Nevin Lawson suspended one game for using helmet as a weapon

Getty Images

It was barely noticed because so much else was going on in the NFL on Sunday, but Raiders cornerback Nevin Lawson was ejected just before the Broncos’ final kneeldown in Sunday’s game in Denver. Now Lawson has been suspended as well.

Ian Rapoport of NFL Media reports that Lawson has been suspended without pay for taking off his helmet and swinging it at someone. NFL VP of Football Operations Jon Runyan issued the suspension.

Lawson getting only one game may sound like he got off light compared to Myles Garrett, who got six games for swinging Mason Rudolph‘s helmet at him. The big difference is Garrett connected with Rudolph’s helmet-less head, which made his infraction quite a bit worse.

Although Lawson is technically still a Raider, he becomes a free agent in March. If Lawson doesn’t win his appeal, his 2020 team will have to do without him in Week One.

40 responses to “Nevin Lawson suspended one game for using helmet as a weapon

  1. lewisthegiant says:
    January 3, 2020 at 6:30 pm
    Connecting or not shouldn’t change the punishment honestly. This is why so many people say the nfl is inconsistent.-

    ———————————————————————————–
    I agree. Just because he didn’t land the hit, shouldn’t make him exempt from a similar punishment as Garrett. The intent was still there, his aim is just not as good as MG.

  2. Long time Lions fan here. Lawson had good speed and was often in position, but had 0 ball skills. I mean ZERO. Never saw a DB quite like him. Made every receiver look good. Opposing QBs quickly realized that he wasn’t going to make a play on the ball no matter how blanketed the receiver looked. Just looked at his stats to see how he did in Oakland this year…there it is 0 ints! Same for his career. If he could just be taught to turn his head and look for the ball…

  3. Connecting or not,the act is just as malicious with intent… Very inconsistent rulings.. Which is a shame because the NFL could’ve curtailed the behavior completely if they had imposed the same suspension. Prior fines or ejections shouldn’t matter except to lengthen the suspension of the player. I trully believe the true reason why it wasn’t longer was because it was not nationally televised..poor look for the NFL. They could’ve set a true precedent guideline with on field behavior, but as usual, they allowed their own inconsistency in off field behavioral suspensions bring this into question. Goodell can’t get out of his own way.

  4. Just make the infraction automatic permanent banishment from nfl. Is equal for all,and would hopfully eliminate a behavior that is an embarrassment to professionals in a professional league.

  5. lewisthegiant says:
    January 3, 2020 at 6:31 pm
    If the intent is the same, so should the punishment. Outcome shouldn’t matter
    ****************************************************
    If somebody gets drunk and intends to drive home but can’t find his car keys, does he still get a DUI for intent?

  6. Kind of like shooting your gun at someone and missing. No blood no foul.
    If they really want to stop the behavior suspend players 8 games. If that doesn’t work make it 16.

  7. The big difference between this infraction and the Garrett one is….he took his OWN helmet off and was swinging it, he did not take off an opposing players helmet and then hit them in the head with it. Still a stupid move but by no means in the same league as Garrett.

  8. If it is the outcome that matters Myles Garrett only have one game. Yes he connected but there was no damage done. All the situation does is prove that the Myles Garrett situation was blown way out of proportion.

  9. lewisthegiant says:
    January 3, 2020 at 6:30 pm
    Connecting or not shouldn’t change the punishment honestly. This is why so many people say the nfl is inconsistent.

    ———–

    Think of this way: When you arrest someone for a Homicide vs attempted homicide, it’s the same charge. You just check off the box below ‘Attempted’ column. Say the person is shot and doesn’t die. So the attempted murder box IS checked off but the gun is not.

    So it’s all the SAME on paper. Same EXACT charges but a box check. What do you think happens at sentencing with the attempted murder versus what would the sentence be if the person did not die? HUGE difference.

    That is why. It is rather harsh for Garrett but he should get a stiffer sentence.

  10. jerryjonesbankroll says:
    January 3, 2020 at 7:39 pm
    Anyone else find it funny that john runyan is the one doling out punishments
    _________________________________________________

    Its a perfect hire – Runyan was an expert at personal fouls!

  11. Grrrrrrrr…DID die…. I have attempted vs. attempted. This is exactly what defense attorneys harp on, over and over. I miss eating them for lunch. It’s not TV, that’s for sure.

  12. charliecharger says:
    January 3, 2020 at 7:14 pm

    If somebody gets drunk and intends to drive home but can’t find his car keys, does he still get a DUI for intent?
    _________________________
    Yes, actually, in many jurisdictions he DOES get a DUI if the drunkard is sitting in the driver’s seat.

  13. Regardless of whether or not he connected, the intent is completely different than Garrett in that he didn’t swing it at a HELMET-LESS player.

    Just like Haynesworth’s stomp… It’s on another level that any reasonable person can see is much much worse when there is the possibility of inflicting that type of injury.

  14. “The big difference is Garrett connected with Rudolph’s helmet-less head, which made his infraction quite a bit worse”

    The bigger difference is the CLE=PIT was airing primetime with far more viewers. Let’s call it like it is

  15. NFL should adopt soft shelled helmets so that no player can use it as a weapon. People do not get hurt riding bumper cars inside amusment parks because the exteriors are shock absorbing. The exteriors of helmets do not absorb shock. Rubberizing the exterior of the helmets would go a long way towards reducing injuries caused by helmets.

  16. What’s the deal with these morons who take off their helmets and start swinging them? Why has that become a thing? Anybody who takes off their helmet and swings it needs to be kicked out of the league permanently. No second chances. That would put an end to this idiocy.

  17. Maybe the disparity can be explained by the league’s attitude toward various franchises. We have already seen how uneven the officiating is and now we see how unequal the “justice” meted out by the NFL is. This will NEVER change!

  18. Maybe Garrett’s punishment was worse because he’s a repeat offender who’s been fined a few times for numerous roughing the passer and late hit penalties. Let’s also not forget that he punched Delanie Walker in the face. From what I’ve read, many see him as a dirty player. His history indicted him, and any sense that he received inflated discipline can probably be attributed to how he’s perceived and his past behavior.

  19. Now it’s going to become routine players doing this. Happens in training camp all the time

  20. Not sure I agree that the punishment should be the same for “intent.”
    If the got into a scuffle would you be saying that a guy who took a wild swing at someone and completely whiffed should have the same penalty as someone who connected a punch to the face? Doubt it….

  21. And now a trend has started. NFL better get this nipped in the bud before we see this all the way down to the Pop Warner leagues. Kids emulate what we see the big guys do.

  22. Lawson has no priors, Garrett more than 1. Lawson used his own helmet, did not rip the opposing players helmet off and then attempt to strike a helmeted player and in the end made no contact.

    THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT LAWSON DID AND WHAT GARREETT DID.

  23. Pardon me, I meant he didn’t attempt to strike and unhelmeted player. Just another in the many differences in the two situations

  24. Actually have a serious question about the Raiders. Is Vegas going to be allowed to use the Raider name, logo and uniform colors? If so what is the general feeling by this from Raider fans? Personally to me sorry as Bronco fan it doesn’t seem right that a city where the Raider name was never a part of is allowed to take that symbol, colors and team records with them. It’s like the Titans now wearing Oilers throwbacks and bringing records from Moon and Campbell with them. Unfortunately we never know what’s happening down the road to maybe, hopefully get a team back in Oakland and resume the Raider Black Hole legacy. Rivalries are great and what make sports especially football fun and the name Raiders is always Oakland and the fan base that made it what it is. Raiders are Madden, Plunket, Long, Brown, Allen, Jackaon, Alzado (50/50), Chris Bahr always breaking my heart and of course Mr.Davis. I just can’t see those names along with numerous others being taken from Oakland. When you see Silver and Black you think Oakland Raiders even if your a rival you know and appreciate what that stood for. Hope a true Raider fan responds and Good Luck

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!