Jump to content



Recent headlines from The Baltimore Sun

Photo
- - - - -

New NFL Policy on Domestic Violence


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Thirteen

Thirteen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 02:36 PM

http://espn.go.com/e...lence-penalties

 


The NFL is immediately implementing a sweeping domestic violence initiative that calls for a six-game suspension for a first offense and a lifetime ban from the league for a second offense.

 

The harsh measures, announced in a letter from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to all team owners, a copy of which was obtained by ESPN, apply to all NFL personnel. A six-game suspension would come without pay and the length of the penalty could increase in cases where an employee was involved in a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child.

 

A second-time offender may petition for reinstatement after one year but there is no assurance the petition will be granted, the letter said.

 

 

 

wowza.

 

 



#2 johnpolitics

johnpolitics

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,151 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 08:01 PM

I guess this means if Ray or Big Ben Rapeenberger misbehaves again they are toast.



#3 Steveg85321

Steveg85321

    Sage of wisdom, reason and truth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,160 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 10:32 PM

Oh come on, this BS kind of crap makes me want to puke. This sort of draconian, arbitrary, zero-tolerance policy has nothing to do with justice and is only the league rolling over because of a media firestorm.
 
The penalty applied to Ray Rice that set this in motion was obviously due those specific circumstances (of which the public is still unaware), and certainly are not justification for every guy to up and punch out his partner. But now there will be no room for any consideration or compassion; every poor shmo who bumps into his delicate flower is out of the league for six games. Or worse, whenever delicate flower gets on the rag and calls the cops for no special reason, it's goodbye bozo, no questions asked.
 
Of course every moral person opposes domestic violence. I myself strongly believe that no person, male or female, black or white or other, straight or gay, should kill, hurt, disrespect or infringe upon the rights of any other person. Period. But stuff comes up in real life and there has to be room for a little discriminating thinking and reasoned judgement. This is just the league putting on a show because every sanctimonious bleeding heart with a twitter account got their panties in a knot.

Edited by Steveg85321, 28 August 2014 - 10:33 PM.


#4 Brohan

Brohan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,097 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 04:54 AM

Oh come on, this BS kind of crap makes me want to puke. This sort of draconian, arbitrary, zero-tolerance policy has nothing to do with justice and is only the league rolling over because of a media firestorm.
 
The penalty applied to Ray Rice that set this in motion was obviously due those specific circumstances (of which the public is still unaware), and certainly are not justification for every guy to up and punch out his partner. But now there will be no room for any consideration or compassion; every poor shmo who bumps into his delicate flower is out of the league for six games. Or worse, whenever delicate flower gets on the rag and calls the cops for no special reason, it's goodbye bozo, no questions asked.
 
Of course every moral person opposes domestic violence. I myself strongly believe that no person, male or female, black or white or other, straight or gay, should kill, hurt, disrespect or infringe upon the rights of any other person. Period. But stuff comes up in real life and there has to be room for a little discriminating thinking and reasoned judgement. This is just the league putting on a show because every sanctimonious bleedingt heart with a twitter account got their panties in a knot.


If you think the new breed billionaire NFL owners like Biscotti and Kraft are going to put their corporate sponsors in a position to risk their brand name by entering a partnership with an organization like the NFL who appears to take women's issues lightly you are sorely mistaken.

#5 Steveg85321

Steveg85321

    Sage of wisdom, reason and truth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,160 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 06:09 AM

If you think the new breed billionaire NFL owners like Biscotti and Kraft are going to put their corporate sponsors in a position to risk their brand name by entering a partnership with an organization like the NFL who appears to take women's issues lightly you are sorely mistaken.

Nobody thinks the NFL should "take women's issues lightly," but the policy described is totally arbitrary and leaves no room fair judgement of individuals. It is like zero tolerance in school, when a kid is expelled for chewing a pop tart into the shape of a gun. It is just knee-jerk response those who are easily offended.



#6 Struds

Struds

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,909 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 06:56 AM

Nobody thinks the NFL should "take women's issues lightly," but the policy described is totally arbitrary and leaves no room fair judgement of individuals. It is like zero tolerance in school, when a kid is expelled for chewing a pop tart into the shape of a gun. It is just knee-jerk response those who are easily offended.

I heard an interesting caller on the way to work this morning. She wondered if the new policy might keep some spouses from reporting violence (presumably, only when it's NOT a repeated pattern) against them becuase they don't want to see their income go away. 

 

On the policy itself, I agree with you - at least on the first offense. Each case should be judged separately, and on its own circumstances.



#7 naive

naive

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,433 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 07:07 AM

The NFL got it right.

#8 johnpolitics

johnpolitics

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,151 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 10:47 AM

This should not be a problem for players because you shouldn't hit a woman in the first place. Walk away and change the locks.



#9 tsmonk

tsmonk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,131 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 03:07 PM

I guess if Michael Sam were to b**ch slap his boyfriend, then he would also get the 6 game suspension. That is, of course, if he makes a roster spot.


Edited by tsmonk, 29 August 2014 - 03:09 PM.


#10 OriginalColtsFan

OriginalColtsFan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,746 posts

Posted 30 August 2014 - 07:24 PM

The NFL got it right.

This.

 

(Right. But a little late. But I suppose better late than never. Personally, I can't stand the sight of Ray Rice.)



#11 Ravens2006

Ravens2006

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,539 posts

Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:32 PM

I'd be awfully surprised if in the next round of CBA talks the union doesn't focus a lot more energy on "protecting" a player's right to play / work in lieu of charges being filed / convictions being handed out.  From a legal standpoint, if Ray Rice finishes the program agreed to with the NJ prosecutors... the charges will never be pursued.  So you have a player suspended two games for something that techically "nobody knows the whole story of what happened" (at least publically) and never resulted in a trial.  Ben served four games without ever being tried in a court of law.  In both instances... and I say this working in the sector... a government employee with clearance very probably would not lose their job, or be "suspended" for any length of time, or lose their clearance in the long-run. 

 

As I will always say, a person getting drunk and then driving offends me far more than almost anything two drunken morons do ONLY to each other during a 10 second elevator ride (in that it risks innocent lives).  But the league doling out punishment for acts that never result in actual LEGAL implications is a slippery slope in my opinion.  I can't imagine it'll last that way forever...


"Matt Wieters is sunshine, unicorns, puppy dogs and the baby Jesus all rolled into one"

#12 Steveg85321

Steveg85321

    Sage of wisdom, reason and truth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,160 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 06:32 AM

The bottom line is that the NFL is a huge corporate entity doing mega-bucks business in the public, and their public image is crucial to them. It has nothing to do with justice. They can't stand to have criticism. It is policy set by hysteria. It's all about the brand.



#13 Ravens2006

Ravens2006

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,539 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:01 AM

The bottom line is that the NFL is a huge corporate entity doing mega-bucks business in the public, and their public image is crucial to them. It has nothing to do with justice. They can't stand to have criticism. It is policy set by hysteria. It's all about the brand.

 

It's funny, or sad, but I don't think the "brand" really suffers at all when players get in trouble off the field.  There's probably a fraction of a percent that care whether the guy who just made a big play got arrested last month.  The league is more popular and more profitable than ever, than any other U.S. league, yet every single time a player gets arrested, or even just caught on camera saying something politically incorrect, the whole world knows within minutes and it's a story for weeks or more.

 

In almost any other profession, being a "jerk" outside of the workplace has little / no impact on your job IN the workplace.  But I can't think of many professions where just being ACCUSED of something outside of work (but never charged / prosecuted / proven / etc) can result in punishment by your employer.   

 

We'll see... but I suspect the union will take a much stronger position about suspensions for off-the-field transgressions that don't result in actual legal punishment as well.  Innocent until proven guilty is the basis for the legal system.  It's been surprising to me for some time that the union hasn't fought that harder before, but with all the complaining from the union side in recent years about Goodell's "arbitrary" and "tyrannical" way of doling out fines and suspensions... it's only a matter of time before they fight the actual legality of it.  Just depends on how stubborn the union head wants to be...


"Matt Wieters is sunshine, unicorns, puppy dogs and the baby Jesus all rolled into one"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users