NFL Publishes NEW Personal Conduct Policy

Deus Irae said:

Yes

Click to expand...

We're going to have to disagree on that one.

Oswlek said:

We're going to have to disagree on that one.

Click to expand...

Call me when you're willing to allow the Better Business Bureau decide when your boss should be punishing you for activities you engaged in that had nothing to do with your business.


Remember, such behavior need not even be found to be criminal. Theoretically, it could be for painting your house the wrong color.

Deus Irae said:

Call me when you're willing to allow the Better Business Bureau decide when your boss should be punishing you for activities you engaged in that had nothing to do with your business.

Click to expand...

You talk about it as if Ben was an avid Magic the Gathering player or something. Virtually every other employee on the planet would expect to be at least suspended if their boss had 100% certainty that they had raped someone, even if it never went to trial.

Oswlek said:

You talk about it as if Ben was an avid Magic the Gathering player or something. Virtually every other employee on the planet would expect to be at least suspended if their boss had 100% certainty that they had raped someone, even if it never went to trial.

Click to expand...

The NFL is not the boss. The Pittsburgh Steelers are the boss.

Deus Irae said:

The NFL is not the boss. The Pittsburgh Steelers are the boss.

Click to expand...

Only half right. And you know it.

Oswlek said:

The point is that people are accused of things they didn't do all the time. Saying they should be suspended immediately upon accusation is absurd.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Remember when Edelman was falsely accused of assaulting a woman, and all he did to "put himself into a position to be accused of doing it" was be recognized as a professional athlete, and thus a good target for a shakedown?

What's more, an immediate suspension policy with no review of the facts begs for fraud from gambling interests. Just get somebody to make an accusation against a star QB on Saturday, boom he's out Sunday! Retract accusation Monday; pocket the proceeds.

Oswlek said:

Only half right. And you know it.

Click to expand...

No, it's 100% correct. And YOU know it.

Deus Irae said:

It gets worse:



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...olicy-disregards-fifth-amendment-protections/


Yeah, the CBA was a great victory for the players, and the NFL should definitely be in charge of handling criminal conduct.

Click to expand...

Can't remain silent? Waterboarding?

patchick said:

Absolutely. Remember when Edelman was falsely accused of assaulting a woman, and all he did to "put himself into a position to be accused of doing it" was be recognized as a professional athlete, and thus a good target for a shakedown?

What's more, an immediate suspension policy with no review of the facts begs for fraud from gambling interests. Just get somebody to make an accusation against a star QB on Saturday, boom he's out Sunday! Retract accusation Monday; pocket the proceeds.

Click to expand...

How do you know about these things, Patchick?

Oswlek said:

You talk about it as if Ben was an avid Magic the Gathering player or something. Virtually every other employee on the planet would expect to be at least suspended if their boss had 100% certainty that they had raped someone, even if it never went to trial.

Click to expand...

The point is that the NFL Office is taking the heat from the teams from having to really deal with the issues. The reality is that a six game suspension does not wash away the stain of a date rapist although the team can now say he was "punished" and everyone can go back to rooting for him. It's a farce.

The Patriots chose to cut Hernandez. The Steelers chose not to cut Roethlisberger. That should have been the end of it, in both cases. The NFL should be there to insure fair play regarding the game of football, not to play judge, jury and executioner on issues that have nothing to do with a level playing field.

Let Goodell stick to fining players because their socks aren't up at the approved height.

BSR said:

The point is that the NFL Office is taking the heat from the teams from having to really deal with the issues. The reality is that a six game suspension does not wash away the stain of a date rapist although the team can now say he was "punished" and everyone can go back to rooting for him. It's a farce.

Click to expand...

Of course, but its also about centralized oversight because we've all seen what happens when companies are allowed complete autonomy to police themselves.

Deus Irae said:

The Patriots chose to cut Hernandez. The Steelers chose not to cut Roethlisberger. That should have been the end of it, in both cases. The NFL should be there to insure fair play regarding the game of football, not to play judge, jury and executioner on issues that have nothing to do with a level playing field.

Let Goodell stick to fining players because their socks aren't up at the approved height.

Click to expand...

I agree except that th Steelers should have to deal with the PR of having to keep BR on their team. I feel that this policy is being used by owners to take responsibility away from them.

Not sure why they need a complicated chart:
Step 1 - Player may or may not break the code of conduct.
Step 2 - Goodell completely botches handling it embarrassing himself and the league.
Step 3 - 3rd party reverses Goodell's decision.

BSR said:

I agree except that th Steelers should have to deal with the PR of having to keep BR on their team.

Click to expand...

They did. It was mitigated by the NFL, though, which is what I'm sure you're referring to. I have no problem with your position here. Let the owners make the decisions, and the owners deal with the ramifications. After all, it's not as if the Steelers weren't cutting lesser players getting in trouble (i.e. Chris Rainey),and it's not as if the Patriots have been 100% hard line (i.e. Faulk).

Oswlek said:

Of course, but its also about centralized oversight because we've all seen what happens when companies are allowed complete autonomy to police themselves.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow...are we really saying that teams can't possibly be trusted with managing their own employees?

BSR said:

I'm not sure I follow...are we really saying that teams can't possibly be trusted with managing their own employees?

Click to expand...

Look at financial firms and the Catholic church's handling of the child molestation. Even when they doled out "punishment" is was almost more ghastly than if they had done nothing at all.

When you put the people with a vested interest in company success in complete charge of doling out penalties, that is what happens. If the NFL were a fledgling company, it could do that, but in its current state it is far too public to not have someone who at least appears to be objective making those decisions.

Oswlek said:

Look at financial firms and the Catholic church's handling of the child molestation. Even when they doled out "punishment" is was almost more ghastly than if they had done nothing at all.

When you put the people with a vested interest in company success in complete charge of doling out penalties, that is what happens. If the NFL were a fledgling company, it could do that, but in its current state it is far too public to not have someone who at least appears to be objective making those decisions.

Click to expand...

Again, I am not sure I follow your examples and their relation to the NFL situation. In both of your examples organizations have centralized oversight (Vatican and SEC respectively) and aren't run autonomously. If anything it shows how a centralized authority isn't that much better. Remember we aren't talking about independent outside oversight in the case of the NFL.

BSR said:

Again, I am not sure I follow your examples and their relation to the NFL situation. In both of your examples organizations have centralized oversight (Vatican and SEC respectively) and aren't run autonomously. If anything it shows how a centralized authority isn't that much better. Remember we aren't talking about independent outside oversight in the case of the NFL.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The difference is that there aren't fans hanging on the daily activity of each employee of those institutions.

Oswlek said:

Exactly. The difference is that there aren't fans hanging on the daily activity of each employee of those institutions.

Click to expand...

Which is why you shouldn't need a central authority like the NFL imposing discipline. The fans and media are paying close attention, more than they ever have before, and can hold the individual teams responsible for their actions or inactions. I fail to see how Goodell's punishments have had a positive impact on the game, players or league.