Jump to content
ColtsBlueFL

Kareem Hunt to serve 8 game suspension

Recommended Posts

Some thought it would be less, if nothing more than he missed 5 games last year after getting cut.

Looks like that is a non factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being a hard butt here, but how does getting cut, equate to "missing" games. Missing is a term usually used for injured players. I believe he was cut for a conduct clause in his contract. That was a violation of the teams rules. He apparently been punished further because of conduct issues with the league. 

 

If a person breaks the law and is wanted for state and federal charges, does one office lighten up because of the other offices punishment? Perhaps a legal person should address this question. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

Seems excessive IMO.  

Makes me wonder if Kraft is going to be suspended 8 games for what he done? :dunno:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Some thought it would be less, if nothing more than he missed 5 games last year after getting cut.

Looks like that is a non factor.

 

He was cut. Completely independent of any action from the league, and he was a free agent that any other team could have signed if they wanted. No one even put in a waiver claim. He wasn't barred from playing, so I don't see how the five games would have factored in.

 

If he had been on a roster at the time, he might have been placed on the exempt list. I do not think the time spent on the exempt list would have offset the suspension either; players on the exempt list are still paid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

He was cut. Completely independent of any action from the league, and he was a free agent that any other team could have signed if they wanted. No one even put in a waiver claim. He wasn't barred from playing, so I don't see how the five games would have factored in.

 

If he had been on a roster at the time, he might have been placed on the exempt list. I do not think the time spent on the exempt list would have offset the suspension either; players on the exempt list are still paid. 

 

He was placed on exempt list, and then cut.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000994151/article/nfl-places-kareem-hunt-on-commissioner-exempt-list

 

So Chiefs didn't have  to pay him, and exempt list keeps him from practicing, playing, or attending games. So no other team would claim him and pay him while on reserve/exempt status.  In that odd way, it is like an unpaid suspension without being an official suspension.

 

Now we know it appears to not affect future punishment either.  Unless...

 

The 8 games was going to be more, but was reduced.  (because of other reported issues Hunt had been through).  However, there was no explanation.  Of why it was 8 games if it was only for the altercation at his hotel home, when the policy states 6 games for 1st time offenders, or includes other issues.  Just perplexing.

 

“Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense,”  (Roger Goodell)

 

Maybe the league would rather go through the fallout of too high a punishment than too low as before. I'm not upset at all, but for a league of strict rules, they sure do play loose with the conduct policy and punishments.  Seems like they still write them as they go along and will bank on mitigating circumstance language.  And will continue to have folks create articles like this one-

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/06/29/nfl-shows-once-again-that-its-six-game-suspension-policy-is-meaningless/

 

Well, we know the Browns get him for week nine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Four2itus said:

Not being a hard butt here, but how does getting cut, equate to "missing" games. Missing is a term usually used for injured players. I believe he was cut for a conduct clause in his contract. That was a violation of the teams rules. He apparently been punished further because of conduct issues with the league. 

 

If a person breaks the law and is wanted for state and federal charges, does one office lighten up because of the other offices punishment? Perhaps a legal person should address this question. 

Just a quick comment.  I have no dog in this issue.  The analogy of state and federal charges isn't exactly the same here, IMO.  

 

Hunt may have gotten cut, but it was indeed for the same "crime" (conduct) as the suspension.  The time missed was for the same reason.  I'm not a legal person, but I don't think two separate government entities can convict a person for the same crime.  Not that the NFL and the Chiefs can't punish him separately for the same offense, but you could make the argument that he served 5 games already, if the NFL chose to look at it that way.  They probably didn't.

 

Just picking a nit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am ok with 8 games after watching the camera and hearing what happened evidence wise. Sounds about right but that is my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Four2itus said:

Not being a hard butt here, but how does getting cut, equate to "missing" games. Missing is a term usually used for injured players. I believe he was cut for a conduct clause in his contract. That was a violation of the teams rules. He apparently been punished further because of conduct issues with the league. 

 

If a person breaks the law and is wanted for state and federal charges, does one office lighten up because of the other offices punishment? Perhaps a legal person should address this question. 

Ever heard of credit for time served?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Narcosys said:

Ever heard of credit for time served?

Sure, that's one way to look at it. Call it a 13-game suspension, with credit for the five games "served" last year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2019 at 1:26 PM, ColtsBlueFL said:

He was placed on exempt list, and then cut.

 

 

It happened so fast, I didn't realized he actually was placed on the exempt list.

 

Quote

So no other team would claim him and pay him while on reserve/exempt status.  In that odd way, it is like an unpaid suspension without being an official suspension.

 

I don't know. I think the reason he went unclaimed is because teams were uneasy adding a player who was getting negative public attention at the time. I don't think it was because he was unavailable; everyone knew he would eventually be available to play again, and if they had claimed him, they'd still have him under control for two more seasons. It was about public perception. Probably the same reason the Chiefs cut him.

 

In that way, I don't see him getting cut as a punishment. It was a decision by the Chiefs -- and every other team -- to distance themselves from someone going through a public DV accusation, because that tends to work against NFL teams lately.

 

As for how this relates to other situations where the NFL didn't apply a six game suspension, I can't really say anything about that, except that it does appear the NFL has been inconsistent in the past. I think their objective is to be more consistent with the six game minimum for violent situations moving forward, and this decision falls in line with that objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Superman said:

I think the reason he went unclaimed is because teams were uneasy adding a player who was getting negative public attention at the time. I don't think it was because he was unavailable; everyone knew he would eventually be available to play again, and if they had claimed him, they'd still have him under control for two more seasons. It was about public perception.

 

Public perception was no doubt a part.  But (maybe I'm wrong) if you claim a player, you have to then assume his roster spot, rights/contract. But exempt list keeps him from all football activities (no practice, no playing in games). Thus there is no benefit to claim and pay a player at that time. And they would know a suspension would later ensue at some point as well.

 

If he wasn't put on the exempt list, he could have  been claimed, or passed waivers and then signed as a free agent and got paid and played for another team (if they could endure the public outcry)..  Exempt list does not absolve a team of financial responsibility for a player on it.  So it (in conjunction with getting cut) works as an extra deterrent, IMO.

 

I have no issue, just wondered how it would all mash out, and how future situations will play oit as well. Tyreek Hill might be the next case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Public perception was no doubt a part.  But (maybe I'm wrong) if you claim a player, you have to then assume his roster spot, rights/contract. But exempt list keeps him from all football activities (no practice, no playing in games). Thus there is no benefit to claim and pay a player at that time. And they would know a suspension would later ensue at some point as well.

 

If he wasn't put on the exempt list, he could have  been claimed, or passed waivers and then signed as a free agent and got paid and played for another team (if they could endure the public outcry)..  Exempt list does not absolve a team of financial responsibility for a player on it.  So it (in conjunction with getting cut) works as an extra deterrent, IMO.

 

I have no issue, just wondered how it would all mash out, and how future situations will play oit as well. Tyreek Hill might be the next case...

 

Claiming him would have come with the financial responsibility for his contract, but that was about $160K for the remainder of 2018, and about $500K for 2019. Remember, he was a third rounder on his rookie contract, and the prorated bonus paid by the Chiefs was charged to the Chiefs. This, for one of the best young RBs in the league. Money wouldn't have been a significant factor, even for a cap-strapped team.

 

Since he was on the exempt list, the claiming team would have been responsible for whatever he was due. Now that he's suspended, his 2019 salary is prorated, and his new team will only be responsible for 9/17ths of his salary. But that would have been the same if they had claimed him last year.

 

I think teams just wanted to have more information and be able to feel comfortable adding him, rather than claiming him a day after the news came out. It would have perpetuated the perception that teams only care about winning, even when a player is guilty of serious transgressions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...