He was already hired.Originally Posted by sharpe1027
He was already hired.
The problem is that you're comparing the NFL to regular jobs. It's an apple and orange comparison. It's well known that the NFL is completely about image and money, so therefore they base their decisions on those items. What an employee does there is completely magnified to the nth degree due to who they work for. It comes with the territory and the players and other employees know it. The same rules don't apply to the regular world as they do for the NFL due to their high profile. I think the comparison you're trying to do is flawed on a basic level. I see what you're looking to accomplish, but I don't think it works.
All hail the Ruler of the Meadow!
There is no sense in pretending the NFL is anything resembling a normal employer. A normal "career" in the NFL is 3 years long and ends abruptly before delivering pizzas forever. The nature of the industry is such that players must always be prepared to never play football again. Before the incident, the league was unquestionably better with Rice in it. His body didn't get injured but his image did and the result is exactly the same, the league thinks it no longer benefits from Rice's contributions. Seeing the NFL's action as a punishment is inaccurate. Ray Rice isn't banned because he hit his lady, he's banned because a video was released to the public of him hitting his lady.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
In all likelihood the standard NFL boilerplate contract contains a "morals clause" which is broad and which gives the NFL all kinds of power to have its way in matters like this. Rice voluntarily accepted the terms of his contract in exchange for millions in compensation. It's pretty cut and dried to me.
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
I think this is right. While the wisdom of allowing Goodell to make these decisions can certainly be questioned, the NFL certainly has the right to suspend a player for behavior they feel is detrimental to the image of the NFL.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
I think Patler is trying to ask a broader question: Should employers be able to terminate someone who has committed a transgression outside of work and work hours, regardless of industry or monopoly status?
I assume for the sake of my argument that the transgression in question does not impair the ability of the person to work (or be available to work) and does no harm (financial or PR) to the firm in question. So I am not considering the case of a cab driver booked on a DUI charge.
My answer is yes, they should, because absent specifically negotiated due process in a contract (personal services or Union), I am not sure such a matter can be adjudicated easily in a Court or arbitration hearing. But I am open to the argument that at will employment confers a greater advantage of information to the employer than to the employee.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
It's so arbitrary with the NFL that it is starting to drive me crazy.
3irty1 hit the nail on the head. Rice isn't band because of doestic violence. He's banned because of a video. If there had been video, lots of Packers would have been banned over the years.
So domestic abuse in the privacy of your home might get you as short suspension. Domestic abuse in public gets you banned, but only if there is video.
The League's letter to Rice giving him official word about his suspension says that that the additional sanction was because the video showed a substantially different version of events than had been portrayed in the meeting with Goodell, League officials and the team.
Which, going back to our six stages of hypocrisy list, means that League officials who viewed the video at the casino (and received and watched their own copy of the video) managed not to convey the actual events very accurately to their superiors, if at all. If that was true, you might think someone would face sanctions themselves for failing at their job. We'll probably have to wait until a Friday news dump in April to get word from Mueller's investigation on that.
Last edited by pbmax; 09-12-2014 at 11:36 AM.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
OK, but different levels of evidence exist in all cases of wrongdoing. And that affects verdicts and sentencing even for substantially the same act. Details of laws (there are often 5 levels of sexual assault on the books) and their corresponding sentences often depend on very fine grained reading of the available evidence.
So is that what disturbs you, or the fact that the League believed this was a "both sides are to blame and a slap isn't really a punch" incident that is domestic violence incident only in the technical sense?
Or is it my particular brand of exasperation, that Goodell seems to pick punishments out of a hat after reading USAToday?
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Wrongly worded, but simply replace hired with employ. What duty does a business have to continue to employ someone?
Yes. This is true. Like it or hate it, the level of certainty in the culpability, as well as the public perception seems to be a large factor. That being said, this is not a criminal proceeding where it is mostly a yes or no verdict. Here, the punishment can be adjusted based upon the certainty culpability as well as on other factors, such as the possible effect on the bottom line of the league ($$). Is it really so different than any other business?
No absolute duty, for sure; but the real question is how arbitrary and unilateral they can be in deciding not to.
Legally, or to satisfy an arbitrary person's liking?
The part that bothers me most is the response to mob mentality. Nothing changed from the original suspension to his total ban, other than the video. They knew it was a case of domestic violence, the video didn't change that. But, public perception changed, so then the NFL changes a ruling they had already made.
Sooner or later team will conduct surveys to see who the fans want to be the starters. After all, it's better for the league to give the fans the players they want to see.
I have to agree with Patler. The NFL as an entertainment "brand" has so overwhelmingly passed the NFL as a football league that it's getting harder and harder to find the actual football. Storylines of broadcasts are about individuals, not teams. Decisions are being made based on profit, and it's not that that's intrinsically bad - it's that profit is not tied to individual teams and their success (i.e. winning), it's now tied to the league as an entity, and that means an emphasis on individual stories, not on the games.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
They did that with the pro bowl and nobody watches anymore.
If we are talking about an ideal way to handle this stuff it is one thing. I agree with most of Patler's points on what the NFL did wrong. If, however, we are talking about what the NFL had the right to do (even if less than ideal) that's a whole different ball of wax.
The Pro Bowl is not a good example because there's nothing at stake. A storyline has to be created - the league has to give the game meaning.
Does your employer have the right to conduct its own investigation of something you've been accused to doing outside of work?
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Many people are saying this.
I heard somebody in Ravens organization, perhaps the owner, give a very plausible explanation of what changed. He wanted to believe that something less brutal happened. He thought the woman was drunk, banged her head against the wall.
This sounds right to me. People are very good at believing what they badly hope is true. The video was a dose of reality and changed everything.
You'd like to think these were data-driven decisions from the league but it certainly doesn't seem that way. Seems like Goodell renders judgment base on his horoscope that day.
Rice should just do and say everything Vick said to get reinstated replacing the word "dogs" with "women." If you can manipulate the media to get kicked out you can manipulate them to get back in.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
You and Patler need sensitivity training. Get more in touch with your feelings, soften your hearts. Become fully human.
BTW, I hate the NFL for sort-of the opposite reason: too much player movement. Just when I start to really like an individual player, like James Jones, he was gone. I hated that minnie-me center, Scott Wells. Then I warmed up to him and he left. I agree with Seinfeld's old joke that the only thing that stays constant with pro sports are the uniforms, so we're cheering for laundry.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote