Also - why are we explaining away a very dirty play by Gronk by saying he "just lost his cool"...? So what? That has no bearing on how sever what he did was.
I don't know that anyone is "explaining it away." Just explaining it. Look, I can't stand Gronk for a variety of reasons. And I'm no Patriots fan. But I see a difference in the two plays for sure, and I see Gronk's as less severe. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences for him. There absolutely should. I'm not about to argue otherwise. But I do support what I believe is being said here, which is that while he needs to face the music for what he did, it's less severe than the other play we are talking about. We draw this distinction all the time.
Let's take a murder case for example. Killer A decides he has had it up to here with the guy down the street. He spends the next week or so following the guy to discern his routine and figure out when would be the best time to strike. He then researches and buys the weapon he thinks will be the most effective. He plots and comes up with the perfect plan to get the deed done with maximum efficiency. When the time is right, he strikes, and in cold blood, puts a bullet in the back of the guy's head, taking him out instantly. Killer B is your average guy who does to work every day, loves his wife and kids more than anything, and does his best to follow the rules and never hurt anybody. One day, he comes home early to surprise his wife with flowers and a ticket to that thing she loves, only to find her in bed with the guy down the street. Killer B loses it, and in a fit of rage, picks up the Louisville Slugger he keeps by the bedside and beats both to the bloody pulp. In the minute or so that it takes, they two suffer in excruciating pain, which only lingers and increases in the several minutes it takes before their lives slip away. Killer B is horrified at what he did, and can't believe he just "snapped" like that. Our criminal justice system typically makes a distinction between these two cases. Both have severe consequences. But the law recognizes that snapping in the heat of the moment is different than plotting and premeditating something and deliberately carrying it out in cold blood.
Or let's bring it back to sports. Basketball player A hates a player on the opposing team and wants to "teach him a lesson." All game long, he finds a way to be close to that player and in his face. He initiates a lot of contact throughout the game. Then, when the time is right and he thinks the refs aren't looking and they are sort of tangled up and it will look like an accident, but the play is over and the other player is disengaging, Player A deliberately throws an elbow that catches the other player in the jaw. Now on the other side, we have Player B, who basically follows the rules and plays clean. The guy defending him has been playing dirty all night, doing cheap things and not getting called for it. On one play in particular, Player B is going for an easy shot, and the defender doesn't even try for the ball, but just shoves Player B into the seats and then stands there laughing. Player B snaps, and before he can think about it, jumps up and takes a swing. Again, both plays are unacceptable. Both have consequences. But the heat-of-the-moment bad act after the play is over is much more understandable.
I'm not saying Gronk
is the guy in either of those scenarios. But he is like the guy who just snapped and acted in the heat of the moment. So, while I don't think anyone here is excusing what he did, I think people are just saying that it is understandable, and once he pays the piper for it, we should just move on. And we shouldn't have much grief over it either. He's stupid. He lost his cool and his self control. But, best I can tell, he isn't a thug who has a practice of trying to go outside the rules and hurt people. So, yeah, to me, it's less egregious than a premeditated act.