Arizona Cardinals Reportedly Fine Darnell Dockett $200,000
The ugly downward spiral known as the 2012 Arizona Cardinals season just got a bit nastier.
UPDATE: Friday, Dec. 7 at 8:24 p.m. ET by Tyler Conway
NFL.com's Albert Breer reported Friday that Dockett was fined $200,000 for conduct detrimental to the team, according to a source briefed on the fine. NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reported Dockett has appealed.
---End of Update---
Here is what happened in the incident, per Somers:
Dockett admitted this week he and Rhodes argued near the end of the 7-6 loss to the Jets. Dockett was not happy with the team’s strategy of allowing the Jets to score at the end of the game, even though the team likely wasn’t going to get the ball back any other way.
ProFootballTalk also had some details on the ugliness of the event. According to Mike Florio, Dockett spat in Rhodes' face during the argument, though the Cardinals' safety denied that took place, per an official release on the team's website.
Whether the spitting happened or not, an internal incident like this could not come at a worse time for Arizona. Ken Whisenhunt's team is struggling mightily heading into its Week 14 matchup against the Seahawks, having lost eight consecutive games.
With a playoff berth pretty much out of the picture, almost everyone will be playing to keep their job in 2013.
It pretty much goes without saying that infighting and six-figure fines aren't the best way to start the last quarter of the season.
What's more, Dockett also doesn't seem to be taking his punishment lying down. ESPN is reporting that the nine-year veteran will appeal his fine and look to get it reduced or wiped out altogether.
Rhodes, the other party in the altercation, seems to be backing him up, so it's hard to know whether the six-figure punishment will stand.
Either way, the initial shock of a $200,000 fine alone should be a clear statement that the Cardinals organization will not stand for events like what occurred last Sunday.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?