Ray Rice

[Striker]

Again, I'm not defending Ray Rice or his actions - I'm saying let the man and his wife work out their problems on their own. Let him pay his penalty thru the judicial system, and have some perspective with respect to his livlihood and what that means for his family.

You are harming his wife all over again, and you are harming his family. Leave them alone, and let them heal and move forward with their lives - it is mind-boggling that this view is considered heresy.

Except as we've seen the judicial system is willing to cut a deal for many reasons (fame, lack of a victim testimonial, etc) but it's sadly no different across many domestic violence cases (and other crimes as well). In this case, he has to submit to counseling and then he's done.

I don't think many people's changed their mind on this case after the video leaked. Those that thought the punishment was too light the first time still thought the punishment was too light.

Not only that, but if the story is true that the NFL and/or the Ravens hadn't seen the video until it was leaked, then they also have every right as employers to terminate him if they see fit.

[Fosco33]

Brent might be a bad example, though video might have affected his criminal prosecution. He was probably punished according to the Drug and Alcohol Policy by the NFL and it did not have options under than policy, its controlled by the CBA.

Which is precisely why the Personal Conduct Policy has backfired so tremendously in Rice's case. Because Roger is judge, jury and executioner he has virtually unlimited discretion. And almost no one to back him up except by personal testimonial. The Policy is unpopular with the players so they won't help. So when his 2 game decree was met with near universal derision, he immediately began to backtrack.

Remember, the NFL is always looking for new revenue streams and women are one demo they are targeting. The reason the owners like Rogers is that he has been helping increase revenue by leaps and bounds. This incident is a threat to that. Pink clothes and all.

So while Roger is in retreat, they are vulnerable to other revelations or bad PR. When the tape leaks, they are in a full fledged panic. Yes they are hypocrites, but they are hypocrites because this was never about justice, it was about potential football revenue.

Had Goodell experience outside of football, or had he listened to Tagliabue's critique, he would have a similar system to Personal Conduct that they had for Drugs and Alcohol. He would have had a system to rely on and back him up, plus arbitration or access to courts. Retreat wouldn't have been necessary, They could have changed the policy to issue harsher suspensions to satisfy critics and been done with it.

Totally agree. With his conduct policy, he's now creating a 'moral standard' by measuring games suspended.

2 games for a hit to a head in a game designed to hit an opponent can now be compared to hitting your wife/gfriend/etc, raping a girl at a club, or ranting on the league via social media

What's he to do about Ray McDonald? (jeez, I'm not sure I'd draft anymore Rays... Lewis, Rice, McDonald).

[pbmax]

The video leaking did change things, but its not a simple two lane street of hypocrisy. Its a eight lane divided highway.

1. In his CBS interview, Roger denied that they had to see the video to understand what Rice and Palmer meant when they said (and the police report said) he struck her and knocked her down with his left hand. He then went on immediately to describe the content of the tape as "clear, graphic and sickening" and THAT was the reason they took additional action. That is hypocrisy #1, but if you believe that is the actual reason, I have a bridge to sell you. Its also an unforced error. Roger admitted they erred in the punishment. He could have simply amended that to they ended the investigation too early rather than say the video made no difference.

Video: http://www.latimes.com/sports/sports...htmlstory.html

2. The new video is public. Sponsors were now going to get a new wave of heat as this dominated the news coverage for a couple of days. The target demo wasn't particularly happy with the event and punishment. Most of American cannot do anything about the prosecutor in NJ, they can be mad at the NFL and not buy pink product. Everyone wants this story buried and off the front page so the team and league do something drastic to take back the headlines. He's cut and suspended. Rice is sacrificed, because this is going to cost the NFL revenue and bad press.

3. The NFL's only possible public justification for more punishment is the video. Which they claim contained nothing new and that their initial investigation was thorough enough to make them aware of the events. So now your story relies on the thin thread that you knew was was in the video, but had never seen or possessed it. That's having your hypocrisy and eating it too, evidentially speaking.

4. Inevitably, given they had previously described the content of the elevator video to the press, the NFL would be revealed to have had the tape. But it had the tape informally, they were not supped to reveal they had possession or had seen it. Their current answer? If we have it, no one knew it, its under the desk, a temp signed for the package and we never watched it.

5. Voicemail tells us that not only was there possession, but that someone watched it. And now they are left to claim the right people weren't told OR everyone was lying.

6. The NFL will still maintain that the Personal Conduct Policy (and HGH perhaps) should still not be subject to review, due process and arbitration. Because the commissioner must protect the Shield. Speaking of which, remember the Saints? Didn't Roger tell them that ignorance of events in the building was no defense to the charges? How about it Roger, you going to let some underling take the fall?

[MadtownPacker]

Who would think a Brotha hittin a Sista would result in Crackas exploding.

[Rastak]

I think the NFL's real predicament is that it has made a lot of enemies outside of HQ with the way it has dealt with media, deigning to hand out very carefully controlled crumbs of information, and often doing so with an air of haughty superiority. Well, now there is tangible evidence out there indicating that a particular absurdity handed down by the NFL in the name of "discipline", on a case that many seemed to feel merited at least as much punishment as a marijuana conviction, confirms what many have felt about the league's dealings with respect to personal conduct -- that it has been arbitrary at best and favorable to certain teams and owners at worst.

Now that there is some real evidence that the NFL screwed up, everyone is gleefully demanding their pound of flesh for every past grievance they've had with NFL HQ.

I absolutely agree with your take....there is blood in the water and these sharks are starving.

[Rastak]

Who would think a Brotha hittin a Sista would result in Crackas exploding.

That true.......as a side note, I recognized that shot as very similar to the KO from Ali-Liston I.

[pbmax]

That true.......as a side note, I recognized that shot as very similar to the KO from Ali-Liston I.

Are you saying Palmer owed money to wise guys and took a dive?

[pbmax]

I absolutely agree with your take....there is blood in the water and these sharks are starving.

The only problem with Yoop's take is the those who have been burnt the most (NFL beat guys who reported on the video contents and have now been told no one ever saw it) are also completely dependent on the NFL continuing to hold them in their good graces.

That's not to say they might not be sharing notes with others on their staff.

Now if MLB joins the dog pile, then you know its personal.

[Harlan Huckleby]

crack up side of head = Mexican foreplay

[Patler]

Forget that it is the NFL. It's an employer. Just like your employer. Forget (for the moment) that it is domestic violence case. It's a violation of our criminal justice standards, like other violations, assault against anyone, drunk driving, whatever.

Under what situations should your employer have the right to gather evidence on their own, review it on their own, and determine "their" punishment for you on their own apart from the determination made by criminal justice system?

It's easy to say "Ban the guy for life!" when it is a rich athlete and he punched his fiancee. By all accounts I have seen, there have been no other incidents and Rice has been described as a model citizen until now. The NFL has banned him.

If you are a licensed professional or tradesman, should your license be suspended for life based on your first criminal transgression when it is not one such as larceny, etc. that impacts your suitability for your profession? If you are a guy, should you lose it for sucker punching another guy in a bar? A female you don't know in a bar? A female acquaintance with whom you have no relationship? Your wife? How about if it is between gay couples? What if it's a wife suckerpunching her husband? Another female? Should you lose your license for life?

I'm not condoning what Rice did, nor the right for the NFL to issue some punishment, but I think we need to consider the when, how and how much in the same manner as we would if it was any of us and our employers.

[QBME]

I think the NFL's real predicament is that it has made a lot of enemies outside of HQ with the way it has dealt with media, deigning to hand out very carefully controlled crumbs of information, and often doing so with an air of haughty superiority. Well, now there is tangible evidence out there indicating that a particular absurdity handed down by the NFL in the name of "discipline", on a case that many seemed to feel merited at least as much punishment as a marijuana conviction, confirms what many have felt about the league's dealings with respect to personal conduct -- that it has been arbitrary at best and favorable to certain teams and owners at worst.

Now that there is some real evidence that the NFL screwed up, everyone is gleefully demanding their pound of flesh for every past grievance they've had with NFL HQ.

An interesting take. However, the NFL has appointed an "Independent Investigator" to get to the bottom of this situation - Robert Mueller III. Very prestigious. And just how independent is this guy?

"Mueller, based in Washington, D.C., is a partner in the law firm of WilmerHale, which helped negotiate the NFL's Sunday Ticket package with DirecTV. The firm also has represented Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder, and several former members of the firm have taken positions with NFL teams."

Go get 'em Bobby!!

SOS

[Fosco33]

Forget that it is the NFL. It's an employer. Just like your employer. Forget (for the moment) that it is domestic violence case. It's a violation of our criminal justice standards, like other violations, assault against anyone, drunk driving, whatever.

Under what situations should your employer have the right to gather evidence on their own, review it on their own, and determine "their" punishment for you on their own apart from the determination made by criminal justice system?

It's easy to say "Ban the guy for life!" when it is a rich athlete and he punched his fiancee. By all accounts I have seen, there have been no other incidents and Rice has been described as a model citizen until now. The NFL has banned him.

If you are a licensed professional or tradesman, should your license be suspended for life based on your first criminal transgression when it is not one such as larceny, etc. that impacts your suitability for your profession? If you are a guy, should you lose it for sucker punching another guy in a bar? A female you don't know in a bar? A female acquaintance with whom you have no relationship? Your wife? How about if it is between gay couples? What if it's a wife suckerpunching her husband? Another female? Should you lose your license for life?

I'm not condoning what Rice did, nor the right for the NFL to issue some punishment, but I think we need to consider the when, how and how much in the same manner as we would if it was any of us and our employers.

Many tradespeople can be fired for drug use - some on the spot.

I know in my profession, they do a pretty thorough background check and ask individuals to respond to any possible transgressions.

Heck, I'm instituting an 'emotional intelligence' component to my current recruiting practice because I'm sick of dealing with unstable people.

You all should read an interesting case of a kindergarten teacher caught defacing a Walker booth a a local county fare... should she be fired/suspended? Can the school district do independent investigation? Regardless of political view - would you want your 5yr old being taught by someone with less than stellar character?

[Fosco33]

Yup - we don't like coverups... Penn State, Catholic Church, etc. The coverup is the bigger issue and their actions should have consequence.

[pbmax]

Forget that it is the NFL. It's an employer. Just like your employer. Forget (for the moment) that it is domestic violence case. It's a violation of our criminal justice standards, like other violations, assault against anyone, drunk driving, whatever.

Under what situations should your employer have the right to gather evidence on their own, review it on their own, and determine "their" punishment for you on their own apart from the determination made by criminal justice system?

It's easy to say "Ban the guy for life!" when it is a rich athlete and he punched his fiancee. By all accounts I have seen, there have been no other incidents and Rice has been described as a model citizen until now. The NFL has banned him.

If you are a licensed professional or tradesman, should your license be suspended for life based on your first criminal transgression when it is not one such as larceny, etc. that impacts your suitability for your profession? If you are a guy, should you lose it for sucker punching another guy in a bar? A female you don't know in a bar? A female acquaintance with whom you have no relationship? Your wife? How about if it is between gay couples? What if it's a wife suckerpunching her husband? Another female? Should you lose your license for life?

I'm not condoning what Rice did, nor the right for the NFL to issue some punishment, but I think we need to consider the when, how and how much in the same manner as we would if it was any of us and our employers.

So we asking if a plumbing company with 10 employees would be expected to behave the same way as a multi-billion dollar enterprise with 2,000 employees? Or vice-versa?

No one Googles their plumber. Few identify with the plumber. No one buys a shirt with the plumbers name on it (unless you are a hipster buying clothing at Goodwill). I have never participated in Fantasy Plumbing Leagues. EA Sports does not pay likeness rights to the plumbers of America.

If the plumbing company carries Trane products, very little notice is given to a criminal infraction by a plumber and even less notice attaches itself to Trane.

If Ray Rice's jersey or picture is on the NFL website, on a page sponsored by Trane, then that notoriety attachers itself to Trane much more easily. Especially if he appears on TV with Trane attached in some way.

The NFL doesn't sell a trade. It sells branding opportunities, chances for companies to attach their business to the reputation and popularity of the NFL, to increase visibility and profitability. If an act makes that transaction harder or less profitable, it affects the business model. Just look at the NBA and NFL a few years ago worried about their thug image.

If the plumber has run afoul of the law before in their life, I am still more interested in whether or not he can stop the leak. These concerns overlap if the plumber tends to steal from the homes he works in (or commits other crimes while there) or commits fraud. Because the interaction is personal, my list of concerns is very specific.

The affinity for the NFL is much more transient and tied to entertainment. Its therefore much more broad (more areas of concern), much less personal and ultimately more easily replaced. We have disagreed before about how fungible players are (especially short versus medium-long term) but the player is very dependent on his personal reputation. The plumber is dependent on his professional reputation.

That said, to answer the basic question, I think the newly announced guidelines, which Roger thew out after the video hit the airwaves, seem quite reasonable.

[Fritz]

So we asking if a plumbing company with 10 employees would be expected to behave the same way as a multi-billion dollar enterprise with 2,000 employees? Or vice-versa?

No one Googles their plumber. Few identify with the plumber. No one buys a shirt with the plumbers name on it (unless you are a hipster buying clothing at Goodwill). I have never participated in Fantasy Plumbing Leagues. EA Sports does not pay likeness rights to the plumbers of America.

If the plumbing company carries Trane products, very little notice is given to a criminal infraction by a plumber and even less notice attaches itself to Trane.

If Ray Rice's jersey or picture is on the NFL website, on a page sponsored by Trane, then that notoriety attachers itself to Trane much more easily. Especially if he appears on TV with Trane attached in some way.

The NFL doesn't sell a trade. It sells branding opportunities, chances for companies to attach their business to the reputation and popularity of the NFL, to increase visibility and profitability. If an act makes that transaction harder or less profitable, it affects the business model. Just look at the NBA and NFL a few years ago worried about their thug image.

If the plumber has run afoul of the law before in their life, I am still more interested in whether or not he can stop the leak. These concerns overlap if the plumber tends to steal from the homes he works in (or commits other crimes while there) or commits fraud. Because the interaction is personal, my list of concerns is very specific.

The affinity for the NFL is much more transient and tied to entertainment. Its therefore much more broad (more areas of concern), much less personal and ultimately more easily replaced. We have disagreed before about how fungible players are (especially short versus medium-long term) but the player is very dependent on his personal reputation. The plumber is dependent on his professional reputation.

The problem for me is that once you're okay with the NFL - a "brand" is ever there was one - being allowed to punish/fire players for acts that occur outside of the workplace because those acts damage the "brand," then you've opened the door to every single company to be able to control the private lives of employees and to fire those who don't knuckle under.

So if you own a plumbing company, and you've "branded" yourself as a family-oriented, good-citizen company, and one of your young plumbers goes and gets wasted and gets into a fight on Saturday night, you really can, under this line of thinking, fire the guy because he's damaging your "brand."

In that scenario there is no private life left. There is only a constant monitoring of one's life by others. One of the big mistakes many people make is in thinking it's "the government" that is doing all this. But that's only part of it. Private corporations (say, Google Earth) are recording where you live, are looking at your facebook page, are monitoring your tweets, and are ready to fire your ass if you don't act in an acceptable way.

I am a little surprised at how okay so many people are with having lost their right to a private life.