Ray Rice suspended two games? (Update: now cut/suspended)

[FireChan]

You are missing the point. Goodell is not "any person" in the United States. He is the Commissioner of the NFL and he, himself, has gone about setting the standard of conduct for the players. He did not do his job in this instance. Period. End of story. He did not do his "due diligence" regarding behavior that, whether you like it or not, has much broader implications. As much as you would like it to be the case to support your simple arguments, things do not happen in a vacuum. They tend to be much more complex in nature.

 

We can just agree to disagree on this point.

 

I understand you attribute the commissioner a larger than life persona, I just don't think he is any different that a CEO of a company.

 

What are these broader implications? What has resulted out the Ray Rice case besides bad PR? Are the more severe domestic abuse penalties a negative implication?

Edited September 10, 2014 by FireChan

[billsfan1959]

So you're basically making the spider man argument. Because the NFL arguably has the power to influence social issues it has the responsibility to advance whatever social issues the public mob mentality believes it should advance at the moment. Further, you think is somehow comparable to Jackie Robinson (I'm not going to get into whether MLB was trying to influence the culture for the greater social good or was making a business decision) and the NFL has a moral obligation to ??? because if the NFL shows that it doesn't tolerate domestic abuse by it's employees it will have some greater social good? Is that the gist of it? No offense, it sounds like goofy head in the clouds idiocy to me, but perhaps you're right.

 

BTW, It's not moral superiority that drips from my posts, it's intellectual superiority. Try to keep up.

Generally speaking, if you have to tell people that you are intellectually superior...it is because, deep inside, you know that you aren't. But hey, behavior is a function of consequence - which means we do things for a reason. If telling people you are intellectually superior to them makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. Who am I to deprive you of your happiness.

[Rob's House]

Because the NFL is by far the most successful and influential league in the country. Every year the top 20 TV show ratings almost entirely consist of NFL games. Yet Goodell acting as NFL Commissioner has no moral obligation to consider the broader societal standards and decency in a case such as this one? You're hung up on “sending a message” and it’s only semantics. If he had given Ray Rice a proper punishment, Goodell would have sent a message to NFL players and to the millions of NFL fans that domestic violence has no place in the NFL and will not be tolerated. He sent the opposite message by giving Ray Rice 2 games. If this was your sister, I’m sure you would be singing a much different tune. If this was Roger’s daughter do you honestly think he would have not seen the tape? Suspended him indefinitely? Give me a break.

 

No offense dude, b/c IIRC correctly you've struck me as reasonably intelligent at some point in PPP, but I've got to call you on this mindless garbage. All you're saying here is that you're angry because if that was your sister you'd want the guy to fry. You've not really given any real explanation of how and why this becomes Goodell or NFL's responsibility other than you'd like to send some abstract message that you believe will presumably provide some poorly defined benefit to someone somewhere. I'll take them one by one.

 

Because the NFL is by far the most successful and influential league in the country. Every year the top 20 TV show ratings almost entirely consist of NFL games. Yet Goodell acting as NFL Commissioner has no moral obligation to consider the broader societal standards and decency in a case such as this one?

 

So you're saying that because the NFL has high ratings it is now responsible for determining the standards of crime and punishment for its employees acts that are unrelated to the sport. I'm not seeing the cause and effect here. What about this case gives the league responsibility above the courts for determining decency and punishment?

 

If he had given Ray Rice a proper punishment, Goodell would have sent a message to NFL players and to the millions of NFL fans that domestic violence has no place in the NFL and will not be tolerated.

The domestic violence didn't happen in the NFL. As far as the message to the fans, now you're talking about effectiveness of PR management which is a far cry from moral responsibility. Why is it the moral responsibility of the NFL to undertake the activist role of every cause one of its many employees happens to run afoul of?

 

If this was your sister, I’m sure you would be singing a much different tune.

The standard cop out response. If you don't have an argument appeal to emotion. Whether or not it was my sister has no bearing on anything. If anything it would make me biased and irrational. Despite my bias and irrationality I'd still have the sense to blame the court system for not meting out justice and not the offender's employer.

 

If this was Roger’s daughter do you honestly think he would have not seen the tape?

 

Which gets back to the point you've still yet to address: who does he have a duty to? As far as I can see his duty is to the league. His job is to minimize the impact to the league. This high and mighty grandstanding by which you claim you're so morally outraged that he put the league ahead of your sense of justice is nauseatingly naive, and quite frankly childish. If anyone failed that girl (or whoever this is supposed to serve - don't try to pretend any of you give half a !@#$ about the victim in this case) it was the court system which is tasked with the business of crime and punishment. Not the NFL which is a private football league which deals with these matters only out of necessity to avoid harming its brand.

 

Generally speaking, if you have to tell people that you are intellectually superior...it is because, deep inside, you know that you aren't. But hey, behavior is a function of consequence - which means we do things for a reason. If telling people you are intellectually superior to them makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. Who am I to deprive you of your happiness.

 

Was a bit of ribbing there, but I'll let people judge for themselves. None of this was ever about convincing you of anything. I'm pretty sure that melon of yours is too hardened to accept any new information or perspective to seep through its pores.

 

Edit: by virtue of the fact that you addressed that part of my post and not the rest I'll assume you have little, if anything, to offer.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Rob's House

[26CornerBlitz]

@SI_Wire

Report: Domestic violence calls spike in wake of Ray Rice video - http://si.com/nfl/20...olence …

pic.twitter.com/Lk6e6Avo0W

[Rob's House]

I spent 8 years in the military. I spent 23 years with the FBI. I currently assist prosecutors in murder, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence trials. I also provide training to law enforcement, prosecutors, and mental health professionals on offense, offender, and victim characteristics in intimate partner violence and sexual assault. I think I have spent a lifetime doing my moral duty. How about you? Care to comment?

 

Shouldn't you be excoriating the prosecutors in this case instead of the NFL? Plus, a moralistic cop/prosecutor is a dangerous thing. A man's got to know his limitations. Based on what you've said in this thread I'm pretty sure we'd disagree on your assessment of your moral duty. I'd guess it would be more aptly defined as imposing your self-righteous will.

[1billsfan]

So you're basically making the spider man argument. Because the NFL arguably has the power to influence social issues it has the responsibility to advance whatever social issues the public mob mentality believes it should advance at the moment. Further, you think is somehow comparable to Jackie Robinson (I'm not going to get into whether MLB was trying to influence the culture for the greater social good or was making a business decision) and the NFL has a moral obligation to ??? because if the NFL shows that it doesn't tolerate domestic abuse by it's employees it will have some greater social good? Is that the gist of it? No offense, it sounds like goofy head in the clouds idiocy to me, but perhaps you're right.

 

BTW, It's not moral superiority that drips from my posts, it's intellectual superiority. Try to keep up.

 

It's goofy to think that the NFL possibly doesn't have the power to influence society. Do you realize how many millions of people watch and follow the NFL?

 

Don't you think that if the NFL gave slaps on the wrist for domestic violence incidents perpetrated by their players, that their male fans with the propensity for beating women would feel empowered and validated by a lenient domestic violence policy in the NFL? If the NFL doesn't think it's a big deal, then why should they? Like it or not, the NFL is a big part of American society. Especially in the male population.

Edited September 10, 2014 by 1billsfan

[Rob's House]

It's goofy to think that the NFL doesn't have the power to influence society. Do you realize how many millions of people watch and follow the NFL?

 

Don't you think that if the NFL gave slaps on the wrist for domestic violence incidents perpetrated by their players, that their male fans with the propensity for beating women would feel empowered and validated by a lenient domestic violence policy in the NFL? If the NFL doesn't think it's a big deal, then why should they? Like it or not, the NFL is a big part of American society. Especially in the male population.

 

2 things:

 

1. No, I don't think it would have the slightest impact on the occurrences of domestic violence throughout society.

 

2. Even if it did, it would still not be the responsibility of the NFL to do such a thing. Let me clarify: I'm not saying the NFL doesn't have a right to do this sort of thing, but I think the attitude of the fans that they have a duty to do so is unfounded and ill conceived.

[thebandit27]

Goodell is really starting to twist in the wind on this one...

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/10/goodell-outlines-rice-investigation-for-owners-says-league-didnt-directly-ask-hotel-for-video/

[Jauronimo]

It's goofy to think that the NFL doesn't have the power to influence society. Do you realize how many millions of people watch and follow the NFL?

 

Don't you think that if the NFL gave slaps on the wrist for domestic violence incidents perpetrated by their players, that their male fans with the propensity for beating women would feel empowered and validated by a lenient domestic violence policy in the NFL? If the NFL doesn't think it's a big deal, then why should they? Like it or not, the NFL is a big part of American society. Especially in the male population.

Just because the NFL may have the power to take a stand and change perception does not mean that its their responsibility to do so. Fact is the NFL has absolutely no responsibility to take a stand on this or any issue. It isn't Goodell's job to shape American society as he sees fit. Declaring that Goodell should lose his job for failing to take actions which are completely outside of his responsibilities as commissioner of the NFL is absolutely absurd. A more appropriate criticism of Goodell would be already having gone too far in that direction rather than not far enough.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Jauronimo

[NoSaint]

I just want to make it clear that I'm the most outraged and think Goodell should be tried for crimes against humanity.

 

well this has escalated. i wonder how our fellow posters feel now that we all are by comparison supporting domestic violence.

[1billsfan]

2 things:

 

1. No, I don't think it would have the slightest impact on the occurrences of domestic violence throughout society.

 

2. Even if it did, it would still not be the responsibility of the NFL to do such a thing. Let me clarify: I'm not saying the NFL doesn't have a right to do this sort of thing, but I think the attitude of the fans that they have a duty to do so is unfounded and ill conceived.

 

So it's ok for the NFL to treat player punishments however they'd like regardless of how society feels about the crimes? That's simply a belief that is just not based in any sort of reality. Imagine if they gave Vick a 2 game suspension for what he did. What if a player raped a woman and got a 2 game suspension? I could go on and on. The NFL either adheres to society standards in regards to punishments or they would eventually no longer receive billion dollar TV contracts from the networks, which in turn would doom the league. So one way or the other they have to adhere to societal standards. I think it's both their moral duty, given how big they are, and for their survival as a business. But either way it's a given they follow societal standards.

[Jauronimo]

So it's ok for the NFL to treat player punishments however they'd like regardless of how society feels about the crimes? That's simply a belief that is just not based in any sort of reality. Imagine if they gave Vick a 2 game suspension for what he did. What if a player raped a woman and got a 2 game suspension? I could go on and on. The NFL either adheres to society standards in regards to punishments or they would eventually no longer receive billion dollar TV contracts from the networks, which in turn would doom the league. So one way or the other they have to adhere to societal standards. I think it's both their moral duty, given how big they are, and for their survival as a business. But either way it's a given they follow societal standards.

Yes. Yes it is. In fact, its the only way to responsibly hand out punishments. You're aware that we still have a judicial system, right?

Edited September 10, 2014 by Jauronimo

[Mr. WEO]

Just because the NFL may have the power to take a stand and change perception does not mean that its their responsibility to do so. Fact is the NFL has absolutely no responsibility to take a stand on this or any issue. It isn't Goodell's job to shape American society as he sees fit. Declaring that Goodell should lose his job for failing to take actions which are completely outside of his responsibilities as commissioner of the NFL is absolutely absurd. A more appropriate criticism of Goodell would be already having gone too far in that direction rather than not far enough.

 

I agree with this. Most posters here are just piling on because they dislike Goodell for......all the free football?

 

Goodell should have just said that he saw the knockout video. Many had already assumed that he did. This "resentencing" of Rice looks like PR only. It makes no sense to suspend him indefinitely when we all know he knocked her out.

[Numark3]

Society dictates rules and punishments in any context. When the NFL gained full legal authority to punish its players, it did so knowing that society ultimately is going to rule supreme (as it has). Call it morality or what you will, but when Ray Rice beat his wife, the NFL punished him in an unacceptable matter, hence the backlash. Call it morality or whatever you like, but you are ignorant if you don't think the NFL had to punish Rice more than two games.

 

Yes. Yes it is. In fact, its the only way to responsibly hand out punishments. You're aware that we still have a judicial system, right?

 

I think your understanding of the judicial system is pretty poor. One of the first things you learn in your first week of law school is the court system, punishments, and laws are not independent from society. In fact, the derive their power from society

Edited September 10, 2014 by Crayola64

[Numark3]

And you based that conclusion on my acknowledgement that said system indeed exists? Do go on.

 

By creating a system to punish players, the NFL is no different than any other judicial system in the country. They cannot operate in a vacuum from what society wants. If you want proof, look at this thread and the ray rice situation happens. Society ultimately dictates rules and punishments, you would be silly to think the nfl is the excpetion

Edited September 10, 2014 by Crayola64

[Mr. WEO]

Society dictates rules and punishments in any context. When the NFL gained full legal authority to punish its players, it did so knowing that society ultimately is going to rule supreme (as it has). Call it morality or what you will, but when Ray Rice beat his wife, the NFL punished him in an unacceptable matter, hence the backlash. Call it morality or whatever you like, but you are ignorant if you don't think the NFL had to punish Rice more than two games.

 

 

 

I think your understanding of the judicial system is pretty poor. One of the first things you learn in your first week of law school is the court system, punishments, and laws are not independent from society. In fact, the derive their power from society

 

The bolded statement is pure gibberish. The rest is even less persuasive.

 

"Society" didn't care at all how the NFL punished its wife beaters before this summer. It's not the NFL's job to fill in the gaps in the criminal justice system.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Mr. WEO

[Rob's House]

 

 

So it's ok for the NFL to treat player punishments however they'd like regardless of how society feels about the crimes? That's simply a belief that is just not based in any sort of reality. Imagine if they gave Vick a 2 game suspension for what he did. What if a player raped a woman and got a 2 game suspension? I could go on and on. The NFL either adheres to society standards in regards to punishments or they would eventually no longer receive billion dollar TV contracts from the networks, which in turn would doom the league. So one way or the other they have to adhere to societal standards. I think it's both their moral duty, given how big they are, and for their survival as a business. But either way it's a given they follow societal standards.

 

I don't know why it's so hard for you to separate the role of the criminal justice system from that of the employer/employee relationship. Plus, when a crime is committed and we as a society look not to the courts, but rather to the employer of the accused for justice, I think we've moved past mass hysteria and into mass retardation.

[Numark3]

The bolded statement ispure gibberish. The rest is even less persuasive.

 

"Society" didn't care at all how the NFL punished its wife beater before this summer. It's not the NFL's job to fill in the gaps in the criminal justice system.

 

Society is making its voice heard now, vick was no different

[DC Tom]

So it's ok for the NFL to treat player punishments however they'd like regardless of how society feels about the crimes?

 

Yes, absolutely.

 

Stupid, maybe. But okay.

 

Imagine if they gave Vick a 2 game suspension for what he did. What if a player raped a woman and got a 2 game suspension? I could go on and on.

 

Imagine if they gave Leonard Little nothing for killing a woman.

 

Please, go on. Come up with an example where it's the league's responsibility to punish players for criminal actions. Because it's not - the league does so at the league's discretion, nothing else.

 

The NFL either adheres to society standards in regards to punishments or they would eventually no longer receive billion dollar TV contracts from the networks, which in turn would doom the league. So one way or the other they have to adhere to societal standards. I think it's both their moral duty, given how big they are, and for their survival as a business. But either way it's a given they follow societal standards.

 

"Adheres to society standards" is the biggest load of crap I've seen on this thread. "Society's standards" are enforced by the justice system, not a goddamn sports league. And "society's standards" in this case are: Ray Rice got off with six months' therapy and no criminal record. That is the punishment the state of New Jersey gave him. THAT is society's standard for this case. If Goodell were adhering to "society's standards" in this case, Ray Rice wouldn't have even been suspended two games.

 

The NFL isn't adhering to "society standards" in any way, shape, or form in this. They're adhering strictly to their PR needs, and nothing more. They couldn't care less about domestic violence otherwise...but they sure have plenty of useful idiots conned into thinking they do.

[Jauronimo]

Society dictates rules and punishments in any context. When the NFL gained full legal authority to punish its players, it did so knowing that society ultimately is going to rule supreme (as it has). Call it morality or what you will, but when Ray Rice beat his wife, the NFL punished him in an unacceptable matter, hence the backlash. Call it morality or whatever you like, but you are ignorant if you don't think the NFL had to punish Rice more than two games.

 

 

 

I think your understanding of the judicial system is pretty poor. One of the first things you learn in your first week of law school is the court system, punishments, and laws are not independent from society. In fact, the derive their power from society

And you came to that conclusion based solely on my acknowledgement that said system exists??? Do go on.

 

Right, which is why the NFL commissioner is not a f@#$ing substitute for the judicial system. Rape, as was used in the last terrible example, will be punishable by law as dictated by society. Its not the NFL's responsibility to administer any particular punishments.