Zeke Elliot suspended 6 games.

[Bobsyouruncle]

That's the thing a lot of people don't realize. Article 46 doesn't affect all that many players, so the entire union (as a whole) won't sacrifice terribly much to do away with it.

But I don't believe this is an article 46 issue, it's an issue covered under the domestic abuse policy. That was one of the many issues with Goodell's handling of "physics confirmed-gate." There was a policy that covered the issue but Goodell ignored his own policy.

It would be like if the domestic abuse policy called for six games but Goodell decided to say 16. If you've agreed to a specific policy you can't then say that policy doesn't apply, otherwise why did you write the policy if it meant nothing.

Elliot, whether guilty or not still didn't get screwed as bad as the Patriots because Goodell followed the policy. For it to be equivalent not only would Elliot have to be innocent, but then have his punishment made up and go against an agreed policy.

 

[Koma]

Other than citing Article 46, can someone smarter than I explain why EE received a 6 game suspension and Brown only one for the same horrible, incomprehensible behavior?

I get Jerry is pissed but my question is what is he pissed about specifically?

I've never been accused of being smarter than anyone, but I heard somewhere that Brown's suspension was based on a violation of the player's personal conduct policy, not the domestic violence policy. How the league came to that decision when all the issues surrounding Brown involved domestic violence is beyond me. I believe the short answer is "This is how John Mara told us to handle it."

 

[XLIX]

But I don't believe this is an article 46 issue, it's an issue covered under the domestic abuse policy. That was one of the many issues with Goodell's handling of "physics confirmed-gate." There was a policy that covered the issue but Goodell ignored his own policy.

The domestic abuse ("Personal Conduct") policy specifically states this that issue falls within the purview of Article 46 (i.e. "Conduct Detrimental to the League")

"Everyone who is part of the league must refrain from “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in” the NFL ... Conduct by anyone in the league that is illegal, violent, dangerous, or irresponsible puts innocent victims at risk, damages the reputation of others in the game, and undercuts public respect and support for the NFL ... Appeals of any disciplinary decision will be processed pursuant to Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement for players or pursuant to the applicable league procedures for non-players." - NFL (DV) Personal Conduct Policy

It would be like if the domestic abuse policy called for six games but Goodell decided to say 16. If you've agreed to a specific policy you can't then say that policy doesn't apply, otherwise why did you write the policy if it meant nothing.

As we learned last year, Article 46 allows Goodell to do whatever the heck he wants. He doesn't have to worry about actual guilt, fundamental fairness, law of shop, consistency with previous punishments or even consistency with pre-established punishment guidelines (such as the NFL Equipment Violation Schedule of Fines which says a 1st offense equipment violation is a fine of something like $10,000).

 

[XLIX]

I've never been accused of being smarter than anyone, but I heard somewhere that Brown's suspension was based on a violation of the player's personal conduct policy, not the domestic violence policy.

The domestic violence policy is the personal conduct policy. The official name of the document is "The National Football League Personal Conduct Policy," and that is the document put into place in 2014 following the Ray Rice fiasco which covers the issue of Domestic Violence.

(My post immediately above this one quotes from that policy)

How the league came to that decision when all the issues surrounding Brown involved domestic violence is beyond me. I believe the short answer is "This is how John Mara told us to handle it."

Why Brown got only 1 game is a complete mystery. I think that got less attention than it deserved because the Giants cut him and he hasn't returned to the league since then.... it certainly would have been a bigger issue if he missed one game and then returned to his usual duties and was currently active.

 

[Froob]

You never hear anyone say the Saints weren't punished hard enough for the bounty accusations because the team never really recovered from Payton's suspension. In the 3 years before the suspension, NO won double digit games, went to the playoffs each year and won the SB. In the 4 years since Payton's been back, they've gone to the playoffs once and went 7-9 for last 3 seasons.

If the Patriots went into a lull after the spygate penalties, no one would be saying they slap on the wrist. Since they kept winning 10+ games a year, kept winning the division and kept going to the playoffs (except for 2008, but that was without Brady), Patriots haters never got the satisfaction of seeing the team suffer.

Instead of considering that they may have exaggerated the importance of taping signals, they pretended that the punishment was too light. I know they already have a SB win, but if the Patriots keep chugging along as the AFCE champ and getting to at least the AFCCG for the next 2 years, we'll hear that the deflategate penalties were a slap on the wrist.

It really is hard to believe that a group of owners told Goodell "This team is too successful, find an excuse to take them down." After the first attempt didn't work they way expected, they tried and failed again.

The Saints were in the playoffs the year he came back. I don't think you can pin that all on Bountygate.

 

[XLIX]

The players did, when they agreed to give the NFL that right in the CBA.

The funny thing is - and I don't think most people realize this - Article 46 has been in the NFL CBA for about 50 years. It isn't something that was surreptitiously inserted into the current document.

It was simply never a problem when men of integrity such as Pete Rozelle (arguably the greatest commissioner of all time in any sport) and Paul Tagliabue (not as good of a commissioner, but still an honorable man) held office.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I've never been accused of being smarter than anyone, but I heard somewhere that Brown's suspension was based on a violation of the player's personal conduct policy, not the domestic violence policy. How the league came to that decision when all the issues surrounding Brown involved domestic violence is beyond me. I believe the short answer is "This is how John Mara told us to handle it."

What a case study of twisted logic but knowing this league and pinhead commish it all makes sense. Good grief.

 

[Dr Pain]

That's one of the things that I've never been able to understand about the cheating accusations, in the sense that they'd most definitely have come back down to earth, right?

I mean, how does anyone explain the 2/3 SBs since deflategate, or the fact that they actually have a higher winning percentage since spygate? It's ridiculous.

Obviously the Patriots are just cheating better and just haven't been caught yet

 

[patfanken]

No, he shouldn't have. That's for the criminal justice system.

I don't disagree, but it's not just for the criminal justice system to dole out punishment. For good or bad an employer can fire/suspend/or otherwise punish for offenses THEY deem to be inappropriate and their actions DON'T have to reach the level of a criminal level. It can be for as little as violating an agreed upon dress code.

I'm a bit surprised to see you on the side of the "if you can't convict, you must acquit" side of this one, DI. But that's why, in this discussion, I always mention the parade incident, since there is no denial by anyone that it happened. IMHO, that incident alone was worth some kind of suspension by anyone outside of a sdtrip club. I also believe if it was JUST the somewhat murky DV situation he had, his situation wouldn't be so dire (even if it deserves to be so), but between the girl, the parade, and the club fight you have a disturbing pattern that needs to be stopped, if only for the sake of the kid and his future.

In the end, 6 games will turn into 4 or 3, Jerry will pretend to still be pissed, Goodell will pretend to still be tough on DV, and Elliot will end up being more rested for the playoffs, and we ALL can have the pleasure of watching the Cowboys pretend to have their "reventge tour" of 2017, "Full of sound and fury. Signifying NOTHING."

 

[XLIX]

I don't disagree, but it's not just for the criminal justice system to dole out punishment. For good or bad an employer can fire/suspend/or otherwise punish for offenses THEY deem to be inappropriate and their actions DON'T have to reach the level of a criminal level. It can be for as little as violating an agreed upon dress code.

If @Deus Irae had his way, the league wouldn't have even been able to suspend Ray Rice. We all saw the crapstorm that came about when Rice got only 2 games, imagine what would've happened if he didn't get anything.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't disagree, but it's not just for the criminal justice system to dole out punishment. For good or bad an employer can fire/suspend/or otherwise punish for offenses THEY deem to be inappropriate and their actions DON'T have to reach the level of a criminal level. It can be for as little as violating an agreed upon dress code.

I'm a bit surprised to see you on the side of the "if you can't convict, you must acquit" side of this one, DI. But that's why, in this discussion, I always mention the parade incident, since there is no denial by anyone that it happened. IMHO, that incident alone was worth some kind of suspension by anyone outside of a sdtrip club. I also believe if it was JUST the somewhat murky DV situation he had, his situation wouldn't be so dire (even if it deserves to be so), but between the girl, the parade, and the club fight you have a disturbing pattern that needs to be stopped, if only for the sake of the kid and his future.

In the end, 6 games will turn into 4 or 3, Jerry will pretend to still be pissed, Goodell will pretend to still be tough on DV, and Elliot will end up being more rested for the playoffs, and we ALL can have the pleasure of watching the Cowboys pretend to have their "reventge tour" of 2017, "Full of sound and fury. Signifying NOTHING."

If you think back on it, you may recall me railing against the players allowing the NFL to mete out discipline during the last CBA negotiations, when I killed the NFLPA for caving on item after item.

It's not the league's place to interfere in non-football issues. The league does not employ the players. That's something that should be left to the individual team owners. This also applies to drugs, legal or otherwise, that aren't game-impacting in a beneficial way (i.e. weed, booze).

 

[patfanken]

If you think back on it, you may recall me railing against the players allowing the NFL to mete out discipline during the last CBA negotiations, when I killed the NFLPA for caving on item after item.

It's not the league's place to interfere in non-football issues. The league does not employ the players. That's something that should be left to the individual team owners. This also applies to drugs, legal or otherwise, that aren't game-impacting in a beneficial way (i.e. weed, booze).

No, I don't remember that, but I hope you understand why.

However you are right that it SHOULD have been a major point for the Association (not a union). You know it's funny when you think about it, WTF would the League office even WANT to deal with player discipline when it would have been so easy to pass it off to a league designated group of arbitrators. What a huge freakin' headache would have been off the table, and so much time would have been opened up to work on things that actually improve the game. The league still sets the guidelines and pick the arbitors....yet the players are left with at least a belief that their side was being heard. It would have been a win/win for both sides.....if people were rational and actually WANT to do a fair deal.

I was a school teacher and football coach for close to 20 years, and discipline was the LEAST enjoyable part of my job (although at times necessary) But by and large good discipline is a matter of cause and effect. You do this, and that will happen. Nothing personal, I still love you.....but.

As long as you are consistent, kids I dealt with from 8th grade in the urban class room, to HS in the suburbs, and it was no different when I taught summer school courses to college kids.

Now I admit my memory is somewhat faded, but for the most part, once everyone knew what to expect, I never had to deal with anyone who was pissed off at any discipline they received from me. (well maybe for getting caught, )

So let me ask you, DI when they do this again in '20 or '21, do you think the players association will make this a sticking point and get rid of "Article 46" or 45, or whatever. OR will the league buy them off again with more money?

 

[Deus Irae]

So let me ask you, DI when they do this again in '20 or '21, do you think the players association will make this a sticking point and get rid of "Article 46" or 45, or whatever. OR will the league buy them off again with more money?

It's the weakest union in the big 4 sports for more than one reason, and Goodell is all about being in control. In all likelihood, the NFLPA will cave again, and on a multitude of issues that should be absolute deal breakers from their perspective.

Non-PED Drug testing
General a/k/a non-football discipline
Offsets

Among others, all of the above should be considered deal breakers by the NFLPA, and those should be considered non-negotiable to the point that there's not even any sitting down until those are agreed to without anything given in return. But they're not strong/smart enough to pull that off.

 

[Nehalem]

It's the weakest union in the big 4 sports for more than one reason, and Goodell is all about being in control. In all likelihood, the NFLPA will cave again, and on a multitude of issues that should be absolute deal breakers from their perspective.

Non-PED Drug testing
General a/k/a non-football discipline
Offsets

Among others, all of the above should be considered deal breakers by the NFLPA, and those should be considered non-negotiable to the point that there's not even any sitting down until those are agreed to without anything given in return. But they're not strong/smart enough to pull that off.

Im not sure why domestic abusers, DUIers, etc being punished by the league should be considered a deal breaker.

It certainly wouldn't paint the union in a very good light. Going on strike to protect people that beat their wife... yeah I wouldn't want to have to do that PR.

 

[Tony2046]

I don't disagree, but it's not just for the criminal justice system to dole out punishment. For good or bad an employer can fire/suspend/or otherwise punish for offenses THEY deem to be inappropriate and their actions DON'T have to reach the level of a criminal level. It can be for as little as violating an agreed upon dress code.

I'm a bit surprised to see you on the side of the "if you can't convict, you must acquit" side of this one, DI. But that's why, in this discussion, I always mention the parade incident, since there is no denial by anyone that it happened. IMHO, that incident alone was worth some kind of suspension by anyone outside of a sdtrip club. I also believe if it was JUST the somewhat murky DV situation he had, his situation wouldn't be so dire (even if it deserves to be so), but between the girl, the parade, and the club fight you have a disturbing pattern that needs to be stopped, if only for the sake of the kid and his future.

In the end, 6 games will turn into 4 or 3, Jerry will pretend to still be pissed, Goodell will pretend to still be tough on DV, and Elliot will end up being more rested for the playoffs, and we ALL can have the pleasure of watching the Cowboys pretend to have their "reventge tour" of 2017, "Full of sound and fury. Signifying NOTHING."

Great post Ken.

I do agree with Deus because I think the NFL should react punishment or suspension wise to a conviction rather than an accusation.

But DV cases are tough because the victim often doesn't testify or retracts their testimony for various reasons including fear.

My thoughts of what should happen:

I have a good friend who is a DA and he discussed this issue with DV orgs to find a more effective method.

He will now take a DV case to court with or without the victim's testimony and threatens maximum allowable sentence. He then offers either a plea deal which includes mandatory counseling and probation to the abuser or the victim if she testifies.

That's the gist of it and I probably haven't described it accurately but the main point is that it removes the responsibility of action from the victim and it changes her testimony from something "hurtful " to something "helpful ".

The NFL's actions basically tell a victim to shut up or lose everything. They've said things such as "she wouldn't testify " in the past which puts the responsibility on the victim. A victim who fears retaliation, fears losing her livelihood, fears her children's financial future, etc etc.

NFL wives aren't going to say squat after the way the Rice and Brown cases were handled.

It should be, imo, once a police incident happens mandatory counseling for the player begins and if the player is convicted disciplinary actions can begin.

But suspending a player for an accusation of something he hasn't been convicted of is a tough pill to swallow.

FWIW: I do think EE has issues but it seems victim has some issues as well. It's definitely not a clean cut case from what I've read which is probably why the DA in that case decided not to take it to trial.

 

[Deus Irae]

Im not sure why domestic abusers, DUIers, etc being punished by the league should be considered a deal breaker.

Because criminal issues should be left to the criminal justice system, and business repercussions of alleged/proven criminal issues should come from the team owner, not from some ass hat who isn't even the players' boss. This is pretty basic stuff.

It certainly wouldn't paint the union in a very good light. Going on strike to protect people that beat their wife... yeah I wouldn't want to have to do that PR.

The players pretty much always lose the PR battle in CBA bargaining. If that's what the players are worried about, they've already lost.

 

[Tony2046]

Im not sure why domestic abusers, DUIers, etc being punished by the league should be considered a deal breaker.

It certainly wouldn't paint the union in a very good light. Going on strike to protect people that beat their wife... yeah I wouldn't want to have to do that PR.

It's not protecting wife beaters. It's protecting players from being punished for an accusation. Let the courts decide what happened and then respond to the conviction.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

It is pretty clear that the league should not be conducting their own "investigations" into criminal accusations. They are totally inept at "investigating" 8th grade science, let alone something significantly more complicated. So if they do punish bad behavior, it should be based upon facts as determined by our criminal justice system, not based on which way the clown in charge feels that the wind is blowing.

 

[rochrist]

Because criminal issues should be left to the criminal justice system, and business repercussions of alleged/proven criminal issues should come from the team owner, not from some ass hat who isn't even the players' boss. This is pretty basic stuff.



The players pretty much always lose the PR battle in CBA bargaining. If that's what the players are worried about, they've already lost.

I understand the sentiment, but the fact is, the owners have delegated that authority to the league. I suspect partly out of a desire that there be an even playing field (excuse me while I laugh). But honestly, which owner wants to be the one who makes a principled stand and suspends or cuts an important player and destroys the team's season.

 

[Deus Irae]

I understand the sentiment, but the fact is, the owners have delegated that authority to the league. I suspect partly out of a desire that there be an even playing field (excuse me while I laugh). But honestly, which owner wants to be the one who makes a principled stand and suspends or cuts an important player and destroys the team's season.

Some owners have done it in the past, and some haven't. That's up to them. Just ask T.O., and that wasn't even over a criminal act.

Hell, in New England, there's a coach who benches players for returning late from their grandfather's funeral.