HoosierCat Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 from Goheen at The Post...Bengals defensive end Frostee Rucker accepted a plea bargain to one count of false imprisonment and one count of vandalism Thursday in Los Angeles stemming from an incident with an ex-girlfriend while he was in college at Southern California. The plea deal included the dropping of a charge of spousal battery and Rucker will not face any jail time as long as he adheres to the conditions of the plea bargain.As part of the plea agreement Rucker has been placed on 36 months of summary probation. He must also undergo one year of domestic violence counseling and perform 750 hours of community labor.One less problem...as long as Rucker keeps his nose clean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 He pled guilty, so I suspect we'll see at least a one game suspension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalsfansince68 Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Great knowledge of the facts TJ.Frostee's incident occurred in college, therefore it has nothing to do with the NFL. There will not be a suspension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 He pled guilty, so I suspect we'll see at least a one game suspension.Oh no. Not a 1-game suspension! He's the heart and soul of this defense!I'm not sure if there will be a suspension or not... but either way - I'm not worried (as I'm sure you're not either there TJ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 No, not really.I'll stand by my prediction of the 1 game suspension, which, uhhh....players who are cut and aren't signed by another team don't serve suspensions , right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 I don't get your point, TJ. The question is: can the NFL suspend him for something that happened in college? I don't know. I don't think so. If they can, that doesn't seem right, but, hey, in the NFL's rush to be the new moral majority, perhaps they can. Seems to me, since he has kept his nose clean since being drafted, that is what would matter. At any rate, assuming health, I am looking forward to seeing him at camp... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Great knowledge of the facts TJ.Frostee's incident occurred in college, therefore it has nothing to do with the NFL. There will not be a suspension.Roger Goodell doesn't care about logic or special circumstance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Bengals_Fan Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 from Goheen at The Post...Bengals defensive end Frostee Rucker accepted a plea bargain to one count of false imprisonment and one count of vandalism Thursday in Los Angeles stemming from an incident with an ex-girlfriend while he was in college at Southern California. The plea deal included the dropping of a charge of spousal battery and Rucker will not face any jail time as long as he adheres to the conditions of the plea bargain.As part of the plea agreement Rucker has been placed on 36 months of summary probation. He must also undergo one year of domestic violence counseling and perform 750 hours of community labor.One less problem...as long as Rucker keeps his nose clean.I don't think his nose is the problem, unless you meant that as an allusion to something else that resembles a proboscis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted May 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 I don't think his nose is the problem, unless you meant that as an allusion to something else that resembles a proboscis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 30+ pts on turd watch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted May 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 30+ pts on turd watch Only 2...but that still pushes us past Indy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted May 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 Uh-oh...from PFT...POSTED 11:09 a.m. EDT, May 8, 2007FROSTEE FACES DISCIPLINE AFTER PLEABengals defensive end Frostee Rucker faces discipline under the league's Personal Conduct Policy as a result of his recent guilty pleas to misdemeanor chargers of vandalism and false imprisonment, even though the underlying conduct occurred while Rucker was still in college at USC.NFL spokesman Greg Aiello recently told us by e-mail that, because the charges were filed after Rucker entered the National Football League as a draft pick of the Bengals, Rucker's case is subject to review.And the review will be made, Aiello said, under the new policy -- not under the prior policy that resulted in the imposition of discipline last month on Bengals receiver Chris Henry and Titans cornerback Pacman Jones.In a court of law, such an approach would be vulnerable to a challenge, since Rucker is essentially being held to a standard of conduct that was established months after the conduct occurred. But because the NFLPA already has handed to Commissioner Roger Goodell the ultimate authority to discipline players for conduct detrimental to the league, the argument might not hold water in the NFL's legal process.Although the league apparently has the ability to review incidents occurring when the old policy was in place under the terms of the new policy, we think the more prudent course of action would be to apply the new policy only to incidents occurring after the new policy was issued. Winning in the court of the Commish and prevailing in the court of public opinion are two different issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 Uh-oh...from PFT...POSTED 11:09 a.m. EDT, May 8, 2007FROSTEE FACES DISCIPLINE AFTER PLEAThe term "Uh-oh" generally assumes some sort of negative impact. Since Frostee has yet to contribute anything positive, I have a hard time worrying about what a possible absence from a suspension will do to the defensive unit. In other words... you can't miss what you never had. Perhaps someday he'll be a very good DE, and we'll all realize how much the team missed out when he was injured/suspended - but until that day, the news of a suspended Frostee makes me do little more than shrug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengal4life Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 This new policy is getting a little out of control. I think Goodell can take his new policy and shoove it up his ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobengals19 Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 If Frostee gets anything from this, Porter better get a minimum of 4 games for his crap with Levi.Goodall is really starting to annoy me.. I understand they are trying to send a message to the players but there such a thing as realistic punishment and this isnt it. Is it a players fault that the court of law takes a long time to hash things out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 If Frostee gets anything from this, Porter better get a minimum of 4 games for his crap with Levi.Goodall is really starting to annoy me.. I understand they are trying to send a message to the players but there such a thing as realistic punishment and this isnt it. Is it a players fault that the court of law takes a long time to hash things out?I think it was HOF who commented way back when the "new league policy" was being announced that it would be administered unfairly. I wasn't ready to admit that then, but I haven't heard a whimper about any discipline of Porter. Didn't his incident take place almost immediately after the league came out with the statement about a new policy?The problem I have with the whole Frostee thing is that league discipline doesn't act as a deterrent if the conduct takes place months before you're even possibly a part of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 No doubt, bengalbythebay, but, as HoF has pointed out on numerous occasions, Goodell is preening for public opinion in large measure, so here we go again. Now as to why Porter overseeing an assault isn't grounds for comment is a puzzle, but perhaps if he had been signed by the Bengals, it all of a sudden would be. It may be there is something to Goodell holding a grudge against Mike B. after all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 The term "Uh-oh" generally assumes some sort of negative impact. Since Frostee has yet to contribute anything positive, I have a hard time worrying about what a possible absence from a suspension will do to the defensive unit.I agree with one small caveat: according to what I have read, salary cap impact is not imitgated by a suspension. Said another way, the salary we WOULD have paid to a suspended player plus the per week pro rated potion of any bonuses is still assessed against the salary cap. To say even more simply: a suspended player still counts against your salary cap just as if you were paying him AND THEN you also have to play his replacement as well.Now one week's salary and prorated bonus money for Frostee plus his replacement probably isn't all that much, I'd guess well less than 50k. But it's a cost. an impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 I think it was HOF who commented way back when the "new league policy" was being announced that it would be administered unfairly. I wasn't ready to admit that then, but I haven't heard a whimper about any discipline of Porter. Pretty funny. I was watching Total Access yesterday and Solomon Wilcots was asked if the new policy played any part in the Jags decision to cut a player charged with drug and firearm violations before his case made it through the courts. Wilcots claimed it had everything to do with the decision to act immediately, but admitted that the player in question was a reserve with no real value. He followed by saying that the true test of the policy would come when an actual starter or star player was charged with a crime AFTER having been warned of the NFL's new hardline stance.....prompting me to immediately think of Porter. Again, I'm betting we've heard the last of the Porter incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.