Tyreek Hill Investigation

[Ring 6]

Apologies if this was already posted but another example of inconsistent punishment being handed out by The Ginger Jerkoff.

Two years later. Not saying he is innocent but was never charged or prosecuted but the NFL conducted a thorough investigation and found him guilty.



Seahawks DT Jarran Reed suspended 6 games by NFL

Their argument, which is reasonable, is that they interviewed Reeds accuser and found her credible while they were not allowed to see the evidence against hill and his wife refused to cooperate.
The obvious problem with that is they have no standing to demand evidence or cooperation so basically if your accuser wants to screw you the nfl will help but if they don’t, including if they would be cutting off their own financial security, you go free.

 

[Ring 6]

One upside from this bungled non-suspension of Hill (the man should have gotten 4 games for just telling his wife to be terrified of him too) is that now the Chiefs will be allocating A LOT of their future cap $$$ to him. One more misstep and the Chiefs will be using millions of cap space on a suspended guy....and thus unable to add more weapons.

Curious.
Do you believe hill should be suspended because of previous handling of suspensions under the nfl policy make it only fair despite the policy sucking or that you feel it’s right for the nfl to investigate a complaint if a crime that law enforcement did not prosecute and make their own determination of guilt?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Their argument, which is reasonable, is that they interviewed Reeds accuser and found her credible while they were not allowed to see the evidence against hill and his wife refused to cooperate.
The obvious problem with that is they have no standing to demand evidence or cooperation so basically if your accuser wants to screw you the nfl will help but if they don’t, including if they would be cutting off their own financial security, you go free.

I love to hear the NFL's standard for what is/isn't credible. Me thinks its whatever suits Goody.

 

[1960Pats]

Does anyone think that Goodell makes these decisions on his own? I don't. He's there to do the bidding for the 32.

 

[Jackson 2]

Does anyone think that Goodell makes these decisions on his own? I don't. He's there to do the bidding for the 32.

I don't think there's any doubt that the owners represent a very significant influence. As robertweathers wrote, Goodell's own "standards" play a role, too. I also believe whatever direction the public opinion/media winds are blowing matters to him. It's a number of things. Unfortunately, what I believe very seldom, if ever, matters to him is the core correctness/incorrectness of the behavior in question.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Perhaps not. The word on the street is the Chiefs want to put some "specific language" into his contract. Most likely to protect them by allowing them to cut them without too much penalty.

The 49ers should consult them on how they can sign him to a low risk contract. 49ers have been pretty good at signing players to low risk contracts starting with Colin Kaepernick.

 

[fxmallon]

Does anyone think that Goodell makes these decisions on his own? I don't. He's there to do the bidding for the 32.

No, the owners rule, esp Jerry Jones.

I wrote the Commish opposing his decision but received no answer of any kind, not even an automated "I received your message." Shabby.

The big problem with using convictions as an operating mode is that only a tiny percentage of women, and even fewer tiny children, report abuse (even rape is under 5% reported, and under 1% convictions). So, I think the League has to investigate, read the whole context, and history... plus the player's past infractions etc and decide from there. If they had done so in this case, they're would be at least a 4 game suspension, or most likely, much more.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Their argument, which is reasonable, is that they interviewed Reeds accuser and found her credible while they were not allowed to see the evidence against hill and his wife refused to cooperate.
The obvious problem with that is they have no standing to demand evidence or cooperation so basically if your accuser wants to screw you the nfl will help but if they don’t, including if they would be cutting off their own financial security, you go free.

I wonder if they demanded Hills cell phone?

 

[Hyped]

Curious.
Do you believe hill should be suspended because of previous handling of suspensions under the nfl policy make it only fair despite the policy sucking or that you feel it’s right for the nfl to investigate a complaint if a crime that law enforcement did not prosecute and make their own determination of guilt?

Personally, I am of the opinion that the NFL should get out of the personal conduct investigation business and follow suspension guidelines based on actual convictions by law enforcement (e.g. Murder/Rape conviction = banned from the league, DV conviction = 8 games, and so forth). And allowing NFL teams to make their own separate suspensions for PR purposes (e.g. the Steelers could suspend Ben Roethlisberger on their own without the league suspending Big Ben because he wasn't convicted).

As it relates to Tyreek Hill and the current personal conduct policies in the NFL, I believe Hill should have gotten a suspension just for verbally assaulting his own wife. And my opinion is based on current rules and precedence in suspensions handed down (e.g. Brady got 4 games for "more probable than not", Big Ben got 6 games and was never convicted nor arrested, and Reed got 6 games despite no conviction for a something 2+ years ago). In short, I think Hill got off easy under the current inconsistent policy....but if we changed the policy to what I think it should be...he would have never been suspended in my book.

 

[Ring 6]

I love to hear the NFL's standard for what is/isn't credible. Me thinks its whatever suits Goody.

It clearly varies by team and owner.

 

[Ring 6]

Personally, I am of the opinion that the NFL should get out of the personal conduct investigation business and follow suspension guidelines based on actual convictions by law enforcement (e.g. Murder/Rape conviction = banned from the league, DV conviction = 8 games, and so forth). And allowing NFL teams to make their own separate suspensions for PR purposes (e.g. the Steelers could suspend Ben Roethlisberger on their own without the league suspending Big Ben because he wasn't convicted).

As it relates to Tyreek Hill and the current personal conduct policies in the NFL, I believe Hill should have gotten a suspension just for verbally assaulting his own wife. And my opinion is based on current rules and precedence in suspensions handed down (e.g. Brady got 4 games for "more probable than not", Big Ben got 6 games and was never convicted nor arrested, and Reed got 6 games despite no conviction for a something 2+ years ago). In short, I think Hill got off easy under the current inconsistent policy....but if we changed the policy to what I think it should be...he would have never been suspended in my book.

Agree with everything you said except including Brady because that had nothing to do with anything other than it bring a chance to shove it to the patriots.

 

[fnordcircle]

I love to hear the NFL's standard for what is/isn't credible. Me thinks its whatever suits Goody.

Honestly? I wouldn't mind if I found out that their choices were 100% about the bottom line. That they'll punish players when it seems like public outcry would offset the longterm competitive shift. I don't begrudge a business being run with an eye to the bottom line.

What I don't like is the ******** notion they try to float that they care about decency and law and ****. They don't. They care about their PR and they care about the product on the field. Just be ****ing honest about it.

 

[Ring 6]

Honestly? I wouldn't mind if I found out that their choices were 100% about the bottom line. That they'll punish players when it seems like public outcry would offset the longterm competitive shift. I don't begrudge a business being run with an eye to the bottom line.

What I don't like is the ******** notion they try to float that they care about decency and law and ****. They don't. They care about their PR and they care about the product on the field. Just be ****ing honest about it.

Agree, except the nfl isn’t a regular business, it exists based upon competition among its members so decisions that affect that competitive balance in the name of the bottom line ultimately end up bad for the business.

 

[maust]

What I don't like is the ******** notion they try to float that they care about decency and law and ****. They don't. They care about their PR and they care about the product on the field. Just be ****ing honest about it.

In the contest between PR and on field product marketing it's easy to see where the priority was on this one. It's hard to believe in this #metoo environment "You need to be terrified of me too b!tch" wasn't worth a couple of games all by itself. Can only figure being able to hang their hat on 'law enforcement didn't cooperate' to give no punishment was viewed as better than hitting him with a couple of games and having something worse come out a la Ray Rice.

 

[Ring 6]

No, the owners rule, esp Jerry Jones.

I wrote the Commish opposing his decision but received no answer of any kind, not even an automated "I received your message." Shabby.

The big problem with using convictions as an operating mode is that only a tiny percentage of women, and even fewer tiny children, report abuse (even rape is under 5% reported, and under 1% convictions). So, I think the League has to investigate, read the whole context, and history... plus the player's past infractions etc and decide from there. If they had done so in this case, they're would be at least a 4 game suspension, or most likely, much more.

But you are saying if out legal system can’t get them by following the rules the NFL should avert the rules to get them. If I can’t be proven guilty of a crime by our legal system I don’t think my employer should be able to create their own system to convict me.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Except that, as much as I hate to say it, they can (and will) play the "murderer" card.

The Pats cut the "murderer" the day it became clear that was what he was even though they could have saved some dough by waiting. The "beaters" I am referring to are still on teams.

 

[captain stone]

...The big problem with using convictions as an operating mode is that only a tiny percentage of women, and even fewer tiny children, report abuse (even rape is under 5% reported, and under 1% convictions)...

Sources please.

 

[Vindicate]

Sources please.

I know the numbers are pretty damn low and it's a tragedy, but I don't know if they're that low. Did a pretty large write up about sexual harassment and assault in the military, and those were the numbers for that. They were pretty abysmal.

I thought in normal life/court, they were slightly better.

Edit: here's a decent source. Reporting rates are a bit higher, conviction rate is def garbage.

The Criminal Justice System: Statistics | RAINN

 

[Jackson 2]

The Pats cut the "murderer" the day it became clear that was what he was even though they could have saved some dough by waiting. The "beaters" I am referring to are still on teams.

You're preaching to the choir. I get it and agree with you. My point was, and is, that fans of other teams will use the "murderer" claim. You don't have to try and convince me.

 

[Ring 6]

The Pats cut the "murderer" the day it became clear that was what he was even though they could have saved some dough by waiting. The "beaters" I am referring to are still on teams.

In the 6 years since they have won at least 12 games every year, gone to 6 Conf championship games, 4 SBs and won 3.
That’s more in 6 years than any other team has done in what?, about 25? And many have ever done in their histories.