corch was fined 30 bills for running his mouth.
by tankertoad on Nov 7, 2009 7:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
correction
it seems Spikes suspended himself. so, UF spun this into a PR stunt.
by tankertoad on Nov 7, 2009 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I give the guy credit
At the end of the day, he sat out a game, which probably was a reasonable punishment, and he sat himself voluntarily, which at least looks like contrition. As for the fine, it was a late hit. It wasn’t vicious, it wasn’t sneaky, he didn’t blindside the quarterback, it wasn’t helmet-to-helmet, it wasn’t done with intent to injure, and it was marginal whether you would even call it a cheap shot . . . but it was, nevertheless, a late hit, which should have been flagged. If the league wants to toughen up penalties against coaches who make outlandish statements like the ones the Tennessee coaches made after the Volunteers’ loss to Alabama, that’s fine, but Urban Meyer shouldn’t be fined (and Bobby Petrino shouldn’t be reprimanded) for saying the officials blew the call when replays clearly show they’re right. Truth should be an absolute defense.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Nov 7, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 









