Official NFL Notes 2015

[ThunderDan]

Theoretically speaking, I wonder what would happen if Morris went to the Player's Union and wanted to pursue a complaint? While it sometimes seems the player's union is only interested in opposing the NFL front office, they do represent the players after all. It would never happen, but I wonder if they actually could oppose the NFL for failing to issue a punishment? That would be hilarious to see.

I've been wondering that also. If I was an NFL player and they were suspending guys for using steroids and HGH, I wouldn't want the NFLPA to defend those guys. They are taking away my money by using illegal substances to improve their performance. That hurts my production verses other players and lowers my value.

[mraynrand]

Mea culpa.

It's not a big deal. You made some good points. But, I should have just made a direct statement: All I'm saying is that when you get taken to court and lose, you're gonna be gun shy. And having the precedent of being taken to court and winning against the NFL will inevitably lead to more cases being taken to court against the NFL (especially the more nebulously addressed they are by the NFLPA and bargaining).

[mraynrand]

I've been wondering that also. If I was an NFL player and they were suspending guys for using steroids and HGH, I wouldn't want the NFLPA to defend those guys. They are taking away my money by using illegal substances to improve their performance. That hurts my production verses other players and lowers my value.

or forcing you to take risks to stay competitive. But having the NFLPA go against players might be seen to weaken the NFLPA, and to weaken player rights. It's a fine line to walk.

[sharpe1027]

or forcing you to take risks to stay competitive. But having the NFLPA go against players might be seen to weaken the NFLPA, and to weaken player rights. It's a fine line to walk.

I think they are firmly on one side of the line: Oppose the NFL front office in favor of individuals, even if it might be short-sighted and detrimental to players as a whole.

[pbmax]

It's not a big deal. You made some good points. But, I should have just made a direct statement: All I'm saying is that when you get taken to court and lose, you're gonna be gun shy. And having the precedent of being taken to court and winning against the NFL will inevitably lead to more cases being taken to court against the NFL (especially the more nebulously addressed they are by the NFLPA and bargaining).

Well, that is what I thought you meant originally. I am not having a good day for cognition or communication.

I understand gun shy, but to read either the Rice, Hardy, Peterson or Brady cases as having on impact on conduct during a game seems a big reach. There is ample precedent to stand on.

[pbmax]

I think they are firmly on one side of the line: Oppose the NFL front office in favor of individuals, even if it might be short-sighted and detrimental to players as a whole.

I don't think that's been the case for quite some time. All the recent cases have been about the Player Conduct Policy, which in retrospect, was constructed and approved in a short-sighted and ill conceived manner, even if all agreed on the overall purpose.

Last time the NFLPA was involved in a PED case that challenged the ruling was Star Caps I think. All the other stuff is procedural. And if I am not mistaken (not a good bet this week) the NFLPA was very reluctant on this, the players themselves initiated the suit with David Cornwall I think.

Outside of those, the other obvious one is BountyGate. And it was an ex-commissioner who pulled the rug out from Roger on that one, it wasn't the Courts. Though the NFLPA wanted neutral arbitration on that one. Not exactly short sighted there either.

If you want to see where the NFLPA's loyalties lie, watch them march with the League on the concussion settlement, because their future was on the line too. Several of the lawsuits named both the NFL and NFLPA jointly as defendants.

[pbmax]

I've been wondering that also. If I was an NFL player and they were suspending guys for using steroids and HGH, I wouldn't want the NFLPA to defend those guys. They are taking away my money by using illegal substances to improve their performance. That hurts my production verses other players and lowers my value.

If it were me, I would want the NFLPA to stand up and force the NFL to live up to the letter of the agreement. So that nothing unexpected happens to me if I find out Twix has a natural diuretic in it. That is what I would expect.

I am not sure Aaron Rodgers wants the PED users on his O line to get what's coming to them for being naughty. So the folks who want PEDs gone are outnumbered by users and those that benefit directly.

People view this issue entirely differently in the NFL than they do in baseball. The last time there was outrage about the size of NFL players, it was around Refrigerator Perry's rookie year. Its also interesting to note that not a lot of NFL players are undersized now like they became in baseball. The entire game changed there after testing was announced. Football not so much.

[sharpe1027]

I don't think that's been the case for quite some time. All the recent cases have been about the Player Conduct Policy, which in retrospect, was constructed and approved in a short-sighted and ill conceived manner, even if all agreed on the overall purpose.

Last time the NFLPA was involved in a PED case that challenged the ruling was Star Caps I think. All the other stuff is procedural. And if I am not mistaken (not a good bet this week) the NFLPA was very reluctant on this, the players themselves initiated the suit with David Cornwall I think.

Outside of those, the other obvious one is BountyGate. And it was an ex-commissioner who pulled the rug out from Roger on that one, it wasn't the Courts. Though the NFLPA wanted neutral arbitration on that one. Not exactly short sighted there either.

If you want to see where the NFLPA's loyalties lie, watch them march with the League on the concussion settlement, because their future was on the line too. Several of the lawsuits named both the NFL and NFLPA jointly as defendants.

I think you missed the mark with this one. They have always picked their battles, and perhaps you are correct that they are more selective now. That really wasn't the point.

When was the last time they did anything close to pushing for an increased suspension for a player, or some other positive action that that would be in the benefit of the players as a whole, but to the detriment of an individual?

[pbmax]

I think you missed the mark with this one. They have always picked their battles, and perhaps you are correct that they are more selective now. That really wasn't the point.

When was the last time they did anything close to pushing for an increased suspension for a player, or some other positive action that that would be in the benefit of the players as a whole, but to the detriment of an individual?

1. Agreed to Personal Conduct Policy - done outside the CBA negotiations
2. Agreed to PED Policy
3. Agreed with medical clearance rules for players with head injuries

Asking the PA to stand up for an individual player to get increased sanctions is counter productive, both logically and as a negotiation tactic. The PA work best when the rules are uniformly applied, at worst, players are uniformly miserable. Singling out an individual would also haunt the PA because a new precedent wold be set without negotiation.

Do you think the game is actually more dangerous because Suh wasn't suspended? Same with Pacman? Each has been suspended and fined. Only Pacman has shown signs of changing.

[smuggler]

PED policy and medical clearance policies are better for the players than the league. It doesn't matter if the PA is too dumb to fucking understand it.

[sharpe1027]

1. Agreed to Personal Conduct Policy - done outside the CBA negotiations
2. Agreed to PED Policy
3. Agreed with medical clearance rules for players with head injuries

Asking the PA to stand up for an individual player to get increased sanctions is counter productive, both logically and as a negotiation tactic. The PA work best when the rules are uniformly applied, at worst, players are uniformly miserable. Singling out an individual would also haunt the PA because a new precedent wold be set without negotiation.

Do you think the game is actually more dangerous because Suh wasn't suspended? Same with Pacman? Each has been suspended and fined. Only Pacman has shown signs of changing.

Do you think Morris and other players would be within their rights to want to get that kind of bush league stuff out of the game? Is that really counter productive to ask for a second review if the players, other than Suh, felt the head office got it wrong?

Maybe this isn't the best case for it, but the concept shouldn't be too hard to grasp. What if Morris had his career ended by a concussion fr the hit? Who would the players associatiin back in a lawsuit? What if the intent was much easier to see? What if the next guy Suh takes a cheap shot on gets seriously hurt and sues the NFL for allowing it to continue without sufficient punishment? At what point does it stop being counter productive?

[mraynrand]

Asking the PA to stand up for an individual player to get increased sanctions is counter productive, both logically and as a negotiation tactic. The PA work best when the rules are uniformly applied, at worst, players are uniformly miserable. Singling out an individual would also haunt the PA because a new precedent wold be set without negotiation.

This is gobbledy gook. It's not hard at all to see how all your so-called counter-productive, equally miserable, and un-negotiated 'new precedents' could be uniformly applied to the punishment of obvious and repeated thuggish behavior.

[pbmax]

Would they be within their rights? Sure.

Would it be supported? I doubt it. In general, players in any sport prefer to police that stuff themselves. And that was true long before Goodell came on the scene and its not limited to football. It would need to be a far more grievous case to turn around that sentiment.

It's not hard at all to see how all your so-called counter-productive, equally miserable, and un-negotiated 'new precedents' could be uniformly applied to the punishment of obvious and repeated thuggish behavior.

The policy and power to act against Suh and Jones already exist. That, if PFT's read is right, is what makes this odd. There is no need for new precedent. And the League has been busy for years now under Goodell demonstrating how they prefer not to be limited by uniformity and precedent.

[sharpe1027]

Would they be within their rights? Sure.

Would it be supported? I doubt it. In general, players in any sport prefer to police that stuff themselves. And that was true long before Goodell came on the scene and its not limited to football. It would need to be a far more grievous case to turn around that sentiment.



The policy and power to act against Suh and Jones already exist. That, if PFT's read is right, is what makes this odd. There is no need for new precedent. And the League has been busy for years now under Goodell demonstrating how they prefer not to be limited by uniformity and precedent.

You're kind of all over the place. Whether it would be supported doesn't mean it would be counter productive. So, why exactly is seeking a review on a decision like Suh's counter productive if they believe he was guilty of an infraction against one of their other players?

[pbmax]

You're kind of all over the place. Whether it would be supported doesn't mean it would be counter productive. So, why exactly is seeking a review on a decision like Suh's counter productive if they believe he was guilty of an infraction against one of their other players?

Because seeking a review would undermine player support of the PA.

And the League already has tools to do this for in game conduct. You would need a far more egregious case for player sentiment to switch to push for harsher penalties.