WASHINGTON - During his weekly appearance with Lavar and Dukes, DeAngelo Hall took a moment to address a contentious fracas that broke out between him and a reporter during a media session at Redskins Park, resulting in reports that a physical threat was made.
After practice Tuesday afternoon, a quarrel erupted between Hall and reporter Mike Jones of the Washington Post, reportedly after Jones misquoted the defensive back, stemming from a statement Hall made on a $30,000 fine he received from the NFL.
During the dispute, Hall had to be physically restrained by Redskins personnel as team security struggled to separate the two.
Hall – who received the fine after verbally berating a referee during the Redskins loss to Pittsburgh on Oct. 28 – told Lavar and Dukes people only caught the tail end of the locker room argument and made it out to be more than it was.
What happens next is an account from DeAngelo Hall, of how him fielding questions from the media escalated into him being separated from reporter Mike Jones:
“Mike had made a reference that I had said something about meeting with the coaches one-on-one prior to the bye week, and I don’t remember saying it. I’m like ‘I didn’t say that.’ And it came about because someone else was asking me ‘Hey, what did you and (Haslett) talk about one-on-one over the bye week?’ I’m like ‘I didn’t talk to Haz about nothing over the bye week’.”
That’s when Hall said he realized Jones may have written about a private meeting between Hall and Jim Haslett that never actually took place.
“So I was actually leaving out the locker room to get in the cold tub, and Mike actually followed me out like ‘Hey, let me talk to you for a second’. “
Hall said he peacefully accepted Jones’ offer to discuss matters further, and the interaction then transitioned into Jones clarifying the disputed quote by playing it back for Hall from a tape recording.
But Hall said the quote on the recording didn’t line up with what Jones wrote in The Post.
Here’s how the interaction played out from this point, in Hall’s words:
Hall: ‘I didn’t say that. Do you hear that in what you just played?’
Jones: ‘Yea, I hear it. Listen to it again.’
Hall (Listening to it again): ‘I didn’t say that. If you insinuated that I said that, then that’s one thing.
Jones: ‘I took it as, you were saying this…’
Hall: ‘Well, that ain’t what I said. If you wanted to me to say, I sat down and talked to the guy.’
At this moment in the timeline of progression, by Hall’s words, it still wasn’t a big deal – the two were just going back and forth about what was said, and what was actually printed.
People around them began to take notice of their extended conversation, and mistook it as an argument escalating towards violence, that required intervention, and Redskins security acted accordingly.
“I’m like ‘Y’all don’t need to pull nobody back’,” Hall said. “I might have said it a different way … but anytime someone pulls you back you’re like ‘Get off of me, man. I don’t need y’all touching me. This isn’t that type of party’.”
Lavar jumped in on Hall telling the story here, asking him to specify if this was the point in the dispute when someone reported a threat was made.
Hall said someone – not familiar with the entire context of the conversation – might have misconstrued him telling people pulling on him to ‘get off him’ as a verbal threat towards the reporter, but in reality he just didn’t want to be touched.
Here’s the ensuing dialogue from the show between Chad Dukes, Lavar and DeAngelo Hall, aimed at uncovering where the report came from that Hall threatened physical violence on Jones:
Dukes: ‘Somebody alleged that you said you wished Mike Jones would put his hands on you, because you’d whoop his ass, or something like that.’
Hall: ‘Yea, like everybody was pulling him back, I’m like ‘Man, let him go. Please let him go. If anybody touch me, I’m knocking him out.’ I said something to the lines of that.’
Lavar: ‘So it was taken out of context?’
Hall: ‘Like I said, I don’t even know what was said, what was reported.’
Dukes: ‘Did he do anything to escalate the situation?’
Hall: ‘We were both going back and forth, so it’s not ‘Mike said this or I said that’. We both were having a pretty spirited conversation.’
Dukes: ‘Did it come close to a physical altercation at any point?’
Dukes: ‘So the people that are saying that it did, is that just for, what? Web hits?’
Hall: ‘Maybe because we’re 4-6. They want headlines.’
Reasonable minds can deduce the following from the account above in its entirety:
This was a dispute between two passionate people who respect each other enough not to put their hands on one another, and outside observers without the entire context of the conversation, inaccurately interpreted what they were hearing.
For the full interview, or to judge for yourself, click play below…