The Ray Rice Fallout continues with a new NFL domestic violence policy...

signbabybrady said:

I might be wrong but I assume this just gives them a starting point for punishment and they wouldnt have to insist on lifetime bans but its in writing now so they wont be handcuffed to a 2 game suspension.

Click to expand...

That way lies chaos.
Brady gets a 6 game ban or 1 year not lifetime.
EJ Manuel gets lifetime.

Lawsuits galore. Unending controversy. League implodes with fans ********.
Apologies to the players for using their good names in this fashion but that kind of thing WOULD happen.

PatsWickedPissah said:

That way lies chaos.
Brady gets a 6 game ban or 1 year not lifetime.
EJ Manuel gets lifetime.

Lawsuits galore. Unending controversy. League implodes with fans ********.
Apologies to the players for using their good names in this fashion but that kind of thing WOULD happen.

Click to expand...

What makes you think this policy is any worse than any other ridiculously-arbitrary policy the NFL already has? Also, why should the NFL be afraid of lawsuits? They have an excellent (albeit not perfect) track record in arbitration.

Go ahead, NFLPA. Defend professional athletes who abuse women. I dare ya.

KontradictioN said:

And now the pendulum just shifted way too far in the other direction...

Click to expand...

I can't agree with this @KontradictioN. I can't think of any rational or reasonable opinion where domestic violence shouldn't be met with absolute disdain and punished accordingly.

Frankly, I applaud the NFL for it's new found situational intelligence. This bucks recent form.

I would be for 6-10 games for the first infraction, depending on the seriousness. And 2-3 years for the second. But both would be MANDATORY.

In many cases, wives might refuse to cooperate on account of the penalties, so I think the rules should not require her input at all, but be based on the actual assault, crime, or documented incident.

fxkane said:

I would be for 6-10 games for the first infraction, depending on the seriousness. And 2-3 years for the second. But both would be MANDATORY.

In many cases, wives might refuse to cooperate on account of the penalties, so I think the rules should not require her input at all, but be based on the actual assault, crime, or documented incident.

Click to expand...

I think therein lies the only problem with the new punishment system. A lot of these are he-said-she-said. A lot of these have uncooperative victims. We are not going to have video evidence of the caveman dragging an unconscious woman by her hair every time like we did with Ray Rice. That more than anything generated the outrage in his case.

Deus Irae said:

The NFL needs to get out of policing. Outside of what impacts on the field, this stuff is none of its business. Substance abuse, criminality, etc... those are not for the NFL to deal with.

Now, since I know people here will lose their minds over this, I'm outta here.

Click to expand...

Not at all ... the players are the brand ... and it's a privilege to play in the NFL.

What constitutes an offense? An accusation, arrest, conviction?Misdemeanor? Sounds good but I've seen plenty of these that were just bogus accusations or silly criteria like stopping a woman from hitting you equaling domestic assault. Basically I have zero faith in either the police or NFL to make a good policy. Better to just judge each case on its merits.

ausbacker said:

I can't agree with this @KontradictioN. I can't think of any rational or reasonable opinion where domestic violence shouldn't be met with absolute disdain and punished accordingly.

Frankly, I applaud the NFL for it's new found situational intelligence. This bucks recent form.

Click to expand...

The Ray Rice scenario was an easy call, and the NFL failed miserably. The problem is with volatile relationships there can be angry calls claiming violence when in fact there is none. Offense or no? Do you sanction a player only when there is forensic evidence supporting a battery, or when there is a hearsay threat of violence recorded nowhere other than in the words of the alleged victim? Not everything will be recorded on video, and in the volatile world of domestic violence claims the heavy is not always the man.

With that said, I would have absolutely supported Rice sitting out a year or more for his garbage and the evidence produced to prove his conduct. As pointed out previously, the issue becomes the murky world of precisely what conduct constitutes an 'offense.'

ausbacker said:

I can't agree with this @KontradictioN. I can't think of any rational or reasonable opinion where domestic violence shouldn't be met with absolute disdain and punished accordingly.

Frankly, I applaud the NFL for it's new found situational intelligence. This bucks recent form.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with the six game suspension. Especially since I just learned that it's adjustable downward or upward, based on circumstance. That seems to be about right for me, assuming the evidence is there as is the case with Ray Rice.

Having said that, there are a ton of issues with the NFL being judge, jury, and executioner. What if a scenario such as the one BradyFTW! laid out comes to fruition? What if a guy is in a relationship with a psychopath and gets falsly accused? Are you going to ban him for life the second time it happens? The NFL should let a court of law decide a man's guilt first (as is the case with most of the other institutions in this country) before deciding a player's fate. After all, not every case is going to be as cut and dry as Ray Rice's where there is video evidence of him dragging her unconscious body out of an elevator.

Futher, is a lifetime ban really going to prevent the cases of domestic abuse that DO happen? Is a woman going to report her husband/boyfriend the second time around knowing full well his career (not to mention millions of dollars) would probably be lost if she follows through? Is she going to bite the hand that feeds her? Probably not, as we've seen in a lot of domestic violence examples. Once again, Goodell is too broadly reaching on an issue. That's been a staple of the Goodell Error.

KontradictioN said:

I'm fine with the six game suspension. Especially since I just learned that it's adjustable downward or upward, based on circumstance. That seems to be about right for me, assuming the evidence is there as is the case with Ray Rice.

Having said that, there are a ton of issues with the NFL being judge, jury, and executioner. What if a scenario such as the one BradyFTW! laid out comes to fruition? What if a guy is in a relationship with a psychopath and gets falsly accused? Are you going to ban him for life the second time it happens? The NFL should let a court of law decide a man's guilt first (as is the case with most of the other institutions in this country) before deciding a player's fate. After all, not every case is going to be as cut and dry as Ray Rice's where there is video evidence of him dragging her unconscious body out of an elevator.

Futher, is a lifetime ban really going to prevent the cases of domestic abuse that DO happen? Is a woman going to report her husband/boyfriend the second time around knowing full well his career (not to mention millions of dollars) would probably be lost if she follows through? Is she going to bite the hand that feeds her? Probably not, as we've seen in a lot of domestic violence examples. Once again, Goodell is too broadly reaching on an issue. That's been a staple of the Goodell Error.

Click to expand...

No, because I imagine the burden of proof will be rather high.

ausbacker said:

No, because I imagine the burden of proof will be rather high.

Click to expand...

But that's what the policy states. This is why a court of law exists. They're the judge and jury, not the NFL.

KontradictioN said:

But that's what the policy states. This is why a court of law exists. They're the judge and jury, not the NFL.

Click to expand...

As much as I would like to agree with your position (in reality I do), the reality is the NFL (nor most professional sporting bodies) is not what one considers a normal industry.

I imagine the NFL will have their own investigative team who will look into each case irrespective of the outcome of the legal process (since in some cases the girlfriend/wife may drop charges).

I don't see why anyone would be against the NFL punishing men who beat up wives/girlfriends.

PatsWickedPissah said:

Brady gets a 6 game ban or 1 year not lifetime.

Click to expand...

More importantly, how many games is Giselle banned if she abuses Brady, because that seems more likely to me

ausbacker said:

As much as I would like to agree with your position (in reality I do), the reality is the NFL (nor most professional sporting bodies) is not what one considers a normal industry.

Click to expand...

No industry is above a court of law. That includes the NFL, try as they might. There are some situations where the NFL can reach like this. Domestic violence is not one of them.

This is pretty extreme, but a lifetime ban sounds like a serious deterrent to me. Maybe this will force players to take a serious look at the woman in their lives and see if they are actually worth being with. It will also allow players to take a deep look at themselves and seek outside help if they have violent impulses.

SB39 said:

What makes you think this policy is any worse than any other ridiculously-arbitrary policy the NFL already has? Also, why should the NFL be afraid of lawsuits? They have an excellent (albeit not perfect) track record in arbitration.

Go ahead, NFLPA. Defend professional athletes who abuse women. I dare ya.

Click to expand...

At least a drug test has scientific evidence to back up the suspension. This can be a case of he said, she said. Don't tell me there haven't been times when a woman goes crazy on a guy for what ever reason and the guy just tries to stop her by restraining her and he ends up going to jail.

Roger Goodell ONCE again got it wrong, except this time he won't admit it.

condon84 said:

I imagine the NFL will have their own investigative team who will look into each case irrespective of the outcome of the legal process (since in some cases the girlfriend/wife may drop charges).

I don't see why anyone would be against the NFL punishing men who beat up wives/girlfriends.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone (except 1 local idiot) is against the NFL punishing men who beat up women. But a false accusation is a legitimate concern or a situation where the woman was the aggressor.

brady199 said:

At least a drug test has scientific evidence to back up the suspension. This can be a case of he said, she said. Don't tell me there haven't been times when a woman goes crazy on a guy for what ever reason and the guy just tries to stop her by restraining her and he ends up going to jail.

Roger Goodell ONCE again got it wrong, except this time he won't admit it.

Click to expand...

Your opinion is in the extreme minority. I like the new policy. I certainly agree with those saying it can be tough to determine guilt in these situations, so it will all have to be done case-by-case. I don't want innocent men punished, nor do I want the guilty getting leniency.

SB39 said:

I don't think anyone (except 1 local idiot) is against the NFL punishing men who beat up women. But a false accusation is a legitimate concern or a situation where the woman was the aggressor.

Click to expand...

I agree about the false accusation. But I'm assuming the NFLPA is going to make sure the investigative process is going to be as thorough as possible otherwise they'll fight it.

And if the NFLPA will be willing to sign off on this, then the punishments are just IMO.