NFL Policy Looks like with the recent outcry over Ray Rice's suspension has got the NFL thinking twice. With the suspension comparisons between failing a drug test and beating your wife coming out the NFL has decided to revamp their policy.
Right now as a 1st time offender Ray Rice has to attend a program and will avoid trial as long as he completes this. Goddell said the NFL doesn't have a big policy on domestic abuse and how to handle it but after this issue they're trying to expedite the process.
In Other news Goddell also stated he has not seen the video from inside the elevator and doesn't need to because its irrelevant and could have been staged.
My questions-
How does the NFL not have a Domestic Abuse Policy, really that is ridiculous.
I am glad that the public outcry has changed the NFL's thoughts but its scary to think that NFL players are living by different rules as us normal citizens.. Why is that?
Comments
I imagine Goodell will have a hard time making that sort of measure of proof stick in an arbitration meeting, much less get it to stick through the next collective bargaining session.
Why is it ridiculous that the NFL didn't have a domestic abuse policy? Wouldn't the NFL's existing code of conduct policy taken care of this (or any other similar manner) had Rice been convicted of a crime?
As far as I know, the NFL never instituted a dog fighting policy after the Michael Vick fiasco.
Because the NFL has a substance abuse/marijuanna policy... but when it comes to hitting/beating your wife unconscious we will just let it slide. a slap on the wrist and probably a joke of a mandatory abuse class.
Meanwhile if that was any of us, we would be in jail no questions asked.
Are you suggesting that the NFL should jail their employees who break certain policies?
Because, normally, that's the sort of thing you want your judicial system to handle. And last I checked, NFL players are subject to the same rule of law as the rest of us.
not at all I just think that they should review all the facts and go from there. Its ignorant that Goodell won't look at the tape because he deems in unnecessary
Is it really the NFL's fault that someone like Ray Rice isn't in jail for beating his wife?
At a certain point, our legal system needs to stop failing us, and stop passing the buck to the professional leagues when their players screw up.
So are we finally gonna see a stiffer penalty for hitting your wife than for hitting MJ?
Workaround: Rename your wife Mary Jane __ and paint her green. Lawyered.
Not funny.
Leg to even you out for someone misusing the downvote arrow. Didn't try to offend you, just tried to make an absurd joke of off TechHokie's statement.
Its about time domestic abuse is punished as severe as using banned substances.
I just don't get this. I mean: I get the outrage at the apparently unfathomable disparity in penalties. I just think it's not all that unfathomable.
Right up front: I am not defending domestic abuse in the slightest. Its reprehensible, and the only possible valid explanation for raising your hand against your significant other in my book is legitimate self-defense.
But bad shit happens in your personal life sometimes. People get into situations they didn't foresee, and act in ways they wouldn't have considered in a rational frame of mind.
A lot of that shit may not affect your productivity in any measurable way, but substance abuse most certainly does. So the NFL has every reason to implement a substance abuse policy, as it directly affects on the product on the field. Drug abuse is a generally conscious act that generally requires a commitment to the act before it is done. And if one gets caught in the NFL's screening process, the chances that the person wasn't a habitual user are pretty slim.
Other actions, just like the one at issue here, often happen in an instant with no forethought. Why should the NFL threaten your livelihood if you have paid your debt to society legally, you aren't running into further legal trouble, and you are fulfilling your job duties?
If the NFL can do it, can other employers do so? What other infractions that occur in one's personal life should your employer punish you for?
This whole "conduct unbecoming" stuff was a slippery slope when it became entrenched in sport contracts, and while it may have its place, I worry this case is being used to make the slope steeper and more slick.
I do not like the way our society more and more thinks that it is ok to materially penalize people they are at odds with outside the legal system. It's one thing to protest, and to publicly shame. This kind of punishment certainly has legitimate benefits to society.
But to be able to threaten someone's income? The court of public opinion is never as accurate or fair as the real courts, warts they may have. And the infractions that the court of public opinion considers actionable is far more subject to whim for my comfort.
Well, I think at the end of the day, a professional athlete is an entertainer. So he is tried in the court of public opinion. If people are outraged at the NFL for not suspending him longer, and the NFL is losing in the court of public opinion, it needs to recitfy that. This isn't an industry where they produce stuff. They produce entertainment. And if your buyers aren't happy about your product because wives are getting beaten, then it can be recitifed.
Certainly that is the only argument I can think of in favor of penalizing players in this way, which is why I mentioned the "conduct unbecoming" type clauses.
But people aren't making that argument, are they? In general, I'm seeing the "they punish people for pot more than for domestic violence" argument.
The entertainment argument doesn't really go towards answering any of the difficult moral questions such a practice can lead to.
It is ridiculously easy to get a mob passionately inflamed about some thing or another. When you are willing to punish your employees based on the fickle outrage of a mob, you generally end up trading justice for expedience, and in the end, everyone suffers.
I don't think you need to answer difficult moral questions - the market takes care of that. If the majority of consumers feel like you should suspend Ray Rice for longer, you probably need to rectify that or risk pissing off your fans. This isn't the legal system, he's not losing his voting privliedges or being jailed or anything. This is the entertainment industry, and if the crowds are displeased, the product is flawed.
Well sure, nobody is required to answer difficult moral questions.
Obviously we have gone way past the rubicon on that sense of obligation, instead we as a society tend to rush from one sense of outrage to another, demanding immediate action.
Doesn't hurt to suggest those questions ought to be considered once in a while.
Fair enough. I just lack sympathy for any guy who strikes his wife. Particularly when he hits her hard enough that she has to be dragged from an elevator like a rag-doll. And clearly, that seems to be the consensus
IMHO, Physically hurting another human should always be far more punishable than hurting oneself for recreational purposes.
I'm a woman and shall contribute my opinion from my point of view. Domestic abuse (regardless of which spouse is the aggressor) is a crime in this country. As such, people committing domestic abuse should be punished according to their crimes. Debating why the NFL should or should not enact a "domestic abuse policy" when nothing was done after Michael Vick's conviction is comparing apples to oranges. Discussing the lack of disciplinary action for domestic abuse when such policies exist for drug abuse is more relevant.
NFL players have more of a history of domestic abuse or assault than other violent crimes. Look at Rae Carruthers hiring a thug to murder his pregnant fiancee. Look at the whole Ray Lewis Super Bowl weekend drama. Obviously, going to jail for the rest of your life invalidates the need for NFL action. But the fact remains that a player who smokes weed will, by the current arrangement, be suspended for a set amount of games. A player who assaults anyone (male, female, domestic, or otherwise) has no set punishment. It doesn't reflect well on the NFL that they have a policy for one but not the other.
I appreciate your perspective, but I don't know that the argument you make from it is substantively different than the argument men are making.
I'd just point you to my two posts immediately up thread, and ask a couple follow-ups that I hope illustrate some of the potential pitfalls of pursuing these sorts of policies.
Why does the NFL need a special policy for this?
What other legal infractions does the NFL need a policy for?
What happens if a player is convicted, is then penalized by the NFL, but is then later cleared?
Is it ok that someone innocent might be penalized both legally and professionally, just so the NFL sends the right message?
Are we saying that NFL players are so stupid that they think if the NFL doesn't specifically penalize them beyond what our justice system does for an action that is obviously illegal, they think that such actions are therefore acceptable?
I wasn't making a terribly different argument, just was sharing my thoughts.
If the NFL has a policy for drug abuse, assault and domestic abuse should have a policy. Again, it gives the impression that drug abuse is tolerated less than assault. DUIs also carry the potential for disciplinary action (remember Donte Stallworth and Josh Brent?). Professional sports organizations remind me of the military justice system (for the record, Army wife here). They are select groups that choose to have policies and regulations beyond the extent of the law. People join them willingly and so agree to abide by those policies. The United Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) doesn't allow adultery, for example, and service members can be prosecuted for that. The NFL can do whatever they want, but I honestly don't see the need for excessive punitive measures.
If a player is convicted, the NFL can then choose to enforce action to show that they don't condone such behavior. If they're cleared after the fact, oh well. That means a conviction was probably overturned upon appeal. Or the NFL could choose to postpone punishment until the appeals process is completed. While American citizens are innocent until proven guilty, an organization like the NFL operates under its own volition and can choose to do what they see fit (like suspending a player until the resolution of legal action). And I don't think a lot of players consider the ramifications of their actions (legally, personally, and professionally) when they do stupid shit.
This is one of the things that I keep shaking my head at.
Does anyone really believe the NFL condones domestic violence?
Let me put it in an extreme (which seems a little redundant, as that argument already seems extreme, but...):
The NFL doesn't have a specific policy in regards to pedophilia. Does anyone think the NFL therefore condones it?
Of course not, and of course they don't.
The default position for the NFL is that they condone lawful behavior, except for such lawful behavior they deem to be detrimental to their brand.
We've gotten all twisted around here and in all other manner of things where we act as though if party X doesn't explicitly decry and punish action Y, then they must be for it.
It's not really a terribly attractive turn we've taken as a society, to imply or outright say things we know to be false (NFL thinks domestic violence is worse than recreational drug use), in order to punish someone we feel wasn't punished enough.
Especially frustrating is that none of this will have any effect on Ray Rice. His punishment is not going to be increased.
EDITED:
And getting missed in all this: The drug policy that everyone seems to think is disproportionate is a 4 strike policy. ### I had this wrong: Players must get caught 4 times to get any punishment. ### There are varying levels of punishment that increase as the infractions increase. /endEdit This was collectively bargained, so if the players think their recreational drug use is punished too harshly, they literally have only themselves to blame.
Do you really think if Ray Rice is convicted of domestic battery 4 times, he's going to be in any position to earn an NFL paycheck?
Anyway, any further questions in here can be treated as rhetorical. I think I've said all I can on it.
I agree with your example. But the world we live in is one where public outcry and instant shaming occur. Organizations have to take a hard line (obviously, they don't condone it) in order to save face.
Airline pilots have a policy for substance abuse. By your logic, shouldn't that industry also have a domestic abuse policy?
No...the current laws take care of that.
Domestic abuse should be no different than any other form of assault. It should matter that person was Ray Rice's Wife, Girlfriend, mistress, random female, best male friend or random male. In the US of A you should not be able to knock someone unconscious and suffer no penalties.
The NFL is not penalizing Ray Rice for breaking the law - they are penalizing Ray Rice for hurting their image. If our judicial system took physical assault half as serious as recreational drug use, our country would be a far better place [/steps off soap box]
I agree with you. It seems like the NFL's reaction was: "Shit, we can't have this guy on video doing this and not do something." It would make sense that if domestic abuse carries a penalty, all abuse or assault should be treated equally.
And then the NFL pulled an NCAA- seems like they needed to make a stand on the penalties moving forward, after something has already happened..
Full Link:
1st Offense 6 games; 2nd Offense is Lifetime Ban
I heard a little about this on Mike and Mike this morning on the way into work. They compared the severity of the Ray Rice suspension to the severity of the Josh Gordon suspension and compared the things they did to get those suspensions and it was a pretty stark contrast.