forums

Tate just tweeted...

LMAO if you think Fields or Martell "deserves" a waiver for a second, you're clueless. Neither remotely do.

HOWEVER, since Fields got his granted and didn't 0.0001% deserve it, then Martell should too. But he won't, because this is Miami vs the NCAA, so good luck with that. Hope Perry or Williams are ready to go.
 
Advertisement
Salt said:
Maybe but not as strong as the race card. How can Tate claim he is personally impacted by the domestic violence of someone else who is also a different gender? At least Fields could claim he was a direct victim.
Click to expand...
He can claim they created a toxic environment and more importantly, if he does have knowledge of things that happened behind closed doors, which I would think he does, that is the key
 
Advertisement
For_The_U said:
I agree with this. While I think the Fields racial thing was complete BS in terms of that necessitating him needing a waiver, at least that was an incident directed at him. How does the fact one of the OSU coaches had DV issues with his wife off campus, have any impact on Martell whatsoever? The reality is, it doesn't - unless you're simply trying to find a spin to further his cause.
Click to expand...
That's an easy case to make if his lawyer is any good, especially with the public already knowing how close he is with his sister and mother
 
duke4heisman said:
That's an easy case to make if his lawyer is any good, especially with the public already knowing how close he is with his sister and mother
Click to expand...
So an assistant coach committing DV against his wife in their own home years ago is grounds for a QB from that team getting to transfer without sitting because he is close with his sister and mother? That makes absolutely no sense. The coaching changes is a different issue; the DV situation insofar as it pertains to Martell is hollow as ****, man.
 
Salt said:
Interesting. But also interesting they didn't say what they used. NCAA probably saw the writing on the wall because if they denied him you know that would have been used in the appeal and be bad publicity for NCAA. That was their ace in the hole and NCAA knew it.
Click to expand...

I doubt you can add more reasons into an appeal. The appeal would probably be that you were treated unfairly in some way in the process. Not that you didn't get what you want so here is some more evidence you decided not to use.

If the lawyer is saying it was not used then not sure why people want to doubt that? Just to cook up some conspiracy? Also kind of hard to use it if the only person involved in that was kicked out of school completely while your own siblings are fine staying at the school. All while it was not done directly to you but somewhere in the stadium where if it was not taped you would have had no idea it even happened.
 
For_The_U said:
So an assistant coach committing DV against his wife in their own home years ago is grounds for a QB from that team getting to transfer without sitting because he is close with his sister and mother? That makes absolutely no sense. The coaching changes is a different issue; the DV situation insofar as it pertains to Martell is hollow as ****, man.
Click to expand...

Makes sense if you’re not dense. Why would he play for a program that allowed this action to take place? He doesn’t feel it represents himself and the values he stands for. Not that hard to comprehend
 
Advertisement
For_The_U said:
So an assistant coach committing DV against his wife in their own home years ago is grounds for a QB from that team getting to transfer without sitting because he is close with his sister and mother? That makes absolutely no sense. The coaching changes is a different issue; the DV situation insofar as it pertains to Martell is hollow as ****, man.
Click to expand...
I'm simply saying a case can be made, the coaches actions clearly effected the team. We all also know that's the reason Urban "retired" and yes, that situation can easily be portrayed as damaging to the psyche of Martell. Obviously it would have to be petitioned by his lawyer but if he wanted to do so, absolutely he can. I have no idea if any of this is really being used, I'm just saying it can be done.
 
Boots said:
Makes sense if you’re not dense. Why would he play for a program that allowed this action to take place? He doesn’t feel it represents himself and the values he stands for. Not that hard to comprehend
Click to expand...
Exactly and they can even go as far as having counselors, etc provide statements. That's not something to play with if they really went that route
 
For_The_U said:
My point was the fact you aren't going win playing time is not supposed to be a reason for a waiver to be granted. If Fields truly did not use the racial issue as part of his request (which, again, I don't believe for a second) then I can't see ANY basis why he would be entitled to one under the current rules.
Click to expand...
What is fair for Fields should be fair for Tate.
The NCAA wants to inflict as much pain, and unease, as they can on the U....deliberately...
 
Advertisement
duke4heisman said:
And this is exactly what I think Tate's lawyer is doing with the domestic violence issue. They can disguise it with whatever cover they want but Tate was inside that program for 2 years and I'm willing to bet he knows things they don't want public.
Click to expand...

we can only hope.
 
@duke4heisman @Boots I hear you, and am happy to agree to disagree. If you think Tate requested a waiver for any reason other than the fact he wasn't going to play in front of fields, then you are fooling yourself.
 
Advertisement
For_The_U said:
@duke4heisman @Boots I hear you, and am happy to agree to disagree. If you think Tate requested a waiver for any reason other than the fact he wasn't going to play in front of fields, then you are fooling yourself.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm not saying he's really affected, just that it definitely can be argued he was. Fields and Tate likely transferred for the exact same reason, it's just which cover they use to argue and Tate has a much better chance with what transpired at taint. That's all
 
PanteraCanes said:
I doubt you can add more reasons into an appeal. The appeal would probably be that you were treated unfairly in some way in the process. Not that you didn't get what you want so here is some more evidence you decided not to use.

If the lawyer is saying it was not used then not sure why people want to doubt that? Just to cook up some conspiracy? Also kind of hard to use it if the only person involved in that was kicked out of school completely while your own siblings are fine staying at the school. All while it was not done directly to you but somewhere in the stadium where if it was not taped you would have had no idea it even happened.
Click to expand...

1. If you Google Fields, Transfer, and Racism you will see plenty of media coverage that it was almost a foregone conclusion that the racism angle was in play as a reason even though some felt it was a ruse. I assume the very pc NCAA did not want to go down that road of appearing to have any tinge of racial bias by questioning it and granted the waiver.

2. Lawyers have been known to lie to protect their clients.
 
duke4heisman said:
Oh I'm not saying he's really affected, just that it definitely can be argued he was. Fields and Tate likely transferred for the exact same reason, it's just which cover they use to argue and Tate has a much better chance with what transpired at taint. That's all
Click to expand...
Roger. And hey, you were right! And I'm **** glad you were ;-)
 
Advertisement
Back
Top