The act of speculating, arranging, or plotting in advance.
Law The contemplation of a crime well enough in advance to show deliberate intent to commit the crime; forethought.
Since the breaking of this story, many have equated it with the incident involving LeGarrette Blount.
Many have argued a longer suspension for Spikes, citing Blount's case as precedent. Others have cried out against any corelation saying that there's no comparison whatsoever.
I agree, but for very different reasons.
It is true that there was a lot of bad blood between Oregon and Boise over some questionable hits in the 2008 game seen here. It is also true that there was a certain revenge factor for the Ducks.
With this said, anyone with common sense can look at the video of the "Blount Punch" and see that it was, for lack of better words, a bang-bang exchange. The Boise player slaps Blounts shoulder pads, exchanges some niceties with him, and is immediately met with fist to jaw.
This was an emotion fueled, split second reaction to a situation.
On top of this, it's hard to say how long the suspension would have been if it ends there without Blount attempting to whip the state of Idaho's posterior.
His explosive behavior was scary to say the least, but that's what it was. LeGarrette Blount simply lost control of his emotions.
This is where the two crimes differ substantially. Yes, I said crimes. You take both these incedents, subtract the stadium, uniforms, tens of thousands of fans, add in a Food World parking lot, and folks are going to jail.
Where they differ is the fact that Brandon Spikes premeditated his act. Look at the definition above and tell me that he didn't.
No doubt that saturday's game was filled with rough play, and I will say that the Georgia defender who performed the oh so classy clothesline should be punished as well.
It has also been pointed out that Spikes was retaliating for his own eye gouging, and for having his helmet torn off.
This only supports my claim. Time passed between the incidents. Spikes had time to assess the wrongdoing of the opposing team, and then formulate a response. His response was wrong because it was outside the rules of the game. He was left with several alternatives, but chose to operate on the same level as his opponent.
Spikes cold calculation sets this far apart from the Blount situation, and equally disturbing is the way he cooly carries it out.
So are they comparable? No. Do the suspensions fit the actions? No.
Because a crime committed with premeditation carries a far stiffer penalty than an impulsive one.