When you give three different people the same punishment for three different crimes, you’re bound to open yourself up to criticism.
The NFL is finding that out the hard way this week. A day after the league suspended New England Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski one game for a late hit on Buffalo Bills cornerback Tre’Davious White, Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver JuJu Smith-Schuster and Cincinnati Bengals safety George Iloka learned they also were suspended one game for their violent hits Monday night.
So, was each suspension justified? All three plays were similar in nature — crushing hits to the head or neck area that could have (or did) result in serious injury — but different in circumstance, intent and execution.
But a quick scroll through Twitter on Tuesday revealed a common theme: Many current and former NFL players thought Gronkowski’s hit was worse than Smith-Schuster’s.
Steelers safety Mike Mitchell, who unsurprisingly came to the defense of his teammate:
Former NFL linebacker London Fletcher:
Ex-offensive lineman Geoff Schwartz:
Former running back DeAngelo Williams, another ex-Steeler:
As Williams points out, many current and former NFL players believe Smith-Schuster and Iloka shouldn’t have been suspended at all — Mitchell among them.
Not everyone piled on Gronkowski, though, as Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald insisted the tight end shouldn’t have been suspended. But this latest flurry of discipline — and subsequent reaction — only will put the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell in a more intense spotlight.
