Goodell sets up VP of "social responsibility"...

[DOGWARZ]

Wow how can I get one of these stupid useless jobs with a fancy title and get paid 6 figures. And it almost laughable that almost all of his advisors are women to appease the sexism card carriers..I mean those job titles sound like some of the dumb courses some of these scholarship athletes take just to make the grade to play a college sport

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

They did not have an HR Department? Make them come up with a list of issues/penalties a few years ago!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

To be clear, if a player commits a crime, say DUI, the society should mete out its punishment and the NFL should mete out an additional punishment? In addition, the NFL should impose some punishments before there is any conviction?

Yes. The NFL, as does any private institution, has a right and in some cases an obligation to set its own standards of conduct and impose its own sanctions for their violation.

And, yes, the NFL can discipline or suspend a player when there is reasonable evidence that he has violated its stated policies. The player is entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence in a court of law; a private institution does not have the same limitations.

If a player can demonstrate at a later date that the actions of the League caused him economic damages should he be found "Not Guilty," then he is fully entitled to pursue those damages in a civil proceeding and, indeed, would have my support in so doing.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

OK, do you not know what a red herring is, or are you just determined to clown yourself? I wrote that response specifically to one poster who'd disagreed with the facts that you just said

.

I say he disagreed with the facts of it, because that's specifically what the post I'd made contained the claim about, which I quoted in the post you just responded to while claiming I was tossing out the herring rouge:



There's no red herring there. There's no straw man there. There's not "consider the source" there.

There's me stating facts, NFLMac disagreeing with facts, and now you calling a 100% on point response a red herring.

Let's consider us done discussing this issue, because you're getting crazier by the post.

Deus, I have read your posts for many years and have concluded that you are a lot brighter than the average poster out here but that you often use your brilliance to obfuscate and twist debates and divert them from the topic at hand; you also end up calling your opponents names and eliciting similar reactions from them (for which in my case I apologize) that bring more smoke and heat than light and reason to the discussion.

So, putting that to the side, whatever flaws you feel you may have detected in my earlier statements, which are beyond discernment at this point, please answer these questions; each question can be answered, "Yes" or "No", and then could be debated rationally once a base position is established.

First two questions:

Does the NFL have the right, as a private institution, to set standards of conduct for its members and players that go beyond what the law requires of them?
Does the NFL have the right, as a private institution, to impose penalties on its members or players who violate those standards?
If your answer to those question is "Yes," then there is a rational debate to be had about what is or is not reasonable. If your answer is "No," then we have a fundamental disagreement, which is probably not bridgeable.

Second two questions:

Does the NFL, as a mass marketing (including marketing directly to minors) entertainment and media enterprise, have an obligation to require that its members and players meet commonly accepted societal standards of behavior (what I have called "the mean" in other posts), acknowledging that those standards will be acceptable neither to those who feel that marketing to the public should be tightly regulated (the "nanny state" perspective) nor to those who feel that it should be constrained only by the willingness of a sponsor to support it (the "libertarian" perspective)?
Does the NFL's anti-trust exemption, which enables its owners to avoid significant tax liabilities, require that the League and its owners be held to a higher standard of awareness of and sensitivity to societal sensibilities and perspectives?
As above, if your answer to those questions is "Yes," then there is a rational debate to be had about what is or is not reasonable. If your answer is "No," then we have a fundamental disagreement, which is probably not bridgeable.

 

[chasa]

knocking your wife out cold on tape? 2 games
Grabbing your crotch in the general direction of the fans? 7 games

Sports and suspensions are weird.

 

[Deus Irae]

Does the NFL have the right, as a private institution, to set standards of conduct for its members and players that go beyond what the law requires of them?
Does the NFL have the right, as a private institution, to impose penalties on its members or players who violate those standards?
If your answer to those question is "Yes," then there is a rational debate to be had about what is or is not reasonable. If your answer is "No," then we have a fundamental disagreement, which is probably not bridgeable.

But the answer is no. If we're going to have a real discussion, let's have in on terms that work, and the word "right" is not valid. The NFL has no such rights as you mentioned. It is not, in fact, even the employer of the players. What the NFL has is the legal ability (or authority, if you prefer) to, in conjunction with the NFLPA, set out rules. That doesn't mean that the rules will be good rules, needed rules or desirable rules, and it doesn't mean that the NFL must, or should, get involved with anything related to criminality on the part of the players. It just means that the NFL can, through the process of collective bargaining, impose its will upon the players, to a limited degree.

Should the NFLPA disband, as we can all remember, the rules change, and things suddenly go from a CBA based system to one that ends up in the courts time and again.

You seem hell bent on creating rights and duties that don't exist, and that's where the problems with your position start.

 

[Joker]

all I'm interested in is rights....and plenty of lefts...few uppercuts...a coupla hooks....then more rights...put me in the ring with this Goody Blueshoes and I'll bring back the belt.

 

[MassPats38]

Blatant PR move. Adding expert consultants on the topic for training, education and victim counseling. Old tactic designed to placate the angry mob rather than fix the problem.

My fundamental problems with the issue of involving the NFL in domestic issues, rather than deferring to the police and prosecutors who deal with those issues daily, is institutional competence and standardless discretion. What specifically will the NFL be prohibiting and how will it be policed? If you failed to ask for and locate the other half of the videotape in the Ray RIce issue, what evidence might you be relying on in imposing sanctions? In the end, apparently it will be "I know it when I see it" for subject matter that is likely one of the most difficult discretion calls a police officer may have to make on the job. Prosecutorial discretion is an excellent vehicle to distinguish between the difficult cases, and an excellent way to avoid a wading into this arena by an organization unqualified to do so.

 

[SB39]

Wow how can I get one of these stupid useless jobs with a fancy title and get paid 6 figures. And it almost laughable that almost all of his advisors are women to appease the sexism card carriers..I mean those job titles sound like some of the dumb courses some of these scholarship athletes take just to make the grade to play a college sport

It's because if you have a man in charge of domestic violence issues, that's just more ammo to give your critics.

 

[SB39]

knocking your wife out cold on tape? 2 games
Grabbing your crotch in the general direction of the fans? 7 games

Sports and suspensions are weird.

Weak comparison. The 2 game suspension is almost 3 times longer than the 7 game suspension when viewed as a percentage of their leagues' respective season length.

 

[ATippett56]

Bad Boys ... Bad Boys ... What you gonna do when Goodell comes for you?

 

[Blizzzard]

I keep seeing the argument that it's "better late than never" .
I'm not so sure.
When the act is as hollow and useless as this appointment of an existing employee with current obligations under another job title ( ie. they didn't even need to put forth effort to hire this person, or maybe even pay them any extra money) ..... Then Late is at most equal to Never.

This persons "job" seems more to be the person responsible for taking the blame/heat for situations like this, rather than it falling on Goodell. That in and of itself is worthy of ridicule of the Ommissioner. What is the league actually claiming her responsibilities to be? It's also a blatant PR move to hire a woman. Now for all I know this woman is more capable of doing any job in the League (including commissioner), so she may deserve any title and responsibility she receives... But it's obvious why they hired a woman.

I agree with Deus's assessment that the league should have been less involved in handing out discipline than they have been.

If you don't want backlash for mishandling situations like is, you shouldn't claim yourself the moral authority and desire credit for being the disciplinarian in the first place.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

But the answer is no. If we're going to have a real discussion, let's have in on terms that work, and the word "right" is not valid. The NFL has no such rights as you mentioned. It is not, in fact, even the employer of the players. What the NFL has is the legal ability (or authority, if you prefer) to, in conjunction with the NFLPA, set out rules. That doesn't mean that the rules will be good rules, needed rules or desirable rules, and it doesn't mean that the NFL must, or should, get involved with anything related to criminality on the part of the players. It just means that the NFL can, through the process of collective bargaining, impose its will upon the players, to a limited degree.

Should the NFLPA disband, as we can all remember, the rules change, and things suddenly go from a CBA based system to one that ends up in the courts time and again.

You seem hell bent on creating rights and duties that don't exist, and that's where the problems with your position start.

OK. That's a basis for discussion and reasonable debate.

My use of the word "right" was sloppy. "Authority" is tighter. And, in this case, it is, as you observe, an authority that is shared with and to a significant degree contingent upon the NFLPA.

The "rules"/requirements/preconditions that are put in place by that authority can, indeed, run the spectrum from enlightened and highly beneficial to useful to dumb to downright dangerous. I've worked in many companies and with government at the local state and federal level and none are innocent of doing dumb or even dangerous things. But that doesn't obviate an institution's authority to institute those rules et al, even if it argues that they should be very carefully defined and even more carefully executed.

Where we probably disagree is that it is my view that the "authority" can and, in the case of the NFL, should extend to activities "related to criminality on the part of the players."

Any private organization, acting in a manner consistent with its stated mission and the law, has the "authority," properly defined, to include substantial and reasonable allegations of criminal behavior, let alone indictments for the same, among the activities that it can limit or proscribe and/or for which it can discipline its members, consistent with, in the case of the NFL, its own charter and the CBA.

 

[BSR]

This person sounds a lot like Deus in this thread.

http://www.stradleylaw.com/sensible-discipline-nfl-player-misconduct/

Either way I agree with much of what she says.

 

[Joker]

It'll all be over with in 24 hours.....