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

[Rob's House]

 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the flip side to this is that the NFL is a business. If you ran a business, would you fire a guy who committed some horrific crime?

 

The one thing that I absolutely cannot stand is how everyone is going after Goodell. In my opinion, something outside of the game should be dealt with by the specific franchise. The League and Commish should punish breaking rules of the NFL, but the owners handle all other matters. The Ravens are the worst people in this story and it's not even close.

 

I may. Where I think they !@#$ed up is by making suspension the standard response to minor offenses. Now it's no longer a one-off situation for particularly egregious cases, which opens the door for the comparisons and expectations. That in turn leads to ill conceived policies like this new 6 game mandatory minimum. Mandatory minimums are almost always bad, but they backed themselves into a corner and had to adopt bad policy to appease the fan base.

[birdog1960]

Exactly. Which means all this outrage has nothing to do with any responsibility of the NFL to police domestic violence and everything to do with PR.

if someone had a video showing me pulling my wife out of an elevator, unconscious, by her hair, i'm pretty certain i'd be fired on the moral turpitude clause in my contract. it wouldn't require the second video. i'll bet many here would also lose their jobs if such an incident became public. and in my opinion that would be just. why should it be different in the NFL. many of these guys have been told they're special all their lives and the rules don't apply (and too often they don't). that needs to stop. Edited September 9, 2014 by birdog1960

[FireChan]

Holy crap, you and Rob's house are not using your brain. Is this going to be like 5th grade where you have to write an essay to a prompt, "If you were in charge of a multi-billion dollar industry, what are the pros and cons of caring if your players (image) beat their wives? Remember at least three reasons!"

 

Goodell shouldn't be the one "in charge of a multi-billion dollar industry." That's the point you seem to be missing. The onus should be on the owners who pay the players. Not Goodell.

 

I may. Where I think they !@#$ed up is by making suspension the standard response to minor offenses. Now it's no longer a one-off situation for particularly egregious cases, which opens the door for the comparisons and expectations. That in turn leads to ill conceived policies like this new 6 game mandatory minimum. Mandatory minimums are almost always bad, but they backed themselves into a corner and had to adopt bad policy to appease the fan base.

 

Well that's the world, isn't it? Eliminate discretion and institute bad "black and white" policies. Sounds just like school administrators.

[Kelly the Dog]

Goodell shouldn't be the one "in charge of a multi-billion dollar industry." That's the point you seem to be missing. The onus should be on the owners who pay the players. Not Goodell.

I think Goodell is the cause of a lot of his personal PR problems, but that is how all of these leagues work, and it works for them to have guys like Goodell, Stern, Bettman, Selig, Silver, etc, in those positions, even if the fans hate them.

[Rob's House]

if someone had a video showing me pulling my wife out of an elevator, unconscious, by her hair, i'm pretty certain i'd be fired on the moral turpitude clause in my contract. it wouldn't require the second video. i'll bet many here would also lose their jobs if such an incident became public. and in my opinion that would be just. why should it be different in the NFL. many of these guys have been told their special all they're lives and the rules don't apply (and too often they don't). that needs to stop.

 

Would you be fired by your practice or would you be suspended by the medical board?

Edited September 9, 2014 by Rob's House

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm saying I don't think we should expect the league to act like police; period. I don't question their ability or right to do so, I just don't agree with them assuming that role. I apply that across the board. I don't understand why the NFL tests for any drugs other than those of the performance enhancing variety, nor do I understand why a player who gets arrested for possession gets suspended by the league. It seems to me that if anyone besides the court is going to formally punish a player for conduct unrelated to the league it should be the team he's contracted to play for.

 

I hear what you're saying and completely understand that point of view. It's the ideal way it should be, depending on how you feel about PEDs. But I don't think it's economically possible, certainly not in today's world. One misstep in public that goes viral can literally cost the league (thus all 32 owners) millions in advertising dollars. The NFL is a monster and can pretty much do what it wants because football is so popular -- but the public's appetite is fleeting. They can't afford to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

The way I see it, the league undertook this role to try to shape its image and now is realizing the unintended consequences it now faces as a result. It is now not only allowed to, but is EXPECTED to play the role of police, judge, jury, and executioner. And now it must do so according to the whims of a fickle public, the bulk of which operates primarily on emotion rather than logic, particularly with these kinds of matters. I'm actually okay with Goodell getting canned over this; just probably for the opposite reason that everyone else does.

 

I hear you here as well. I certainly am not advocating that public whim become the sole decider of anything. But this case isn't about the public forcing an undue change. No one here, not WEO or anyone, is saying the NFL's old domestic abuse policy was in line with the times. And There's no doubt nothing would have happened had this event not been on camera.

 

But it was on camera. And that's important.

 

One reason (maybe THE reason) the video was important in this case was because it allowed non-football fans to see what happened. People who wouldn't know Ray Rice from Jerry Rice were suddenly getting that video and every op-ed piece about it sent to their inboxes and screens. Add in the fact that more people care about whether or not a football player is active or not thanks to fantasy football's popularity (which also has increased the female demo of the sport overall in the past half decade) there was no way this wasn't going to be a huge embarrassment for the league and the Ravens. Ten years ago, only football fans would have heard about this story. Now, the whole country heard about it because everyone is walking around with a computer in their pocket.

 

All I'm saying is that trying to make this into an example of the dangers of falling prey to the folly of the public's whim is overshadowing what should be seen as a positive example of what public opinion can do. The masses got this one right. Will it lead to the end of domestic abuse in the NFL? Absolutely not. Will it lessen the number of abuses committed? Nope. But the next guy who gets caught will certainly be paying a more appropriate price. That's a win.

[Numark3]

Goodell shouldn't be the one "in charge of a multi-billion dollar industry." That's the point you seem to be missing. The onus should be on the owners who pay the players. Not Goodell.

 

Why shouldn't the NFL Commissioner be in charge or protecting the NFL's image? That's the structure that is set up in the CBA that the players are bound too? The NFL has an image and money at stake, why wouldn't the commissioner care? You keep saying owners, the commissioner acts as an extension and behalf of the owners? There is 32 teams, 1 NFL, 1 commissioner. It makes more sense (in terms of consistency and predictability), for the league to be in charge of this

 

 

But instead of just asking questions (as ignorant and goofy as "why should the nfl care about what their players do), why don't you two state why the NFL shouldn't care and give the reasons since your opinion goes against the norm, cba, and what most people believe.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Crayola64

[Deranged Rhino]

Or domestic violence anywhere else.

 

I said it earlier (in this thread, I think): the real travesty is that Rice can plea-bargain down to an intervention program and no jail time. It's not the NFL's job to punish abusers, it's the court's. Yet Rice got a stiffer punishment from the NFL than he did from the justice system even BEFORE he was cut today...and everyone's bitching that the league is the organization not doing enough to combat domestic violence?

 

The whole "issue" here is craven and cowardly, because everyone wants to take the lazy path of focusing on the convenient boogey-man ("The NFL goes easy on domestic abuse!"), because it's easy and doesn't require any effort. But no one - including the justice system - wants to deal with the non-public figure who throws his wife down a flight of stairs, or rapes and beats his girlfriend into a coma and brags about it on Facebook. Outrage at a convenient target is MUCH easier than actually giving a **** about the problem.

 

I mean, yes, !@#$ Goodell. Shitbird couldn't take a moral stand to save his life - even now, when he PRETENDS to take a moral stand, it's a matter of convenience and half-assed PR. But !@#$ all of you that think Goodell's the real problem, too. Of all the parties involved in this cluster-!@#$, he's one of the least responsible.

 

Isn't the only reason there wasn't legal ramifications because she didn't press charges? They can't charge him with it just because he's on video, can they? (asking seriously, not trying to be a smartass)

 

My post before the edit was pretty dumb. I argued with you, then made the point you had just made. It was a bold strategy, let's see if it works out for them.

 

:lol:

I think Goodell is the cause of a lot of his personal PR problems, but that is how all of these leagues work, and it works for them to have guys like Goodell, Stern, Bettman, Selig, Silver, etc, in those positions, even if the fans hate them.

 

Goodell has only himself to blame for this, you're right. The league uses him as a lightning rod, that's why he gets paid like he does. He's as replaceable as a lightning rod too...

[Numark3]

Isn't the only reason there wasn't legal ramifications because she didn't press charges? They can't charge him with it just because he's on video, can they? (asking seriously, not trying to be a smartass)

 

You are thinking of civil cases. In criminal cases, the prosecutors can proceed with the case with or without the consent of the victim

[Mr. WEO]

This issue is about the fact the NFL's policy on domestic abuse has been a joke for far too long. If it took this to get the rules changed, what's the issue?

 

.

 

Did you think this last year also? Or the year before? Or did you realize this after you saw Rice dragging his unconscious wife out of an elevator after he clocked her? Where was you indignation before Ray Rice? He's another in a long line..

 

And you've still yet to explain your point.

 

Let DC Tom explain:

 

Or domestic violence anywhere else.

 

The whole "issue" here is craven and cowardly, because everyone wants to take the lazy path of focusing on the convenient boogey-man ("The NFL goes easy on domestic abuse!"), because it's easy and doesn't require any effort. But no one - including the justice system - wants to deal with the non-public figure who throws his wife down a flight of stairs, or rapes and beats his girlfriend into a coma and brags about it on Facebook. Outrage at a convenient target is MUCH easier than actually giving a **** about the problem.

 

 

Only after seeing a video on NFL player-on-partner violence did the public scream for blood. Goodell just gave it to them. They will be uninterested again by week 4.

 

The irony is that the only thing football fans REALLY seem genuinely riled about is whether the NFL lied about not seeing this current tape before suspending Rice. If they did lie---stand back!! ...and watch Ray Rice and his wife disappear into the usual oblivion of such couples.

[birdog1960]

Would you be fired by your practice or would you be suspended by the medical board?

almost certainly the first. quite possibly the second. i believe the board reviews all felonies but not certain.

[DC Tom]

Isn't the only reason there wasn't legal ramifications because she didn't press charges? They can't charge him with it just because he's on video, can they? (asking seriously, not trying to be a smartass)

 

Answered this in the anti-Goodell thread: in most states (if not all), a complaining victim is not required to press charges in a domestic violence case, mostly because most victims knew that pressing charges just led to another beating later on. So the police can arrest, and the DA charge, with sufficient evidence without a complaint.

 

And again...Rice WAS CHARGED. Indicted by a grand jury on aggravated assault, which carries a 4-year jail sentence. He plea-bargained out of it, down to no time and an "intervention program" that, if he completed it, would result in the charges being completely expunged.

 

Initially he refused the plea-bargain, I presume (I don't know, I haven't seen it reported, I'm just guessing) because he thought he couldn't be charged if his wife didn't press charges...and he discovered he was sorely mistaken.

 

i believe the board reviews all felonies but not certain.

 

Convictions, indictments, charges, or accusations?

[Numark3]

almost certainly the first. quite possibly the second. i believe the board reviews all felonies but not certain.

 

Yea I agree, no idea about medical board rules. but I do know about nfl cba rules, and the CBA gives the NFL authority to punish players. So what was the point of his analogy? If an nfl player commits a crime, is he liable to be punished by the nfl legally, the answer is a 100% yes...

[Rob's House]

I hear what you're saying and completely understand that point of view. It's the ideal way it should be, depending on how you feel about PEDs. But I don't think it's economically possible, certainly not in today's world. One misstep in public that goes viral can literally cost the league (thus all 32 owners) millions in advertising dollars. The NFL is a monster and can pretty much do what it wants because football is so popular -- but the public's appetite is fleeting. They can't afford to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

 

 

I hear you here as well. I certainly am not advocating that public whim become the sole decider of anything. But this case isn't about the public forcing an undue change. No one here, not WEO or anyone, is saying the NFL's old domestic abuse policy was in line with the times. And There's no doubt nothing would have happened had this event not been on camera.

 

But it was on camera. And that's important.

 

One reason (maybe THE reason) the video was important in this case was because it allowed non-football fans to see what happened. People who wouldn't know Ray Rice from Jerry Rice were suddenly getting that video and every op-ed piece about it sent to their inboxes and screens. Add in the fact that more people care about whether or not a football player is active or not thanks to fantasy football's popularity (which also has increased the female demo of the sport overall in the past half decade) there was no way this wasn't going to be a huge embarrassment for the league and the Ravens. Ten years ago, only football fans would have heard about this story. Now, the whole country heard about it because everyone is walking around with a computer in their pocket.

 

All I'm saying is that trying to make this into an example of the dangers of falling prey to the folly of the public's whim is overshadowing what should be seen as a positive example of what public opinion can do. The masses got this one right. Will it lead to the end of domestic abuse in the NFL? Absolutely not. Will it lessen the number of abuses committed? Nope. But the next guy who gets caught will certainly be paying a more appropriate price. That's a win.

 

I get what you're saying. It's not that I'm troubled by Rice getting canned. I have a problem with the public expectation that the NFL be the arbiter of justice, and also the way the NFL put themselves in this position through years of policies that I've disagreed with. If the NFL didn't make a habit of policing private acts of players it wouldn't have a PR nightmare here. People would blame the team rather than the league, and any team that wanted to carry Rice on its roster would have to weigh the impact it would have on public perception. But the league has inserted itself into that role and now the public looks to them to punish all acts that anger the public. And the new domestic abuse policy is just plain bad IMO.

[Deranged Rhino]

Did you think this last year also? Or the year before? Or did you realize this after you saw Rice dragging his unconscious wife out of an elevator after he clocked her? Where was you indignation before Ray Rice? He's another in a long line..

 

Actually I did think this last year. The difference is, with this incident, non football fans who didn't know the rules found out about it. You might think you're the smartest guy in the room but you've yet to grasp that element of this.

 

 

 

Let DC Tom explain:

 

Who are you, NJSue? Be a man and do your own homework.

 

 

Only after seeing a video on NFL player-on-partner violence did the public scream for blood. Goodell just gave it to them. They will be uninterested again by week 4.

 

The irony is that the only thing football fans REALLY seem genuinely riled about is whether the NFL lied about not seeing this current tape before suspending Rice. If they did lie---stand back!! ...and watch Ray Rice and his wife disappear into the usual oblivion of such couples.

 

Because the people who are the most vocally upset about this are the non football fans who just learned about the NFL rule. Of course they're not going to care about the NFL in 4 weeks, they never cared about it to begin with. But to assume that all NFL fans were ignorant or okay with the old rules is arrogant as hell. Damn, dude. Do you know how everyone in the world thinks?

 

You're on a roll tonight.

[Numark3]

I get what you're saying. It's not that I'm troubled by Rice getting canned. I have a problem with the public expectation that the NFL be the arbiter of justice, and also the way the NFL put themselves in this position through years of policies that I've disagreed with. If the NFL didn't make a habit of policing private acts of players it wouldn't have a PR nightmare here. People would blame the team rather than the league, and any team that wanted to carry Rice on its roster would have to weigh the impact it would have on public perception. But the league has inserted itself into that role and now the public looks to them to punish all acts that anger the public. And the new domestic abuse policy is just plain bad IMO.

 

The reason that people look for the NFL to punish players, is because the NFL is the entity that punishes players. Its not rocket science, but you'll get it one day. You might as well be saying something as ridiculous as "Why do courts punish people?" The answer is because they have LEGAL AUTHORITY to do so. Its the same answer to your "why does the NFL punish players question"

Edited September 9, 2014 by Crayola64

[Rob's House]

Answered this in the anti-Goodell thread: in most states (if not all), a complaining victim is not required to press charges in a domestic violence case, mostly because most victims knew that pressing charges just led to another beating later on. So the police can arrest, and the DA charge, with sufficient evidence without a complaint.

 

And again...Rice WAS CHARGED. Indicted by a grand jury on aggravated assault, which carries a 4-year jail sentence. He plea-bargained out of it, down to no time and an "intervention program" that, if he completed it, would result in the charges being completely expunged.

 

Initially he refused the plea-bargain, I presume (I don't know, I haven't seen it reported, I'm just guessing) because he thought he couldn't be charged if his wife didn't press charges...and he discovered he was sorely mistaken.

 

 

In some states the police have to charge where there is probable cause even if the victim protests.

[Deranged Rhino]

I get what you're saying. It's not that I'm troubled by Rice getting canned. I have a problem with the public expectation that the NFL be the arbiter of justice, and also the way the NFL put themselves in this position through years of policies that I've disagreed with. If the NFL didn't make a habit of policing private acts of players it wouldn't have a PR nightmare here. People would blame the team rather than the league, and any team that wanted to carry Rice on its roster would have to weigh the impact it would have on public perception. But the league has inserted itself into that role and now the public looks to them to punish all acts that anger the public. And the new domestic abuse policy is just plain bad IMO.

 

That's true. I see that side of it, certainly.

[Rob's House]

Yea I agree, no idea about medical board rules. but I do know about nfl cba rules, and the CBA gives the NFL authority to punish players. So what was the point of his analogy? If an nfl player commits a crime, is he liable to be punished by the nfl legally, the answer is a 100% yes...

 

It's over your head. No one's even arguing about whether the NFL has the legal right. You're out of your element.

[Deranged Rhino]

You are thinking of civil cases. In criminal cases, the prosecutors can proceed with the case with or without the consent of the victim

Answered this in the anti-Goodell thread: in most states (if not all), a complaining victim is not required to press charges in a domestic violence case, mostly because most victims knew that pressing charges just led to another beating later on. So the police can arrest, and the DA charge, with sufficient evidence without a complaint.

 

And again...Rice WAS CHARGED. Indicted by a grand jury on aggravated assault, which carries a 4-year jail sentence. He plea-bargained out of it, down to no time and an "intervention program" that, if he completed it, would result in the charges being completely expunged.

 

Initially he refused the plea-bargain, I presume (I don't know, I haven't seen it reported, I'm just guessing) because he thought he couldn't be charged if his wife didn't press charges...and he discovered he was sorely mistaken.

 

Thanks for these. Appreciated.