Thoughts on Ray Rice getting (only) a 2 game suspension

[newtogolf]

Only if you are really, really cynical.  If you're not cynical, it reads like this:

He made a decision that he thought was warranted.  He realized after the fact that he made a mistake.  He admitted that he made a mistake and figured out a way to correct that mistake for the future.

To me, that is the epitome of what being a leader and an upstanding person is all about.  And I'm not even remotely a Roger Goodell fan.  I think some of the things he's done - worrying more about expanding the season, less about player injuries and concussions in particular - are shameful.  But in this case, he deserves some credit, IMO.

I guess I'm cynical by your definition.  I prefer leaders think through their decisions first, have a rationale and justification to support it and defend them.  Goodell obviously didn't think his decision through on Rice and couldn't defend it when challenged so he came up with new one that was more popular.

I guess we hold our leaders to different standards but I expect them to get it right the first time not wait for popular opinion to sway them.  In my opinion, that behavior doesn't represent the actions of a leader, it's the action of a politician.

[Golfingdad]

I guess I'm cynical by your definition.  I prefer leaders think through their decisions first, have a rationale and justification to support it and defend them.  Goodell obviously didn't think his decision through on Rice and couldn't defend it when challenged so he came up with new one that was more popular.

I guess we hold our leaders to different standards but I expect them to get it right the first time not wait for popular opinion to sway them.  In my opinion, that behavior doesn't represent the actions of a leader, it's the action of a politician.

This is infuriating.  People are not infallible.  You can't possibly expect every person to get every decision right every time, can you?  So, when they get one wrong, you're telling me that you'd rather they go to their grave defending that decision even after they know its wrong rather than admit a mistake and try to correct it for next time?!?!?!

And just because he made a mistake, how is that proof that he didn't think it through?  Mistake doesn't equate to rash decision.  It's just a mistake.  And who's to say that he was only swayed by popular opinion?  He was convinced that he was in the wrong.

The idea that you would criticise somebody for a stupid decision and then criticise them again for correcting that decision is just beyond compehension to me.

[newtogolf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

This is infuriating.  People are not infallible.  You can't possibly expect every person to get every decision right every time, can you?  So, when they get one wrong, you're telling me that you'd rather they go to their grave defending that decision even after they know its wrong rather than admit a mistake and try to correct it for next time?!?!?!

And just because he made a mistake, how is that proof that he didn't think it through?  Mistake doesn't equate to rash decision.  It's just a mistake.  And who's to say that he was only swayed by popular opinion?  He was convinced that he was in the wrong.

The idea that you would criticise somebody for a stupid decision and then criticise them again for correcting that decision is just beyond compehension to me.

I'm not saying I or anyone is infallible and people should resolve mistakes when they make them.  I take issue with how the whole situation was handled.

Goodell and his staff met and discussed the Rice situation, they came up with a penalty they all felt was fair and assessed it.  Now, he says he made a mistake.  If it wasn't for all the public outrage and being contacted by multiple congressman would he have changed his mind?  I don't believe in his heart he thinks he made a mistake, he's just caving into the pressure and doing damage control to protect the NFL bottom line.

Quote:

“We have to remain consistent,” Goodell told reporters gathered for the Hall of Fame game in Canton, Ohio. “We can’t just make up the discipline. It has to be consistent with other cases, and it was in this matter.”

But the NFL’s handling of previous domestic violence cases has hardly been consistent. According to fivethirtyeight.com, 38 percent of player suspensions involving “conduct violations”, ranging from murder to on-field assault, were for one game. Larry Johnson, who spit a drink in a woman’s face, was suspended for one game. And Ricky Manning Jr., who assaulted someone outside a restaurant, was also suspended for one game.

Nineteen percent of players received two game suspensions for conduct violations, while 21 percent got three.  In 2007, Carolina Panthers guard Jeremy Bridges was suspended two games after being arrested for pointing a gun at a stripper.

Seattle Seahawks running back Marshawn Lynch, who was arrested for having a gun in his car, was suspended for three games.  In the 15 domestic violence cases tracked by fivethirtyeight, the average number of games suspended was 1.5. On tracking punishment for such cases, an NFL spokeswoman told fivethirtyeight, “We do not have a comprehensive list.”

It’s hard to imagine how the NFL attempted to maintain consistency if they couldn’t even manage to maintain a comprehensive list of punishments doled out.

[Golfingdad]

...  I don't believe in his heart he thinks he made a mistake, ....

Only if you are really, really cynical.

Well, there you have it.

You're opinions are infused with assumptions like the above, which shows the cynicism and the bias.  And it, IMO, greatly takes away from the argument.

And I would also like to point out that this story died a long time ago.  He wasn't under a lot of pressure at this point, so nothing really to cave in to.

[Gunther]

I'm not saying I or anyone is infallible and people should resolve mistakes when they make them.  I take issue with how the whole situation was handled. Goodell and his staff met and discussed the Rice situation, they came up with a penalty they all felt was fair and assessed it.  Now, he says he made a mistake.  If it wasn't for all the public outrage and being contacted by multiple congressman would he have changed his mind?  I don't believe in his heart he thinks he made a mistake, he's just caving into the pressure and doing damage control to protect the NFL bottom line.

No, you just can't stand Goodell. When they assessed the original penalty, they obviously thought they got it right. The resultant backlash showed them they didn't and he acted accordingly. How u get that he still thinks his original position was correct shows your bias and cynicism. I can't make that leap. It was well-handled after they made the initial blunder. Now, enforcement may be a different matter, e.g., if the new penalty is deviated from, and it may be given the player's union, semantics, and lawyers, there would be a legitimate beef to gripe about. But for now, unless you don't agree with the new penalties, I'm not sure anything about it can be criticized.

[jamo]

I agree with you except that it shows how subjective his office is when it comes to these sorts of decisions.  I'm assuming he didn't come up with 2 by pulling numbers out of a hat so why was 2 weeks acceptable when he made the decision on Rice but today it's 6 weeks and then being banned from the league?

Who said 2 weeks was acceptable?

[newtogolf]

Who said 2 weeks was acceptable?

Goodell did, he assessed the penalty.

[RJH999]

Only if you are really, really cynical.  If you're not cynical, it reads like this: He made a decision that he thought was warranted.  He realized after the fact that he made a mistake.  He admitted that he made a mistake and figured out a way to correct that mistake for the future. To me, that is the epitome of what being a leader and an upstanding person is all about.  And I'm not even remotely a Roger Goodell fan.  I think some of the things he's done - worrying more about expanding the season, less about player injuries and concussions in particular - are shameful.  But in this case, he deserves some credit, IMO.

Holy yikes! Roger Goodell is AWFUL, just AWFUL. He did this after handing Ray Rice one of the most disgustingly lenient penalties ever. He gave Brandon Merriweather a two game suspension for his SIXTH safety violation. Josh Gordon got 16. In other words, Weed offense>6th Safety offense>Beating the shit out of his wife. Now, I'm not defending Josh Gordan. He's an idiot who needs to understand smoking copious amounts of pot and the NFL don't really get along. I think the harsher rules are good, but I think admitting to not giving Ray Rice a big enough suspension doesn't help his case. Why not suspend Rice 6 games? Meanwhile, Aldon Smith got just got nine games. :whistle: He needs some help. His legal troubles is approaching it's own wikipedia page. DUI Stabbing Incident AR-15 charges(Nonsense, but that's California) DUI Weed Fake bomb threat

[newtogolf]

Holy yikes! Roger Goodell is AWFUL, just AWFUL. He did this after handing Ray Rice one of the most disgustingly lenient penalties ever. He gave Brandon Merriweather a two game suspension for his SIXTH safety violation. Josh Gordon got 16. In other words, Weed offense>6th Safety offense>Beating the shit out of his wife. Now, I'm not defending Josh Gordan. He's an idiot who needs to understand smoking copious amounts of pot and the NFL don't really get along. I think the harsher rules are good, but I think admitting to not giving Ray Rice a big enough suspension doesn't help his case. Why not suspend Rice 6 games?

Meanwhile, Aldon Smith got just got nine games.

He needs some help. His legal troubles is approaching it's own wikipedia page.

DUI

Stabbing Incident

AR-15 charges(Nonsense, but that's California)

DUI

Weed

Fake bomb threat

I don't place all the blame on Goodell, he has a team of advisors and lawyers to assist him.  The process is broken, the method the NFL uses to determine penalties for non-substance abuse incidents has no logical basis.  A month ago, wife beating was worth a two week suspension, this week it's six weeks, why?  Was wife beating more acceptable last month?

Aldon Smith has combo of criminal activity and substance abuse he gets nine games but was allowed to be with his team all preseason.  He would have only been suspended five games if was drinking and not in possession of weed so.

Substance abuse = 4 games

Multiple misdemeanor and felony charges = 5 games

Wife beating = 6 games

Habitual substance abuse = 16 games

Clear as mud.

Do they put numbers in a hat and pull them out, and if the media and public cry foul they throw out a new number that they think will quiet the critics?

[Golfingdad]

A month ago, wife beating was worth a two week suspension, this week it's six weeks, why?  Was wife beating more acceptable last month?

Seriously?

Let me ask you one simple, straight-forward question, yes or no question:

Do you think that the current NFL penalty structure for domestic abuse is reasonable?

[newtogolf]

Seriously?

Let me ask you one simple, straight-forward question, yes or no question:

Do you think that the current NFL penalty structure for domestic abuse is reasonable?

Yes

[Golfingdad]

Yes

So then what's with all the rhetorical "why was 2 games enough last month and not now" crap?

They messed up, and now they fixed it.  What else do you want them to do???

[newtogolf]

So then what's with all the rhetorical "why was 2 games enough last month and not now" crap?

They messed up, and now they fixed it.  What else do you want them to do???

I want them to have a specific policy that makes sense rather than throwing out numbers and seeing how the public reacts to it.   The major reason the policy was revised is because the suspension of Rice was announced at the same time speculation over Josh Gordon's was and people were outraged that smoking pot was deemed 8x worse than beating your spouse.

Saying I made a mistake is a cop out imo, I want to know how they concluded 2 weeks was acceptable when they decided on Rice's case initially and why they now think it was a mistake and should be six.  How did  they reach 5 weeks for Aldon Smith?  If the media disagrees on Smith's suspension length will it get changed as well?

I hold people in power accountable and expect them to be transparent. I guess you west coast guys under Pelosi's reign aren't used to that.

[Moxie Dawn]

Oh lawd, now we done got into politics. Any minute now somebody will be called a Nazi.

Isn't it possible both things happened? Goodell received a lot of pressure, and that pressure forced him to realize his mistake? Alas, we will never know.

I used to like Goodell. I used to think that he was tough on a league that was starting to develop a very "thug" image to a lot of people. But as time goes by, the penalties he hands down for this and that do not fit the infraction. I think of all the fines he handed out to Ocho Cinco, for doing what? Acting like a goofball? How are those things a detriment to football? There was some Saints player who got a big fine for putting a Christmas bow on the football after he scored and tossing it to a fan. OMG! They're destroying the image of football!

Consistency is another huge issue. When Roethlisberger was accused of sexual assault, for the second time, he got suspended for six games, later reduced to four, and ordered to some kind of character assessment. Four years later, Ray Rice beats a woman unconscious and it only rates two games. And meanwhile, a questionable positive drug test gets Josh Gordon a year off work.

[RJH999]

And meanwhile, a questionable positive drug test gets Josh Gordon a year off work.

From now on, I'm referring to any suspensions as "time off work"

[newtogolf]

Isn't it possible both things happened? Goodell received a lot of pressure, and that pressure forced him to realize his mistake? Alas, we will never know.

I used to like Goodell. I used to think that he was tough on a league that was starting to develop a very "thug" image to a lot of people. But as time goes by, the penalties he hands down for this and that do not fit the infraction. I think of all the fines he handed out to Ocho Cinco, for doing what? Acting like a goofball? How are those things a detriment to football? There was some Saints player who got a big fine for putting a Christmas bow on the football after he scored and tossing it to a fan. OMG! They're destroying the image of football!

Consistency is another huge issue. When Roethlisberger was accused of sexual assault, for the second time, he got suspended for six games, later reduced to four, and ordered to some kind of character assessment. Four years later, Ray Rice beats a woman unconscious and it only rates two games. And meanwhile, a questionable positive drug test gets Josh Gordon a year off work.

You're messing with peoples lives, these guys getting suspended don't get paid while they are suspended.  There's an obligation on the part of the NFL execs to consider all the facts and make decisions they can defend.

imagine if your boss walks in after you violated the corporate personal conduct policy and informed you that you will lose 1/8 of your annual pay.  Then, because of pressure from employees and peers announces that he messed up and the next person that gets charged with the same crime will lose 3/8 of their annual salary the first time and fired the next.  A week later another employee screws up and loses and arbitrary amount of pay.

I think six games is reasonable, but I want to know what process they used to assess two games initially and how they reached that number in relation to others who have been suspended for other serious reasons.  How did you we go from a policy that was subject to interpretation to one where it's two strikes and you're out.  How many strikes does Aldon Smith get?

The drug policy is different, it was negotiated in the CBA with the NFLPA and they all agreed this was the right policy.  It's black and white, with each violation instance, the penalty is pre-determined.   Gordon screwed up and knew the next time he did he'd be suspended for the season.  In relation to wife beating, I agree smoking pot is relatively minor but at least these guys know in advance what their fate is if they do.

[MS256]

Having "a policy" won't necessarily solve future problems. In some of these cases you have a "he said/she said". Without a conviction I expect the union to fight any suspensions but the public won't necessarily presume innocence.

[Moxie Dawn]

You're messing with peoples lives, these guys getting suspended don't get paid while they are suspended.  There's an obligation on the part of the NFL execs to consider all the facts and make decisions they can defend.

imagine if your boss walks in after you violated the corporate personal conduct policy and informed you that you will lose 1/8 of your annual pay.  Then, because of pressure from employees and peers announces that he messed up and the next person that gets charged with the same crime will lose 3/8 of their annual salary the first time and fired the next.  A week later another employee screws up and loses and arbitrary amount of pay.

I think six games is reasonable, but I want to know what process they used to assess two games initially and how they reached that number in relation to others who have been suspended for other serious reasons.  How did you we go from a policy that was subject to interpretation to one where it's two strikes and you're out.  How many strikes does Aldon Smith get?

The drug policy is different, it was negotiated in the CBA with the NFLPA and they all agreed this was the right policy.  It's black and white, with each violation instance, the penalty is pre-determined.   Gordon screwed up and new the next time he did he'd be suspended for the season.  In relation to wife beating, I agree smoking pot is relatively minor but at least these guys know in advance what their fate is if they do.

We're not disagreeing. That's why I lament the inconsitency we've seen over the years in the administering of fines and suspensions.

As for Josh Gordon, it isn't so much the penalty I protest versus the test itself. The World Anti-Doping Agency is the organization that set the 15 ng/L threshold. They have since changed that threshold to 150 ng/L. I blame the NFLPA for not amending their agreement to reflect the new standards. But Josh's "positive" test was inconclusive at best, even at the 15 mark. Two cups, one tests 16 nanograms, and the other tests 13 nanograms. That's inconclusive. Imagine you were on a jury and presented that evidence. Would that be concrete enough for you to send a guy up for a year? Not for me, especially when I knew he had passed 70 previous tests.