Comments:Oregon running back LeGarrette Blount's college football career ends with a punch

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

To say the Bronco's have improved in recent years is misleading and rather insulting. They have dominated their conference for the last decade and only lost 2 home games during that time. They have beaten the Beavers multiple times and the Ducks once, as you noted. They also have a notable bowl game win against Oklahoma a few years ago.

Thanks for the feedback. That comment was something I meant to double-check before publishing, and I evidently forgot. I've removed it, pending an editor's review. -Peteforsyth (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Previous suspensionEdit

Apparently Blount was suspensed indefinitely at the beginning of 2009. Is there any explanation as to why, and why he was re-instated? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the decision to end his career excessive? The NFL let Michal Vick back to play. How about an anger management class and a one game suspension. If you think about it, if not for the Boise State players conduct, Blount would still be playing.

The guy sucker-punched an opposing player, and then attacked his own teammates, and then attacked the spectators. The only thing missing was attacking the sideline reporter. Actions have consequences. Now he knows that. (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It was dirty, poor sportsmanship, the list goes on, but it was not a sucker punch. Watch the video: Hout comes up, says something, hits the shoulder pad, and Blount turns around and hits him as Hout is turning, not after.--Henryodell (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I have a little trouble with that characterization. "Sucker punch" suggests two things to me: first, the guy on the receiving end did not know it was coming, and second, there is no opportunity to hit back. Blount hit Hout while he was turning his head away, turning his attention to Petersen. Sucker move number one. Then, he backpedaled several steps, denying Hout the opportunity to hit him back. Sucker move number two. On top of all that, Blount was wearing his helmet the whole time -- especially significant because he hit Hout in the head.
There are lots of things in this story that seem open to interpretation, but I can't really understand having a problem with the term "sucker punch." -Peteforsyth (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
If I may quote the wikipedia sucker punch page, "A sucker punch is a blow which is made without warning or preparation on the part of the recipient," by this definition it was not a sucker punch, Hout should be warned and prepared when he goes up to taunt Blount and sees Blount turn around. Also, Blount does not wait for Hout's head to be turned to throw the punch, he turns and punches. As for the retreating, Blount knows that Hout will not be getting back up for a fight, the only thing that would have happened if Blount did not retreat would have been him getting triple-teamed by the Boise State players who were around him. As for the helmet, was he supposed to take the helmet off before hitting Hout? If he did, he would have lost the opportunity.--Henryodell (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I gotta admit, it's a little more complicated than I thought. But on the last comment -- no, he wasn't supposed to take his helmet off, but then again, he wasn't supposed to hit Hout to begin with -- so framing it in terms of what he was "supposed" to do is a bit of a futile exercise :) -Peteforsyth (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Natural thuggeryEdit

This idiot does not deserve to be spared his scolarship, He deserves to be jailed and confined to hard labor for a year. Perhaps that would cause him to have a greater appreciation of the gift he had. It is apparent from his behavior his home training was severely lacking. I do not accept any phony excuse of being disadvantged or a broken home. All of these thugs who have God given talent will wind up blowing the opportunity that others would die for. Theser comments are not coming from the hated right wing nor the white race, I am black and I detest the kind of behavior that was shown by this unthinking person. I do want to say that tauting breeds comtempt and the other idiot really deserved some type of discipline for his errant behavior. They both should be given a fishing line and a hook and both deposited in the Grand Canyon for thirty days and told they had to survive on their ability to use what was available in the Canyon. Harsh?...I think not

By what do you mean by "natural thuggery"? (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The comment above (which was recently removed and then restored) does appear consistent with a rather ugly brand of racism. Tough to say if that's intent or coincidence. Given the anonymity, I doubt we'll ever know. But, what would Wikinews do in the case of blatantly defamatory remarks on the comment page? I think that's an interesting question, though obviously beyond the scope of this article… -Peteforsyth (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
If someone was doing it purely to cause trouble we would delete it, but otherwise it would stay as a record of people's views. As for racism, we can't ban that. I will take the blame on that front; it was me who once interviewed a wanted neo-Nazi. We can't then deny fellow skinheads the right to say "wonderful interview! I agree totally! Heil!" no matter how much we want to. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
That's about what I thought. That strikes me as a significant concern for the future of Wikinews as a platform for discussing stories. I suppose discussion is not the main point and is not emphasized by the mission or by the software, but it does seem that high-quality discussion is an important resource that could be leveraged in building participation in the site. In my experience of online discussion communities, it's the ones that are moderated by trusted humans using their own judgment (instead of or in addition to a statement of principles) that flourish; if there is inflexibility and too much permissiveness, it will not create the kind of safety or consistency that is necessary to appeal to a wide variety of people with a wide variety of comfort levels.
I appreciate the response…all good food for thought. -Peteforsyth (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You know, as obvious as it is I never thought of the balance between recording the public's reactions and keeping them doing it while unsavoury opinions were aired. Food for thought indeed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

he still good —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "bad"Edit

bad — (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This guy is an immature player and I am shocked that he's in the NFL today