Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Ray Rice Suspended


PrincetonTiger

Recommended Posts

The NFL suspending Rice for this is ludicrous.  No crime has been charged, and nobody really knows what happened.

 

So the NFL is simply using a domestic dispute as a means to raise its image and gross sales.  What will they try next.

 

This is a really weird argument you keep making. Why do you think the NFL is out of place to discipline players for what it views to be unacceptable conduct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 273
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Topic is very volatile. I say Spider-mans uncle was right. With great power comes great responsibility. As a man I have a responsibility to my own integrity to use force proportionally to any threat I face. I always look to walk away. My ex wife was bipolar.... Can't tell you how many times she hit me....and I didn't like it trust me. But she was much smaller and it wouldn't take half my strength to have hurt her. A man walks away and shows self-control. The only time I've even been in a fight was twice...with drunk guys that was grabbing on a friend of mine and was out of line and didn't take kindly of me getting between her and him. The other was my friends fault because he started something that caused a my friends vs his friends stupid mix up. Luckily dealing with drunk guys isn't too bad because they have poor balance and taking them to the ground and restraining them is easy. But back to the issue there is no reason for a man to hit a woman. If it was something where he was truly threatened or it was a bigger woman or a disabled man I understand u have to fight back but let's not take what ifs. Clearly not the case here. What he did was appalling and sick and I can't respect a man like that.

As for the league their hands were pretty well tied by her dropping charges and the evidence. I would respect a bit longer of a suspension to set an example across the league and maybe into a few tv's how disgusting his acts were but it is what it is. How smoking weed (still bad to me) gets u suspended up to a year but beating women gets u 2 games makes no sense. Oh we'll. Pray it never happens to another woman but afraid that this will never happen in a world full of young men and lack of morals being taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Topic is very volatile. I say Spider-mans uncle was right. With great power comes great responsibility. As a man I have a responsibility to my own integrity to use force proportionally to any threat I face. I always look to walk away. My ex wife was bipolar.... Can't tell you how many times she hit me....and I didn't like it trust me. But she was much smaller and it wouldn't take half my strength to have hurt her. A man walks away and shows self-control. The only time I've even been in a fight was twice...with drunk guys that was grabbing on a friend of mine and was out of line and didn't take kindly of me getting between her and him. The other was my friends fault because he started something that caused a my friends vs his friends stupid mix up. Luckily dealing with drunk guys isn't too bad because they have poor balance and taking them to the ground and restraining them is easy. But back to the issue there is no reason for a man to hit a woman. If it was something where he was truly threatened or it was a bigger woman or a disabled man I understand u have to fight back but let's not take what ifs. Clearly not the case here. What he did was appalling and sick and I can't respect a man like that.

As for the league their hands were pretty well tied by her dropping charges and the evidence. I would respect a bit longer of a suspension to set an example across the league and maybe into a few tv's how disgusting his acts were but it is what it is. How smoking weed (still bad to me) gets u suspended up to a year but beating women gets u 2 games makes no sense. Oh we'll. Pray it never happens to another woman but afraid that this will never happen in a world full of young men and lack of morals being taught.

I was looking forward to your post. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now we've sunk lower than Valpo and Shane's "Hitting women if they hit you is justifiable" argument .

Didn't think that was possible.

What you continue to do is sunk yourself even further with comments like this.

 

Lack of reading and understanding of posts is not my fault. Go back and read ( if you can ) and tell me where i said hit back. 

 

None of the posters who didn't agree to Valpo gave a logical justification of the scenarios presented ( Jvan gave an example ) except GoPats who did acknowledge it.

 

Keep going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just in......

 

The NFL is an organization formed to have teams play football, and have people who want to watch teams play football, watch teams play football.

 

Now we're arguing over whether or not the NFL's punishment for one of it's employees transgressions is severe enough....by comparing how other transgressions fit into NFL policy.

 

Survey questions: 

 

1) Please rank, in your opinion, the severity of transgressions.

 

1 Hitting your girlfriend

2 smoking doobage

3 getting drunk.

4 street racing (driving too fast, whatever that is)

5 driving stoned (and too slow, whatever that is)

 

And we have 7 pages going now.....

2) And what exactly should the NFL policy be regarding any of these....if the employee was doing each on their own time and was processed under the judicial system?

 

3) And, how does these transgressions impact how you will watch football this season?

 

Too complicated?....I'll answer for you....

 

1)  Your ranking is based upon YOUR lifestyle, or how you want others to think of you, whether you admit it or not.

2)  ditto.

3)  -0- 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really weird argument you keep making. Why do you think the NFL is out of place to discipline players for what it views to be unacceptable conduct?

 

Perhaps companies, instead of trying to sell image off of the backs of the personal lives of their employees, should focus on improving their product.  For the NFL (and NCAA too) that would be.... 

 

1) HGH testing

 

2) Improving concussion and painkiller distribution policies. 

 

These issues impact the product...We generally want to know that the wonderful plays and highlights are the result of normal human function, supplemented only with hard work and determination.  Not that they are the result of artificial means that morphs humans into live cartoon characters like the WWE.

 

The popularity of football is beginning to wane, kids are not signing up like they used to.  That means that parents (football fans) are beginning to question football.  The popularity of the sport is impacted by the issues I mentioned.

 

Link all three together.... HGH, concussions (and other injuries), and painkillers

 

Effectively....parents are beginning to realize that in order for their kid to succeed in football, maybe any popular sport, the kids will have to live with a pattern of :  Shooting up with PED's, absorbing hits beyond normal human ability, then mask the affect with painkillers (possibly "medical" marijuana in certain cultures).  

 

IMO, it is beginning to look like the NFL knowingly produces a phony product.  A live cartoon played out by cartoonish players making unreal, cartoonish, performances...with the ability to do it all again next week by illegally distributing painkillers.

 

The image of the NFL is not going to be enhanced by punishing players for moral transgressions they commit on their own time.  In fact, doing so tends to feed the current image the NFL is trying to sell, that its players are stronger, faster, smarter (ha), more dedicated, and even more moral, than the great unwashed masses who watch them. 

 

Selling a "better" employee won't undo the affects of delivering a phony product.  It is just a bunch of marketing noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My statement is and always has been. . . I have never and would never hit ANYONE unless they hit me first.  

 

However my statement is also that if a woman does hit me first I'm not going to respond to her differently then I would a man.  

 

I hope no one hits me, but if someone does I hope it's a man. . . not because I would feel guilty about defending myself against a woman, but because the public believes I'm allowed to defend myself against men and my reputation would not suffer.  The public doesn't see things the same way when it's a woman.

Valpo....I'll qualify everything I say by noting that Roger Goodell knows WAY more about this than any of us....but  either way, I think the distinction to be made in this case is that these two people were in a relationship as an engaged couple.

 

If you were walking down the street and a complete stranger happening to be a female pulled a knife or gun on you, and you used physical force to defend yourself....then that's a little different than violence between a couple who presumably love and respect each other....and I wouldn't blame you or anyone in the least for physically defending themselves against an armed attack.

 

But an engaged couple arguing in a crowded casino, however bitterly, where there have been no reports of threat to life during the incident? 

 

Unless a video surfaces of Rice's fiancee grabbing a butcher's knife off the chef at the prime rib station and lunging at him....I simply can't see any justification for what Rice did, and he should have gotten a more severe suspension.

 

If Ray Rice and his wife were capable of actually doing what allegedly happened....and then we factor in alcohol and perhaps a bad night at the poker table....then frankly, it's not surprising that it did happen.

 

But it still shouldn't have.

 

If...in some strange parallel universe....I was in the same situation and my fiancee were to hit me first, then the date or whatever we want to call it, the engagement and the relationship are over. But in this particular situation I just can't agree with an "eye for an eye" approach between an engaged couple.

 

As a side note to Roger Goodell....at this point he'd probably be wise to release whatever mitigating information he has, if there is any, to explain what many believe to be a slap on the wrist for Ray Rice.

 

Because right now Goodell looks as timid, feckless and noodle-spined as a trembling Barney Fife....and the issue at hand, violence toward women, couldn't be more important....given incidents among other NFL players in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre
Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre

1) Your ranking is based upon YOUR lifestyle, or how you want others to think of you, whether you admit it or not.

The only way anybody goes through their entire life, no matter their lifestyle, without experiencing some kind of violence with the opposite sex is if they never interact with them, which means they never had sex with them either. So go ahead and preach to me how you've (you in general...whoever is reasind not just the avove poster who actually appears to gwt it) neeever hit a woman, how you've neeeever been hit by a woman, how you've neeeever been caught in the middle (sure not everybody has hit a woman...but some thing or another that doesn't make you a woman beater has happened that you wouldn't want on video and aren't including in this discussion) of such a thing. That just means you've never had sex with a woman either...maybe even never been within 20 feet of a woman.

You don't score a touchdown without getting hit. You don't make it to the deep end without getting wet and so on and so on and so on.

Link to comment

d.

Shelters for battered men? You should tell the men you know to grow a pair.

 

http://thegrio.com/2013/09/24/when-men-are-battered/

 

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/help-for-battered-men

 

Try to expand your horizon if you can by reading this link. Below is just a sample from the link.

 

 

 

More than 830,000 men fall victim to domestic violence every year, which means every 37.8 seconds, somewhere in America a man is battered, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey. While more than 1.5 million women are also victims, everyone -- no matter their sex --deserves help.

"Domestic violence is not about size, gender, or strength," says Jan Brown, executive director and founder of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men. "It's about abuse, control, and power, and getting out of dangerous situations and getting help, whether you are a woman being abused, or a man."

There are more than 4,000 domestic violence programs in the U.S., but Brown says very few actually offer the same services to men as they do women. So where can a man turn for support when he is being abused? Domestic violence experts offer advice for men who may be falling through the cracks.

 

Abuse Against Men

"Domestic violence against men is very similar to domestic violence against women," says Brown. "It can come in the form of physical abuse, emotional, verbal, or financial."

 
 
 
 

As with abuse against women, Brown explains that abuse against men can mean a partner or spouse will:

Withhold approval, appreciation, or affection as punishment

  • Criticize, name call, or shout
  • Take away your car keys or money
  • Regularly threaten to leave or to make you leave
  • Threaten to hurt you or a family member
  • Punish or deprive your children when angry at you
  • Threaten to kidnap the children if you leave
  • Abuse or hurt your pets
  • Harass you about affairs your spouse imagines you are having
  • Manipulate you with lies and contradictions
  • Destroy furniture, punch holes in walls, break appliances
  • Wield a gun/knife in a threatening way
  • Hit, kick, shove, punch, bite, spit, or throw things when upset

In one instance, Brown received a letter from a woman who said her brother was being abused by his wife, who would scratch him, throw things at him, point a gun at him, break his eyeglasses, and flush his medications down the toilet -- among other things.

"The sister said in her letter that her brother stitched a cut on his arm himself, with a thread and needle, because his wife had cut him and he didn't want to go to the hospital," says Brown. "Can you imagine being so embarrassed that your wife hits you that you do that?"

Distinguishing Factors

That is a distinguishing factor between battered women and battered men, explains Brown: Men -- like this one -- are more likely to be embarrassed by their abuse, making them less likely to report it, according to the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men web site, which states men often worry, "What will people think if they knew I let a woman beat up on me?" and "I don't want to be laughed at; no one would believe me."

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL needs to protect it's public image. Part of doing that is through a player conduct policy. I don't know why such an assult isn't a stiffer penalty (perhaps since the charges were dropped idk) but if the league has an image where players are viewed as criminals and for lack of better words "thugs" etc the league will certainly lose a TON of sponsorships and viewers. People don't want to take their children to places or have them follow people that have such a poor public image. Who wants their children to cheer for a rapist, child molester, abuser, etc. I don't want my children associating with those people or think its well who cares if you do bad things...if your famous you get away with it. I just don't want my kids looking up to people like that....so if the league turns into a place just full of that....I won't watch. I don't listen to a lot of music for those very reasons....glamorizing drugs and degrading women...its not an example I want to set. So the NFL needs to protect its image. I just think as bad as recreational drugs are something like this is a bigger deal but that's just me. If myself or one of my employees breaks the law in such a manner as to risk losing customers because of their image we would be suspended or let go too. If your in the paper for stealing or something the bank isn't going to keep you on. Customers wouldn't trust your bank. If you have someone that is in trouble for sexual assult or something people aren't going to trust dropping their kids off at a day care etc etc. Businesses have the right to protect their public image. No different with the NFL.

 

These social issues aren't going away. It's only going to get worse. Poor morals taught or not taught in the homes means we are going to see many many more issues like this. I was taught at a young age from my father you respect women...starting with not talking back to my mom....he was quick to correct me if I did. Kids just aren't getting that...whether its a fatherless home, poor social/media standards, or just crappy dads themselves its just not happening. Anyways...shoot that rabbit. The NFL has a lot of issues to address...I think they could have stood up and set a better example for their employees...but they also need to do a better job protecting them....from concussions and themselves. Whether its madatory counseling etc there is nothing wrong. I would much rather see people get put in drug programs and play after they've finished their treatment than straight suspension that does nothing to help them rather give them more time to do drugs. Anyways...I don't root against people....I find people to root for.....sadly Ray Rice is not on my list anymore. Plenty of others to cheer for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proper punishment is not just an NFL issue..

I hate to say it but when you beat someone, how badly they got hurt determines the penalty..

If Ray's wife was still in a coma, he'd be in jail ...

...She's standing up for him..and he gets no jail time and just 2 weeks off the job..

Its almost like shooting at someone (and missing) you might get probation and community service

while for shooting someone ...you get a box seat with 100,000 volts wired to it

You had the same thought when you pulled the trigger...but your accuracy and the wound determines whether you end up executed or driving a 'Meals on Wheels' truck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would any man feel good after hitting his wife and knocking her unconscious?  I don't think so.  If a guy feels that having a woman hit them is so bad, then when it happens, he should walk away, talk about it later or even divorce her if necessary....but if she hits you and you hit her back, and then you are in a destructive relationship and something worse could happen later.  imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it quite fascinating how a lot of them are getting extremely defensive without even trying to understand what Valpo is trying to say but just bombard him.

Suddenly we are talking "Gentlemen", "Decency", "Physical non-equals" etc.

In other words, i understand it is acknowledged there is a significant difference in 2 genders. If it is acknowledged, why do we have protests and fights for equal rights?. If you want to be treated equal, doesn't that apply to everything?.

Double standards?. Hyprocrisy?.

Yeah, how about you re-read this post if yours.

Somehow you think that it's a double standard or hypocritical to allow for equal rights for women in everyday life yet not when it comes to physical altercations .

Yeah, I'M the one who can't comprehend things . Funny , no one else comprehends your argument , either.

SHOCKING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL needs to protect it's public image. Part of doing that is through a player conduct policy. I don't know why such an assault isn't a stiffer penalty (perhaps since the charges were dropped idk) but if the league has an image where players are viewed as criminals and for lack of better words "thugs" etc the league will certainly lose a TON of sponsorships and viewers. People don't want to take their children to places or have them follow people that have such a poor public image. Who wants their children to cheer for a rapist, child molester, abuser, etc. I don't want my children associating with those people or think its well who cares if you do bad things...if your famous you get away with it. I just don't want my kids looking up to people like that....so if the league turns into a place just full of that....I won't watch. I don't listen to a lot of music for those very reasons....glamorizing drugs and degrading women...its not an example I want to set. So the NFL needs to protect its image. I just think as bad as recreational drugs are something like this is a bigger deal but that's just me. If myself or one of my employees breaks the law in such a manner as to risk losing customers because of their image we would be suspended or let go too. If your in the paper for stealing or something the bank isn't going to keep you on. Customers wouldn't trust your bank. If you have someone that is in trouble for sexual assult or something people aren't going to trust dropping their kids off at a day care etc etc. Businesses have the right to protect their public image. No different with the NFL.

 

These social issues aren't going away. It's only going to get worse. Poor morals taught or not taught in the homes means we are going to see many many more issues like this. I was taught at a young age from my father you respect women...starting with not talking back to my mom....he was quick to correct me if I did. Kids just aren't getting that...whether its a fatherless home, poor social/media standards, or just crappy dads themselves its just not happening. Anyways...shoot that rabbit. The NFL has a lot of issues to address...I think they could have stood up and set a better example for their employees...but they also need to do a better job protecting them....from concussions and themselves. Whether its madatory counseling etc there is nothing wrong. I would much rather see people get put in drug programs and play after they've finished their treatment than straight suspension that does nothing to help them rather give them more time to do drugs. Anyways...I don't root against people....I find people to root for.....sadly Ray Rice is not on my list anymore. Plenty of others to cheer for.

I agree with the morals behind your post, but I bolded some comments that I really think is the problem underlying these issues, as I see them.

 

The only reason that I can think of why a company would care about the image of its employees, and therefore its reflection on the company (a BIG assumption BTW), is that the company feels that the product or service it provides the public really isn't that much better than their competitors product or service. 

 

It has nothing to sell, so its sells its image. 

 

What is the NFL's product?  Hero worship?  I never thought, and will never teach my kids, that jocks are heros, or are in anyway supposed to be looked up to.  They are people who simply were born to be bigger or faster than average, but are enjoyable to watch when they execute their job well.  Period. 

 

Now we've come to a point where we may not want to watch a player because of what a video in a casino revealed about him and his girlfriend.

 

This is just weird...but people think I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, how about you re-read this post if yours.

Somehow you think that it's a double standard or hypocritical to allow for equal rights for women in everyday life yet not when it comes to physical altercations .

Yeah, I'M the one who can't comprehend things . Funny , no one else comprehends your argument , either.

SHOCKING.

You clearly didn't understand what I said and you are yet to show me the line where I said hit a woman as you claim.

And your sarcastic jabs continue. Talk about weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps companies, instead of trying to sell image off of the backs of the personal lives of their employees, should focus on improving their product.  For the NFL (and NCAA too) that would be.... 

 

1) HGH testing

 

2) Improving concussion and painkiller distribution policies. 

 

These issues impact the product...We generally want to know that the wonderful plays and highlights are the result of normal human function, supplemented only with hard work and determination.  Not that they are the result of artificial means that morphs humans into live cartoon characters like the WWE.

 

The popularity of football is beginning to wane, kids are not signing up like they used to.  That means that parents (football fans) are beginning to question football.  The popularity of the sport is impacted by the issues I mentioned.

 

Link all three together.... HGH, concussions (and other injuries), and painkillers

 

Effectively....parents are beginning to realize that in order for their kid to succeed in football, maybe any popular sport, the kids will have to live with a pattern of :  Shooting up with PED's, absorbing hits beyond normal human ability, then mask the affect with painkillers (possibly "medical" marijuana in certain cultures).  

 

IMO, it is beginning to look like the NFL knowingly produces a phony product.  A live cartoon played out by cartoonish players making unreal, cartoonish, performances...with the ability to do it all again next week by illegally distributing painkillers.

 

The image of the NFL is not going to be enhanced by punishing players for moral transgressions they commit on their own time.  In fact, doing so tends to feed the current image the NFL is trying to sell, that its players are stronger, faster, smarter (ha), more dedicated, and even more moral, than the great unwashed masses who watch them. 

 

Selling a "better" employee won't undo the affects of delivering a phony product.  It is just a bunch of marketing noise.

 

Perceived hypocrisy is an entirely different topic. Just because the NFL needs to do better in other areas doesn't mean that it doesn't have a legitimate reason to be concerned about the personal conduct of its players and staff. HGH, concussions and painkillers are entirely unrelated, and much more difficult issues.

 

The NFL is about money. That includes, to a large degree, marketing. It's strange to me that you don't think the league should be concerned with the public image that's promoted by its players. You're talking about how parents and children feel about the players ability to perform. Apply that to their issues off the field: It's okay if NFL players break the law, because they're good at football, and that's all the NFL should care about. How does that make the league look?

 

And this isn't just the NFL. Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant lost endorsements because of their moral transgressions, because companies realized that it was bad for their bottom line to be associated with the scandalous activity of those individuals. The justification is simple: money. These companies -- including the NFL -- believe that it would cost them money if the public felt that they didn't care about the illegal and/or illicit behavior of their employees, business partners, etc.

 

Maybe you feel like that's patronizing. It is. It's still good business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre
Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre

The only way anybody goes through their entire life, no matter their lifestyle, without experiencing some kind of violence with the opposite sex is if they never interact with them, which means they never had sex with them either. So go ahead and preach to me how you've (you in general...whoever is reasind not just the avove poster who actually appears to gwt it) neeever hit a woman, how you've neeeever been hit by a woman, how you've neeeever been caught in the middle (sure not everybody has hit a woman...but some thing or another that doesn't make you a woman beater has happened that you wouldn't want on video and aren't including in this discussion) of such a thing. That just means you've never had sex with a woman either...maybe even never been within 20 feet of a woman.

You don't score a touchdown without getting hit. You don't make it to the deep end without getting wet and so on and so on and so on.

 

This is a really weird post, for lots of reasons.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre
Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre

The only way anybody goes through their entire life, no matter their lifestyle, without experiencing some kind of violence with the opposite sex is if they never interact with them, which means they never had sex with them either. So go ahead and preach to me how you've (you in general...whoever is reasind not just the avove poster who actually appears to gwt it) neeever hit a woman, how you've neeeever been hit by a woman, how you've neeeever been caught in the middle (sure not everybody has hit a woman...but some thing or another that doesn't make you a woman beater has happened that you wouldn't want on video and aren't including in this discussion) of such a thing. That just means you've never had sex with a woman either...maybe even never been within 20 feet of a woman.

You don't score a touchdown without getting hit. You don't make it to the deep end without getting wet and so on and so on and so on.

 

I'm not sure you fully appreciate that the words you write.....   they can be read by other people....    people who don't know you and likely will never meet you.

 

Because this is one of the more bizarre posts I've read in quite some time.    It's certainly not a view I'd like to make public, and especially in a website where I'm a relatively new poster and no one has a good feel for who I am and what I'm about....

 

Wow,  yours is a strange, strange post....       :scratch:             :dunno:

Link to comment

As a side note to Roger Goodell....at this point he'd probably be wise to release whatever mitigating information he has, if there is any, to explain what many believe to be a slap on the wrist for Ray Rice.

 

Because right now Goodell looks as timid, feckless and noodle-spined as a trembling Barney Fife....and the issue at hand, violence toward women, couldn't be more important....given incidents among other NFL players in the past.

 

Meh; Goodell can't win, no matter what.

 

Up until the Bountygate suspensions were overturned, Goodell was viewed as overly rigid, power-hungry, overbearing, etc. Virtually every personal conduct suspension was criticized as being excessive. Goodell was considered a dictator, jury, judge and executioner, only concerned with pushing his personal agenda. 

 

Then the Bountygate suspensions were vacated. Goodell's judgment was undermined in front of everyone, and players felt triumphant about it. Since then, there have been NO suspensions under the personal conduct policy, until this offseason. (Most of the problems from players were handled by the team, which was considered a way to head off a more prohibitive suspension from Goodell.) Rice has been suspended; it's possible that Aldon Smith, Greg Hardy and Jim Irsay will be suspended or otherwise punished by the league. 

 

Now, the first suspension since the Bountygate issue was resolved is Ray Rice. Wouldn't Goodell be smart to consider the way Bountygate ultimately went as he determines how to handle personal conduct suspensions in the future? Could he consider that as a referendum against his previous handling of suspensions? The seemingly measured, proportional response (compared to suspensions for Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, and others in the past) indicates that he learned something from the Bountygate thing.

 

He gave Rice two games. People think it's too light (I'm not sure why; very few players have gotten more than two games under the personal conduct policy). If it had been four, how many people would feel it was too much, and go right back to calling Goodell a dictator? I don't get how this makes him look timid, or how it would help him to explain his reasoning. If anything, that would make him look like he feels he has to apologize for not meeting the public's expectations. His letter to Rice, along with context, should sufficiently explain how he determined two games was an appropriate suspension.

 

I'm also not sure why this suspension is considered a slap on the wrist. As a matter of fact, I believe Ray Rice is the first person suspended under this policy who was a first-time offender. Most of the time, these suspensions come after multiple arrests/DUIs, or repeated involvement in questionable behavior. Even Roethlisberger was accused twice, a year apart, before the NFL stepped in. I expected Rice would get more, but it's not like there's a set formula for how the NFL administers punishment for off-field transgressions. That makes is hard to determine that any punishment is light.

 

I said before, I think there's a bloodlust that prevails in society. When someone does something wrong, people want them punished severely, to the fullest extent of the law. There's no room for personal circumstance or mitigating factors. There's no room for mercy. Lock him up, and throw away the key. And it's made worse by the fact that people make up their minds before hearing all of the pertinent information, then refuse to acknowledge new information that might conflict with what they've already determined. You never hear anyone admit that they spoke too soon; it's often considered a bad thing to change your mind. It's always silly season. I think any governing body does well to ignore that type of rabid aggression, and make decisions like this based on the facts, not emotion, not public opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre
Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre

I'm not sure you fully appreciate that the words you write..... they can be read by other people.... people who don't know you and likely will never meet you.

Because this is one of the more bizarre posts I've read in quite some time. It's certainly not a view I'd like to make public, and especially in a website where I'm a relatively new poster and no one has a good feel for who I am and what I'm about....

Wow, yours is a strange, strange post.... :scratch::dunno:

I agree NCF. All that came to mind when reading that post of his is how repulsive it was. There have been comparatively less offensive posts that have been deleted by the mods. I don't get why this one was not. I refuse to quote him, as that kind of garbage should not be repeated. (Now mine may be deleted.)

Link to comment

Perceived hypocrisy is an entirely different topic. Just because the NFL needs to do better in other areas doesn't mean that it doesn't have a legitimate reason to be concerned about the personal conduct of its players and staff. HGH, concussions and painkillers are entirely unrelated, and much more difficult issues.

 

The NFL is about money. That includes, to a large degree, marketing. It's strange to me that you don't think the league should be concerned with the public image that's promoted by its players. You're talking about how parents and children feel about the players ability to perform. Apply that to their issues off the field: It's okay if NFL players break the law, because they're good at football, and that's all the NFL should care about. How does that make the league look?

 

And this isn't just the NFL. Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant lost endorsements because of their moral transgressions, because companies realized that it was bad for their bottom line to be associated with the scandalous activity of those individuals. The justification is simple: money. These companies -- including the NFL -- believe that it would cost them money if the public felt that they didn't care about the illegal and/or illicit behavior of their employees, business partners, etc.

 

Maybe you feel like that's patronizing. It is. It's still good business.

 

So companies like Coke, Miller, and General Motors; that sell soda, beer, and cars to anybody, are going to pull their endorsements of the NFL if it said nothing about a player who punched his girlfriend?

 

Yes, perceived hypocrisy is relevant.  If the pattern of NFL player success over the past 20 years has been HGH use, increasing injuries to heads, ligaments, and tendons (the parts NOT enhanced by PED's); and painkiller abuse;  a "wholesome" image becomes a tool.  A positive image of do-goodness can deflect reality.  An "upstanding" image can prevent investigative questions from even being asked. 

 

But people don't really buy product because of the image.  They'll buy the product if it is real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perceived hypocrisy is an entirely different topic. Just because the NFL needs to do better in other areas doesn't mean that it doesn't have a legitimate reason to be concerned about the personal conduct of its players and staff. HGH, concussions and painkillers are entirely unrelated, and much more difficult issues.

 

The NFL is about money. That includes, to a large degree, marketing. It's strange to me that you don't think the league should be concerned with the public image that's promoted by its players. You're talking about how parents and children feel about the players ability to perform. Apply that to their issues off the field: It's okay if NFL players break the law, because they're good at football, and that's all the NFL should care about. How does that make the league look?

 

And this isn't just the NFL. Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant lost endorsements because of their moral transgressions, because companies realized that it was bad for their bottom line to be associated with the scandalous activity of those individuals. The justification is simple: money. These companies -- including the NFL -- believe that it would cost them money if the public felt that they didn't care about the illegal and/or illicit behavior of their employees, business partners, etc.

 

Maybe you feel like that's patronizing. It is. It's still good business.

 Let me say this another way....I do not believe that the people who head Coke, Miller Brewing, and GM; companies that sell products to everybody, is thinking that if they continue endorse a company whose employee punched his girlfriend, people will care about that endorsement and stop buying their products.  I think people buy coke, Miller Lite, and Chevy because they like the product.

 

Heck...a lot of the people who buy soda, beer, and cars have punched their girlfriends or wives at least once in their lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So companies like Coke, Miller, and General Motors; that sell soda, beer, and cars to anybody, are going to pull their endorsements of the NFL if it said nothing about a player who punched his girlfriend?

 

Yes, perceived hypocrisy is relevant.  If the pattern of NFL player success over the past 20 years has been HGH use, increasing injuries to heads, ligaments, and tendons (the parts NOT enhanced by PED's); and painkiller abuse;  a "wholesome" image becomes a tool.  A positive image of do-goodness can deflect reality.  An "upstanding" image can prevent investigative questions from even being asked. 

 

But people don't really buy product because of the image.  They'll buy the product if it is real.

 

 

 Let me say this another way....I do not believe that the people who head Coke, Miller Brewing, and GM; companies that sell products to everybody, is thinking that if they continue endorse a company whose employee punched his girlfriend, people will care about that endorsement and stop buying their products.  I think people buy coke, Miller Lite, and Chevy because they like the product.

 

Heck...a lot of the people who buy soda, beer, and cars have punched their girlfriends or wives at least once in their lifetime.

 

To the bolded, no. They won't end their partnerships with the NFL over one incident. But if the NFL didn't act in the face of multiple incidents from multiple players, yes, it would affect their standing and eventually cost them partnerships and money. This is not a foreign concept. It's like you're trying to reinvent the entire field of public relations.

 

And it's not as simple as "people won't buy the product if they don't like the company's image." There's lots of back room politics, lobbying, business relations, etc., to be taken into consideration. It all boils down to money.

 

Hypocrisy with regard to concussions, pain killers and PEDs is not relevant. The NFL might be hypocritical in those aspects, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be concerned with their brand, and how the public figures associated with their brand conduct themselves. Perhaps they aren't doing a good job in those other areas -- that's a debate for another thread, I think. I'm not sure why that means they shouldn't try to manage their image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the bolded, no. They won't end their partnerships with the NFL over one incident. But if the NFL didn't act in the face of multiple incidents from multiple players, yes, it would affect their standing and eventually cost them partnerships and money. This is not a foreign concept. It's like you're trying to reinvent the entire field of public relations.

 

And it's not as simple as "people won't buy the product if they don't like the company's image." There's lots of back room politics, lobbying, business relations, etc., to be taken into consideration. It all boils down to money.

 

Hypocrisy with regard to concussions, pain killers and PEDs is not relevant. The NFL might be hypocritical in those aspects, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be concerned with their brand, and how the public figures associated with their brand conduct themselves. Perhaps they aren't doing a good job in those other areas -- that's a debate for another thread, I think. I'm not sure why that means they shouldn't try to manage their image.

More to the point. 

 

How would an NFL policy that says nothing about its employees punching their girlfriend or being arrested for dui tarnish an image?   

 

is the public relations world infested with elitists that think the viewing public is so stupid as to equate silence with endorsement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre
Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre

It's not a view it's a fact and the statistics that were posted earlier today (just the ones we actually know about) prove it. Besides, ya'll are obviously harping on 1 of the 3 scenarios that I mentioned, the most horrific. Men beating women senseless in Lifetime movies isn't what this is all about. Violence with a member of the opposite sex includes when a girl kicks a guy in the nuts, or when a mother gets caught in the middle of a father and an adolescent son, or when they both get crapfaced drunk and spit and pull hair like the Rice's did.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre
Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre

The only way anybody goes through their entire life, no matter their lifestyle, without experiencing some kind of violence with the opposite sex is if they never interact with them, which means they never had sex with them either. So go ahead and preach to me how you've (you in general...whoever is reasind not just the avove poster who actually appears to gwt it) neeever hit a woman, how you've neeeever been hit by a woman, how you've neeeever been caught in the middle (sure not everybody has hit a woman...but some thing or another that doesn't make you a woman beater has happened that you wouldn't want on video and aren't including in this discussion) of such a thing. That just means you've never had sex with a woman either...maybe even never been within 20 feet of a woman.

You don't score a touchdown without getting hit. You don't make it to the deep end without getting wet and so on and so on and so on.

My point was not about hitting women, or the position anybody should or should not take.  Or what position makes you a better person, or an evil one. 

 

Its about an organization trying to establish an income generation policy that grandstands over the personal lives of their employees, using who knows what evidence, rather than focusing on the quality of their product. 

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre
Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre

I don't jack squat about that...I was responding to the people who have this need to tell everybody on the internet how they've never done _______ (whatever some guy got in trouble for that week).

Link to comment

More to the point. 

 

How would an NFL policy that says nothing about its employees punching their girlfriend or being arrested for dui tarnish an image?   

 

is the public relations world infested with elitists that think the viewing public is so stupid as to equate silence with endorsement?

 

The first question, I think I've already answered. You can look at the public response to the Ray Rice suspension. I don't agree with it, but it's very obvious that people think this decision reflects poorly on the league.

 

The second question is incredibly loaded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh; Goodell can't win, no matter what.

 

Up until the Bountygate suspensions were overturned, Goodell was viewed as overly rigid, power-hungry, overbearing, etc. Virtually every personal conduct suspension was criticized as being excessive. Goodell was considered a dictator, jury, judge and executioner, only concerned with pushing his personal agenda. 

 

Then the Bountygate suspensions were vacated. Goodell's judgment was undermined in front of everyone, and players felt triumphant about it. Since then, there have been NO suspensions under the personal conduct policy, until this offseason. (Most of the problems from players were handled by the team, which was considered a way to head off a more prohibitive suspension from Goodell.) Rice has been suspended; it's possible that Aldon Smith, Greg Hardy and Jim Irsay will be suspended or otherwise punished by the league. 

 

Now, the first suspension since the Bountygate issue was resolved is Ray Rice. Wouldn't Goodell be smart to consider the way Bountygate ultimately went as he determines how to handle personal conduct suspensions in the future? Could he consider that as a referendum against his previous handling of suspensions? The seemingly measured, proportional response (compared to suspensions for Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, and others in the past) indicates that he learned something from the Bountygate thing.

 

He gave Rice two games. People think it's too light (I'm not sure why; very few players have gotten more than two games under the personal conduct policy). If it had been four, how many people would feel it was too much, and go right back to calling Goodell a dictator? I don't get how this makes him look timid, or how it would help him to explain his reasoning. If anything, that would make him look like he feels he has to apologize for not meeting the public's expectations. His letter to Rice, along with context, should sufficiently explain how he determined two games was an appropriate suspension.

 

I'm also not sure why this suspension is considered a slap on the wrist. As a matter of fact, I believe Ray Rice is the first person suspended under this policy who was a first-time offender. Most of the time, these suspensions come after multiple arrests/DUIs, or repeated involvement in questionable behavior. Even Roethlisberger was accused twice, a year apart, before the NFL stepped in. I expected Rice would get more, but it's not like there's a set formula for how the NFL administers punishment for off-field transgressions. That makes is hard to determine that any punishment is light.

 

I said before, I think there's a bloodlust that prevails in society. When someone does something wrong, people want them punished severely, to the fullest extent of the law. There's no room for personal circumstance or mitigating factors. There's no room for mercy. Lock him up, and throw away the key. And it's made worse by the fact that people make up their minds before hearing all of the pertinent information, then refuse to acknowledge new information that might conflict with what they've already determined. You never hear anyone admit that they spoke too soon; it's often considered a bad thing to change your mind. It's always silly season. I think any governing body does well to ignore that type of rabid aggression, and make decisions like this based on the facts, not emotion, not public opinion.

Well there's no debating that Goodell has a thankless job when discipline has to be dealt out.

 

But IMO....mercy, in this situation....is a millionaire athlete able to continue being a millionaire athlete, when similar legal circumstances would get many people summarily fired. As a first-time offender, Ray Rice got his "mercy" when he was offered the pretrial intervention program allowing him the opportunity to avoid prosecution.

 

And Roger Goodell is not going to end the problems of domestic violence and the various other personal conduct infractions he has to deal with, but this token 2 game suspension, absent the release of any mitigating facts....assuming there are any.....has brought about a predictable and understandable reaction and yes, also backs up your assertion that Goodell was effectively castrated by the Bountygate reversals.

 

That is not a good thing.

 

I'd like to believe this is the last domestic violence/violence toward women incident we see involving an NFL player....but sadly, I'm much more inclined to believe it's not. And not by a long shot do I believe this serves as an unmistakable deterrent to other NFL players who might be wired to behave the same way.

 

Nope.....unfortunately, we're likely to be remembering this disgraceful mess for reference and precedent...and a very bad one at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there's no debating that Goodell has a thankless job when discipline has to be dealt out.

 

But IMO....mercy, in this situation....is a millionaire athlete able to continue being a millionaire athlete, when similar legal circumstances would get many people summarily fired. As a first-time offender, Ray Rice got his "mercy" when he was offered the pretrial intervention program allowing him the opportunity to avoid prosecution.

 

Roger Goodell is not going to end the problems of domestic violence and the various other personal conduct infractions he has to deal with, but this token 2 game suspension, absent the release of any mitigating facts....assuming there are any.....has brought about a predictable and understandable reaction and backs up your assertion that Goodell was effectively castrated by the Bountygate reversals.

 

I'd like to believe this is the last domestic violence/violence toward women incident we see involving an NFL player....but sadly, I'm much more inclined to believe it's not. And not by a long shot do I believe this serves as an unmistakable deterrent to other NFL players who might be wired to behave the same way.

 

Nope.....unfortunately, we're likely to be remembering this disgraceful mess for reference and precedent...and a very bad one at that.

 

Fair points.

 

What you say about mercy kind of makes my point. "The legal system didn't do anything to him. The NFL should make up for it by coming down hard on him." I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's the way it comes across. In reality, the reasons the legal system didn't come down hard on him are likely the same reasons Goodell felt two games was sufficient.

 

To the bolded, I disagree. Most people aren't fired when they have legal trouble, unless it affects their ability to work. NFL employees are generally public figures, and are viewed in a different light. They are also contract employees, with union protections. Most important, they are uniquely capable of performing their jobs. Most people are easier to replace than a high level NFL RB. So it's kind of a messy comparison to begin with.

 

I also disagree with your characterization of this suspension as "token." Again, suspensions for first time offenders are rare in the NFL, especially multiple game suspensions.

 

I don't think Goodell was castrated by the Bountygate reversals. I think it probably led to him being more measured when dealing out suspensions for personal conduct violations. And given the way most people viewed Goodell's use of power before the Ray Rice suspension, I'm not sure why that's a bad thing. This paradox kind of highlights my original premise: Goodell can't win.

 

Last thing, I don't think there is any such thing as "an unmistakable deterrent." Some guys are just knuckleheads, and will do what they do without regard for possible consequences. Especially when it comes to heat of the moment behavior, which is typically where violence becomes an issue. I think violations of the personal conduct should continue to be handled on a case by case basis, rather than considering any particular decision as a point of reference or precedent. And if this case is setting any precedent, it's that a first time offender can be suspended for multiple games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the combination of footage, eye witness reports, and apology make it far from vague.  He should be out 4 games minimum.

Eye witness reports? As in, inside the elevator...I though that Ray & his fiance were the only ones in the elevator? Just asking for clarification I guess. 

 

Wow.

I'm sorry, a man ever hits a woman unless in a life and death situation, and even then restraint should be the main reason.

A fiancé , knocking out his fiancée ? Ludicrous, and indefensible. 8 games, minimum.

Precisely VL. Well said. 

 

Sometimes things don't go "our way" for a reason.  Sometimes good,  sometimes not so good.

 

What is Sad,  is the ever growing lack of  common sense, lack of respect for human decency, and knowing the difference between right and wrong.

All true Gramz, but there are players in this league who didn't grow up with proper supervision, role models, or how to treat the opposite sex with dignity, class, & respect. Not condoning violent behavior at all just pointing out that some athletes need therapy & counseling that's all just to see the light. I agree 100% BTW. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre
Hidden by Nadine, July 27, 2014 - off topic and bizarre

The only way anybody goes through their entire life, no matter their lifestyle, without experiencing some kind of violence with the opposite sex is if they never interact with them, which means they never had sex with them either. So go ahead and preach to me how you've (you in general...whoever is reasind not just the avove poster who actually appears to gwt it) neeever hit a woman, how you've neeeever been hit by a woman, how you've neeeever been caught in the middle (sure not everybody has hit a woman...but some thing or another that doesn't make you a woman beater has happened that you wouldn't want on video and aren't including in this discussion) of such a thing. That just means you've never had sex with a woman either...maybe even never been within 20 feet of a woman.

You don't score a touchdown without getting hit. You don't make it to the deep end without getting wet and so on and so on and so on.

I see your point. Make sense.

Just ignore certain posters who just tag team and make sarcastic digs and want to hear only what they like. You confront them with reality and facts, they will run away.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...