|
Roger Goodell’s letter to NFL owners on domestic violence, McDonald arrest, Ray Rice video released, Rice contract terminated
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 Next
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
He's a danger to his wife really, not society in general. The NFL is a business though, with a publicity problem, and therefore they have to take stances on beating women and children because people kind of look down on things like that. At least sane people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
He's a danger to his wife really, not society in general. The NFL is a business though, with a publicity problem, and therefore they have to take stances on beating women and children because people kind of look down on things like that. At least sane people. |
Who says he's a danger to his wife? The courts allowed them to marry.
And I should add ... how has the NFL been so successful? They've had issues with domestic violence for DECADES.
People still watch and still make them a billion dollar business. Let the justice system handle justice and if the teams don't want to sign a guy who could be bad business or they just don't want to, that's up to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
The DV problem won't be solved by the NFL or courts. It's a problem that calls for counseling.
I see statistics showing the dark side. I don't see any success stories. I'm sure there are some. I hope Rice falls into the success story category.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
That has nothing to do with it. Any more than any other company firing or suspending an employee for doing something that drew negative attention to their product.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
That has nothing to do with it. Any more than any other company firing or suspending an employee for doing something that drew negative attention to their product. |
Does the employee actually have to have been proven to have done that thing in a court of law, or is being guilty in the court of public opinion sufficient in your view? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
That has nothing to do with it. Any more than any other company firing or suspending an employee for doing something that drew negative attention to their product. |
Does the employee actually have to have been proven to have done that thing in a court of law, or is being guilty in the court of public opinion sufficient in your view? |
Really? You may want to learn about this new technology called video...
Oh, and an employer can fire or suspend for activities that reflect badly on the company without regard to the courts. Showing up in a video hitting a woman is enough to get you disciplined in many workplaces.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
That has nothing to do with it. Any more than any other company firing or suspending an employee for doing something that drew negative attention to their product. |
Does the employee actually have to have been proven to have done that thing in a court of law, or is being guilty in the court of public opinion sufficient in your view? |
Really? You may want to learn about this new technology called video...
Oh, and an employer can fire or suspend for activities that reflect badly on the company without regard to the courts. Showing up in a video hitting a woman is enough to get you disciplined in many workplaces. |
Huh? I'm not talking about what the law says a company CAN do. What the...???
I'm asking for your opinion.
Should an athlete have to be found guilty of a crime to be punished for committing that crime by the sports league ... in your opinion?
Or, should a sports league be fit to punish an athlete as they see fit even if the athlete was never charged, indicted or convicted?
In other words, say you're a Steelers fan. Would you approve of the NFL suspending Leveon Bell, Legarrette Blount and Ben Roethlisberger indefinitely? They all partook in activities that "drew negative attention to their product" and the NFL is entirely within their legal rights to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
That has nothing to do with it. Any more than any other company firing or suspending an employee for doing something that drew negative attention to their product. |
Does the employee actually have to have been proven to have done that thing in a court of law, or is being guilty in the court of public opinion sufficient in your view? |
Really? You may want to learn about this new technology called video...
Oh, and an employer can fire or suspend for activities that reflect badly on the company without regard to the courts. Showing up in a video hitting a woman is enough to get you disciplined in many workplaces. |
Huh? I'm not talking about what the law says a company CAN do. What the...???
I'm asking for your opinion.
Should an athlete have to be found guilty of a crime to be punished for committing that crime by the sports league ... in your opinion?
Or, should a sports league be fit to punish an athlete as they see fit even if the athlete was never charged, indicted or convicted?
In other words, say you're a Steelers fan. Would you approve of the NFL suspending Leveon Bell, Legarrette Blount and Ben Roethlisberger indefinitely? They all partook in activities that "drew negative attention to their product" and the NFL is entirely within their legal rights to do so. |
If you want to stop running around in circles and ask one question at a time, I'm happy to engage on this. If this is another semantic circle jerk, then not so much. But so far:
Yes, I do think teams have the right and responsibility to discipline players who do things to damage their brand. I can't give you a one size fits all answer, but no, I don't think Rice should be suspended forever. I thought 2 games was very light, and the league then went to the other extreme.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In other words, say you're a Steelers fan. Would you approve of the NFL suspending Leveon Bell, Legarrette Blount and Ben Roethlisberger indefinitely? They all partook in activities that "drew negative attention to their product" and the NFL is entirely within their legal rights to do so. |
Donald Sterling didn't break any laws either. He didn't beat a kid or punch a woman out cold. Yet all the athletes were crying for his ousting. The NBA used the same reasoning, negative conduct detrimental to league image, to strip him from his ownership of a team. It depends on the scale of "negative attention" drawn. Punching a woman on camera and dragging her through a hotel is pretty negative. Beating a child until they bleed is a negative image. Smoking weed isn't on that level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
That has nothing to do with it. Any more than any other company firing or suspending an employee for doing something that drew negative attention to their product. |
Does the employee actually have to have been proven to have done that thing in a court of law, or is being guilty in the court of public opinion sufficient in your view? |
Really? You may want to learn about this new technology called video...
Oh, and an employer can fire or suspend for activities that reflect badly on the company without regard to the courts. Showing up in a video hitting a woman is enough to get you disciplined in many workplaces. |
Huh? I'm not talking about what the law says a company CAN do. What the...???
I'm asking for your opinion.
Should an athlete have to be found guilty of a crime to be punished for committing that crime by the sports league ... in your opinion?
Or, should a sports league be fit to punish an athlete as they see fit even if the athlete was never charged, indicted or convicted?
In other words, say you're a Steelers fan. Would you approve of the NFL suspending Leveon Bell, Legarrette Blount and Ben Roethlisberger indefinitely? They all partook in activities that "drew negative attention to their product" and the NFL is entirely within their legal rights to do so. |
If you want to stop running around in circles and ask one question at a time, I'm happy to engage on this. If this is another semantic circle jerk, then not so much. But so far:
Yes, I do think teams have the right and responsibility to discipline players who do things to damage their brand. I can't give you a one size fits all answer, but no, I don't think Rice should be suspended forever. I thought 2 games was very light, and the league then went to the other extreme. |
There's no running around in circles about it. I apologize if it seems confusing. I just don't think the league SHOULD get involved, ever, even if they are well within their legal means in doing so.
You say "players who do things" and previously I asked you a question. Who determines if the "things" you're referring to were actually done by said athlete? A court of law? Or you would like the league gets to decide? For example, say a player was accused of assault in a bar fight. The league says, ok brand damaged, sounds legit, player cut and out indefinitely. Would you be on board with that?
You have to be if you want the league to be the body that determines guilt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | Quote: | | In other words, say you're a Steelers fan. Would you approve of the NFL suspending Leveon Bell, Legarrette Blount and Ben Roethlisberger indefinitely? They all partook in activities that "drew negative attention to their product" and the NFL is entirely within their legal rights to do so. |
Donald Sterling didn't break any laws either. He didn't beat a kid or punch a woman out cold. Yet all the athletes were crying for his ousting. The NBA used the same reasoning, negative conduct detrimental to league image, to strip him from his ownership of a team. It depends on the scale of "negative attention" drawn. Punching a woman on camera and dragging her through a hotel is pretty negative. Beating a child until they bleed is a negative image. Smoking weed isn't on that level. |
And I didn't agree with the decision to oust Sterling. It was clearly an emotional decision intended to appease the court of public opinion. Just like the indefinite suspension of Ray Rice. EXACTLY why the leagues should not get involved. They'll never get it right because there is no right.
Also, I disagree with your point about attention drawn. Who is going to draw more attention? A bench scrub or a superstar? If they're both accused of the same crime, but the bench scrub doesn't generate much negative attention, then the scrub should get to stay and the superstar has to go? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | Quote: | | In other words, say you're a Steelers fan. Would you approve of the NFL suspending Leveon Bell, Legarrette Blount and Ben Roethlisberger indefinitely? They all partook in activities that "drew negative attention to their product" and the NFL is entirely within their legal rights to do so. |
Donald Sterling didn't break any laws either. He didn't beat a kid or punch a woman out cold. Yet all the athletes were crying for his ousting. The NBA used the same reasoning, negative conduct detrimental to league image, to strip him from his ownership of a team. It depends on the scale of "negative attention" drawn. Punching a woman on camera and dragging her through a hotel is pretty negative. Beating a child until they bleed is a negative image. Smoking weed isn't on that level. |
And I didn't agree with the decision to oust Sterling. It was clearly an emotional decision intended to appease the court of public opinion. Just like the indefinite suspension of Ray Rice. EXACTLY why the leagues should not get involved. They'll never get it right because there is no right.
Also, I disagree with your point about attention drawn. Who is going to draw more attention? A bench scrub or a superstar? If they're both accused of the same crime, but the bench scrub doesn't generate much negative attention, then the scrub should get to stay and the superstar has to go? |
Like it or not, the NFL and NBA are in the entertainment sports industry and rely immensely on sponsorship and public perception. In the past they could get away with lesser no-name players getting a slap on the wrist for their off-field indiscretions, but once Michael Vick, Aaron Hernandez, Rice and Peterson get caught doing highly negative things, it turns up the spotlight on the rest of their players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
He is a danger to the NFL's image, that is why they are dealing with him.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
That has nothing to do with it. Any more than any other company firing or suspending an employee for doing something that drew negative attention to their product. |
Does the employee actually have to have been proven to have done that thing in a court of law, or is being guilty in the court of public opinion sufficient in your view? |
Really? You may want to learn about this new technology called video...
Oh, and an employer can fire or suspend for activities that reflect badly on the company without regard to the courts. Showing up in a video hitting a woman is enough to get you disciplined in many workplaces. |
Huh? I'm not talking about what the law says a company CAN do. What the...???
I'm asking for your opinion.
Should an athlete have to be found guilty of a crime to be punished for committing that crime by the sports league ... in your opinion?
Or, should a sports league be fit to punish an athlete as they see fit even if the athlete was never charged, indicted or convicted?
In other words, say you're a Steelers fan. Would you approve of the NFL suspending Leveon Bell, Legarrette Blount and Ben Roethlisberger indefinitely? They all partook in activities that "drew negative attention to their product" and the NFL is entirely within their legal rights to do so. |
If you want to stop running around in circles and ask one question at a time, I'm happy to engage on this. If this is another semantic circle jerk, then not so much. But so far:
Yes, I do think teams have the right and responsibility to discipline players who do things to damage their brand. I can't give you a one size fits all answer, but no, I don't think Rice should be suspended forever. I thought 2 games was very light, and the league then went to the other extreme. |
There's no running around in circles about it. I apologize if it seems confusing. I just don't think the league SHOULD get involved, ever, even if they are well within their legal means in doing so.
You say "players who do things" and previously I asked you a question. Who determines if the "things" you're referring to were actually done by said athlete? A court of law? Or you would like the league gets to decide? For example, say a player was accused of assault in a bar fight. The league says, ok brand damaged, sounds legit, player cut and out indefinitely. Would you be on board with that?
You have to be if you want the league to be the body that determines guilt. |
I don't know where you work, but get caught on TV doing something awful, and you may see some discipline, including firing. It is common, and especially so when you are a public figure. That's why contracts with players and teams grants both the team and the league latitude to punish certain behaviors, regardless of the legal system.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30679
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
That has nothing to do with it. Any more than any other company firing or suspending an employee for doing something that drew negative attention to their product. |
Does the employee actually have to have been proven to have done that thing in a court of law, or is being guilty in the court of public opinion sufficient in your view? |
Really? You may want to learn about this new technology called video...
Oh, and an employer can fire or suspend for activities that reflect badly on the company without regard to the courts. Showing up in a video hitting a woman is enough to get you disciplined in many workplaces. |
Huh? I'm not talking about what the law says a company CAN do. What the...???
I'm asking for your opinion.
Should an athlete have to be found guilty of a crime to be punished for committing that crime by the sports league ... in your opinion?
Or, should a sports league be fit to punish an athlete as they see fit even if the athlete was never charged, indicted or convicted?
In other words, say you're a Steelers fan. Would you approve of the NFL suspending Leveon Bell, Legarrette Blount and Ben Roethlisberger indefinitely? They all partook in activities that "drew negative attention to their product" and the NFL is entirely within their legal rights to do so. |
If you want to stop running around in circles and ask one question at a time, I'm happy to engage on this. If this is another semantic circle jerk, then not so much. But so far:
Yes, I do think teams have the right and responsibility to discipline players who do things to damage their brand. I can't give you a one size fits all answer, but no, I don't think Rice should be suspended forever. I thought 2 games was very light, and the league then went to the other extreme. |
There's no running around in circles about it. I apologize if it seems confusing. I just don't think the league SHOULD get involved, ever, even if they are well within their legal means in doing so.
You say "players who do things" and previously I asked you a question. Who determines if the "things" you're referring to were actually done by said athlete? A court of law? Or you would like the league gets to decide? For example, say a player was accused of assault in a bar fight. The league says, ok brand damaged, sounds legit, player cut and out indefinitely. Would you be on board with that?
You have to be if you want the league to be the body that determines guilt. |
I don't know where you work, but get caught on TV doing something awful, and you may see some discipline, including firing. It is common, and especially so when you are a public figure. That's why contracts with players and teams grants both the team and the league latitude to punish certain behaviors, regardless of the legal system. |
Not sure why this is a difficult concept or even why the word law continues to be thrown about.
You can fail a workplace drug test, never get prosecuted for said drugs but get canned still the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: |
The team probably still has the right to cut him, so even if "allowed" to play, he won't step foot on the field. |
Yeah, Ravens already cut him so he'd be a FA but eligible to play ideally. Just don't think the NFL should meddle too much in criminal matters. I have no problems if the Ravens want to cut him, that is their call.
If he's a danger to society, then the courts should be dealing with that, not the NFL. |
That has nothing to do with it. Any more than any other company firing or suspending an employee for doing something that drew negative attention to their product. |
Does the employee actually have to have been proven to have done that thing in a court of law, or is being guilty in the court of public opinion sufficient in your view? |
Really? You may want to learn about this new technology called video...
Oh, and an employer can fire or suspend for activities that reflect badly on the company without regard to the courts. Showing up in a video hitting a woman is enough to get you disciplined in many workplaces. |
Huh? I'm not talking about what the law says a company CAN do. What the...???
I'm asking for your opinion.
Should an athlete have to be found guilty of a crime to be punished for committing that crime by the sports league ... in your opinion?
Or, should a sports league be fit to punish an athlete as they see fit even if the athlete was never charged, indicted or convicted?
In other words, say you're a Steelers fan. Would you approve of the NFL suspending Leveon Bell, Legarrette Blount and Ben Roethlisberger indefinitely? They all partook in activities that "drew negative attention to their product" and the NFL is entirely within their legal rights to do so. |
If you want to stop running around in circles and ask one question at a time, I'm happy to engage on this. If this is another semantic circle jerk, then not so much. But so far:
Yes, I do think teams have the right and responsibility to discipline players who do things to damage their brand. I can't give you a one size fits all answer, but no, I don't think Rice should be suspended forever. I thought 2 games was very light, and the league then went to the other extreme. |
There's no running around in circles about it. I apologize if it seems confusing. I just don't think the league SHOULD get involved, ever, even if they are well within their legal means in doing so.
You say "players who do things" and previously I asked you a question. Who determines if the "things" you're referring to were actually done by said athlete? A court of law? Or you would like the league gets to decide? For example, say a player was accused of assault in a bar fight. The league says, ok brand damaged, sounds legit, player cut and out indefinitely. Would you be on board with that?
You have to be if you want the league to be the body that determines guilt. |
I don't know where you work, but get caught on TV doing something awful, and you may see some discipline, including firing. It is common, and especially so when you are a public figure. That's why contracts with players and teams grants both the team and the league latitude to punish certain behaviors, regardless of the legal system. |
I'm not sure if I'm not communicating my question clearly, you're not getting it, or you're actually the one jerking this. Ha. Come on. Ok, here, I'll break it out. Two questions.
1) Someone or some governing body has to decide whether or not a person is guilty of doing an act that negatively impacts the league brand. So again, who in your mind is that governing body?
2) How upset would you be, if a player was accused of a very serious assault charge, and the league did not act to immediately suspend that player? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: |
I'm not sure if I'm not communicating my question clearly, you're not getting it, or you're actually the one jerking this. Ha. Come on. Ok, here, I'll break it out. Two questions.
1) Someone or some governing body has to decide whether or not a person is guilty of doing an act that negatively impacts the league brand. So again, who in your mind is that governing body?
2) How upset would you be, if a player was accused of a very serious assault charge, and the league did not act to immediately suspend that player? |
I've already answered these, but I'll do it again.
1. Both the league and the team, depending on type and severity of offense. The team has the right to protect their brand as does the league. Players have conduct clauses. The league nor the team need a judge to impose a penalty to detrimental conduct. As it should be.
2. Depends on the circumstances and the evidence. If we have video? I'd expect immediate action.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jonnybravo wrote: | | You can fail a workplace drug test, never get prosecuted for said drugs but get canned still the same. |
Yeah. In CA, we work at will. So a company can fire you for any reason.
Doesn't mean I think they should. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: |
I'm not sure if I'm not communicating my question clearly, you're not getting it, or you're actually the one jerking this. Ha. Come on. Ok, here, I'll break it out. Two questions.
1) Someone or some governing body has to decide whether or not a person is guilty of doing an act that negatively impacts the league brand. So again, who in your mind is that governing body?
2) How upset would you be, if a player was accused of a very serious assault charge, and the league did not act to immediately suspend that player? |
I've already answered these, but I'll do it again.
1. Both the league and the team, depending on type and severity of offense. The team has the right to protect their brand as does the league. Players have conduct clauses. The league nor the team need a judge to impose a penalty to detrimental conduct. As it should be.
2. Depends on the circumstances and the evidence. If we have video? I'd expect immediate action. |
It's just my opinion that those decisions need to be left to the teams. It's federal vs state to me. I might be willing to bend on my opinion, in a scenario where a player is found guilty of a crime in a court of law.
My main problem with supporting the idea that the league gets to make that decision, is that players can be accused of things that can damage the league's brand, even if they weren't ultimately determined to be guilty of committing said crime.
In fact, it is this very reason I was opposed to the NBA coming down with any sanctions against Kobe during his case. Had the league suspended him for "damaging their brand" I don't think I could sit there and say well, the league is entitled to protect their brand and these accusations hurt their brand.
All that said, I do realize that my way of thinking means sometimes cases like Rice's (where there is video evidence that is released) will go unpunished since he was never convicted, but it also protects players from potentially being unduly sanctioned.
I'd rather set the guilty free than imprison the innocent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: |
I'm not sure if I'm not communicating my question clearly, you're not getting it, or you're actually the one jerking this. Ha. Come on. Ok, here, I'll break it out. Two questions.
1) Someone or some governing body has to decide whether or not a person is guilty of doing an act that negatively impacts the league brand. So again, who in your mind is that governing body? |
From the NFL CBA:
Personal Conduct Policy
All persons associated with the NFL are required to avoid “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League.” This requirement applies to players, coaches, other team employees, owners, game officials and all others privileged to work in the National Football League.
For many years, it has been well understood that rules promoting lawful, ethical, and responsible conduct serve the interests of the League, its players, and fans. Illegal or irresponsible conduct does more than simply tarnish the offender. It puts innocent people at risk, sullies the reputation of others involved in the game, and undermines public respect and support for the NFL.
Standard of Conduct:
While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons who engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for persons employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values upon which the League is based, and is lawful.
Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime. Discipline may be imposed in any of the following circumstances:
Criminal offenses including, but not limited to, those involving: the use or threat of violence; domestic violence and other forms of partner abuse
<snipped>
Discipline:
... the Commissioner will have full authority to impose discipline as warranted. Discipline may take the form of fines, suspension, or banishment from the League and may include a probationary period and conditions that must be satisfied prior to or following reinstatement. The specifics of the disciplinary response will be based on the nature of the incident, the actual or threatened risk to the participant and others, any prior or additional misconduct (whether or not criminal charges were filed), and other relevant factors.
Unless the available facts clearly indicate egregious circumstances, significant bodily harm or risk to third parties, or an immediate and substantial risk to the integrity and reputation of the NFL, a first offense generally will not result in discipline until there has been a disposition of
the proceeding (or until the investigation is complete in the case of noncriminal misconduct).
| ringfinger wrote: | | 2) How upset would you be, if a player was accused of a very serious assault charge, and the league did not act to immediately suspend that player? |
It depends on the facts of the case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ Haha. I know what the league is allowed to do. I don't know why you guys keep bringing up what they CAN do.
I'm talking about whether they SHOULD intervene as they see fit regardless of what it states in the CBA.
It's a slippery slope and a no-win situation for them.
David Stern was well within his rights to veto the CP3 trade. But a lot of people think he SHOULDN'T have been allowed to due to conflict of interest.
I don't remember anyone saying "it's all good, the CBA allows for it". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another good reason to let due process take its course through the justice system.
Adrian Peterson was facing additional accusations for child abuse for another one his kids. Those charges have since been dropped.
In Texas, "reasonable" corporal punishment is legal. If AP was found to have operated within the legal limit, then he effectively didn't do anything wrong at all. Players shouldn't be suspended for accusations. Let the courts do their thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not going to get into an extraneous states rights argument (since each owner and each player agrees to the powers of the league when they sign up), but I with say the other owners have a right to have their parts of the brand protected too.
The Kobe thing is also not a good example, since Kobe was accused but we did not know who was correct. If there was a video of Kobe forcing himself on the lady, he'd not only be in prison, he would have been suspended or booted immediately.
This is why commissioners have and use latitude. Part of the job is assessing and coming to the proper response.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | I'm not going to get into an extraneous states rights argument (since each owner and each player agrees to the powers of the league when they sign up), but I with say the other owners have a right to have their parts of the brand protected too.
The Kobe thing is also not a good example, since Kobe was accused but we did not know who was correct. If there was a video of Kobe forcing himself on the lady, he'd not only be in prison, he would have been suspended or booted immediately.
This is why commissioners have and use latitude. Part of the job is assessing and coming to the proper response. |
David Stern had the full right to veto that CP3 trade. So you support his right to do so, right? If I search back, I won't see posts from you suggesting an opposition to it?
The Kobe thing is a GREAT example. Because he was never convicted but there was enough evidence for an indictment. Had the league suspended Kobe before allowing due process (which the NFL did with Ben Roethlisberger, a move I was also opposed to), I would have been opposed to that. If you're going to go by the letter of the CBA law, then you would have had to support such a move.
I agree with your last point though. But with all that CBA messaging, how do you feel the NFL has handled these recent cases and the situations preceding them? Terribly right? Exactly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
