Honestly, I expect Anthony Gonzalez to remain suspended from the team through the summer, and reinstated before training camp. I suppose it could end sooner. First he has to have his day in court.
Pitt quarterback and Liberty High School graduate Anthony Gonzalez has a court date on July 11, when he will go before District Magistrate Nancy Matos Gonzalez to face three charges from his arrest last month.
Presumably, no relation. The three charges are: marijuana possession, underage drinking and carrying false identification.
The possession charge is a misdemeanor that maxes out on penalties with 30 days and/or $500 dollar fine. I sincerely doubt that Gonzalez will see any time for what appears to be his first offense. The other two are summary offenses.
Coach Todd Graham spoke about Gonzalez’s situation without saying anything.
Graham said he will consider situations on a “case-by-case basis,” but he added that players are constantly warned about avoiding trouble and being accountable.
“We talk to them every day about the expectations, about the standards,” he said. “We talk to them about being very careful about where you go and what you do because, any time something like that happens, you are always guilty. It doesn’t matter what the situation was.”
Graham didn’t detail his ultimate punishment for Gonzalez, but he said he will consider the team first.
“A lot of times, our heart gets involved and (we say), ‘Golly, this is going to ruin this kid’s career if I kick him off the team,’ ” he said. “But I have to make sure I look at what is best for the program because that is what has to come first.”
Feel free to interpret according to your own biases, because that’s about all you can do with the purposeful vagueness of it all.
I’m more concerned about Graham’s punishment.
It sounds like in this case his fake ID use is a misdemeanor, this kid made a mistake and I’m sure he will in some way pay for it, hopefully, it works out and he learns a valuable lesson.
There has to be consequences!
A lesson to be learned, however, is that the poor comportment and attention to details off the field appeared to have an effect to what occurred on the field. ASs I recall, Pitt under Wanny was always one of the least penalized teams in the BE, and that certainly wasn’t the case this past year.
Just two short years ago, we were maing fun of PSU for being singled out on ‘Outside the Lines’. Yes, we cannot repeat this past year, but on the other hand, I’m not ready to declare martial law.
I do believe in 2nd chances, but I have to think that Coach graham made it abundantly clear that there was no wiggle room and still Gonzo went out and put himself in this position. He is only a back up quarterback. Should be made an example of! Either that or forget disipline entirely. Graham needs to establish the rules with out a bunch of gray areas.
Now there were certainly worse crimes committed last year and those players were indeed released. However, I don’t believe Gonzo should pay for all previous crimes. Don’t get me wrong, if he screws up again (anything more than failure to come to a complete stop) then he should be sent packing.
Sheard’s excellent play was great, but not at all important to this discussion. His behavior is what counts here. He stayed out of trouble, acted as a true leader, and I believe graduated (?). This is what justified excusing his behavior, not his performance.
If a the player’s potential is what determines the punishment, this team is in big trouble. If the coaches aren’t consistent, the players will very quickly realize it is all just talk.
BTW I think the Sheard argument is just crazy. He played great for us, and I wish him the best in the future, BUT I don’t care if someone taunts you or even punches you square in the face – to throw someone through a plate glass window and pummel them even AFTER the police arrive and taze you, is just beyond belief. If the valedictorian made “a mistake” of that nature he would be locked up. People deserve second chances, but for him to not miss a single quarter was a disgrace.
wbb if your boss picked up the paper this morning and read that you were arrested on 3 charges – possession of illegal drugs, false identification, and lets just say some other summary offense assuming you are of legal age to drink – how do you think he/she would react? I have to imagine that in many workplaces that would be grounds for serious action.
I also did some illegal, irresponsible things in college but nothing more than than many others.
Yet, I turned out fine (I guess that is subject for debate.) Except for a few speeding and illegal parking tickets (a couple in Oakland), I have not been cited. I guess maybe this is why I am the champion of the 2nd chance!
Wannstedt committed a cardinal sin of leadership when he didn’t, at least, suspend Sheard for even a small amount of playing time. He didn’t even suspend Sheard from taking part in summer camp. In essence, he gave Sheard a phantom “suspension” due to his place on the depth chart and his value to the team.
That sent a huge message to the rest of the kids on the roster. It was blatantly obvious that DW was scared to death to suspend Sheard in the start of the season with the Utah game coming up – and with his other DE hobbling around. That inaction on his part was a major miscalculation.
Was it any wonder that after that July incident we had multiple other problems? But, if you’ll remember Keith Coleman had much the same situation, where he was provoked into a fight… and DW dismissed him immediately. Dan Mason gets caught up in another player’s drunken accident and gets suspended for some Playing time. But Sheard gets a complete pass? Either shit or get off the pot as they say – but don’t play favorites when you expect the other players to adhere to what you say.
The problem was DW was trying to close the barn door after the cows got out. There was no set standards in place. DW did the right thing IMO with Knox and Douglas only after the blowback from the Sheard situation.
This is what Graham has to address, clearly lay out standards & discipline measures to the team and then strictly adhere to them.
We haven’t heard the words “Zero Tolerance” from Graham and I’d be shocked if he dismisses Gonzalez from the team. But he certainly should administer some concrete punishment and stick to it regardless of how much the player might be needed on the field or on the depth chart.
I believe in second chances, but I also believe in being responsible for your actions. He was wrong regardless of how petty it was. You have to draw the line somewhere or all the players will come in and say “well coash you know it was only 2 misdemeanors…cut me some slack” Suspend him a 3-4 weeks in the fall, put him on some sort of probation and move on. If he keeps it clean the rest of the way then he’ll be fine.
A few weeks in the fall as a RS FR isn’t going to ruin his career, but it might be the wake up call he and his teammates need to realize that this coach means business.
Regardless of what the actual disposition by the circuit court in Gonzalez’s case is – if he broke the rules set out and which he agreed to within the university’s football program (and student requirements) he should be punished by the university separably.
Coach Graham may have imposed a rule that his player’s are not to be in possession of illicit drugs or alcohol at all if they are under 21 – or even in company of those who are partaking in those actions. He may impose curfews, dress codes, grooming standards, classroom standards, language standards… any number of things that may not be covered by the criminal codes of the state.
It could also work the other way – the state might write traffic citations and the school may not care about them at all – as an example.
This isn’t double jeopardy but is the reality of what is imposed in many different arenas – the workplace, the military, etc… and is the responsibility of the athlete to adhere to.
Laws are made regardless of what the individual person wants – but the people are still obligated to abide by them. Regulations and standards of conduct, on the other hand, are voluntary agreements the individual makes with an institution and are separate from the other. They can opt out of being obligated to those standards by removing themselves from the entity’s reach.
I don’t know what the trend is in PA, but getting into a deferred adjudication program that would suspend an affirmative finding of guilt on the successful completion of a court ordered program tends to be more difficult to get into if you are a student that will be leaving the county to attend school… like Gonzo.
Hopefully, he can get something worked out with the DA because I have always been excited to see what he can do on the field.