Ray Rice gets what?

bradl said:

I think the word you are looking for is 'representative', not 'sponsor'.

However, you are looking at this from the mindset of the sport, and not the mindset of a business. The sport hasn't been really called into disrepute, so try to separate the sport, because the league has.

Just like the NBA, McDonalds, Burger King, and Subway, the NFL teams are franchises: businesses of their own. Rice works for the owner of the franchise, and that is who he needs to answer to as far as his job and reputation as a footballer for that team goes. To be honest, his punishment/repercussions should be tons worse from his teammates, franchise, and franchise owner than what it has been, as well as what it has been from the league.

Now, if he had done something like what Greg Williams did in the AFL a few years ago while arguing with his opponent and shoved and pushed an umpire/referee down, that's a different story, as that calls his conduct in the sport into disrepute (subsequently, Williams was suspended for 9 matches). Or like the biter guy in the World Cup. That's where the league and officials come in.

For this, the worst should come from the law (the woman and the VAWA will deal with him financially), followed by the owner of the franchise for whom he works (who should take his job, to be honest). If he's lucky, he'll work his way back in from the CFL or Japan, after a few rounds of rehab and counseling.

BL.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you've read my previous response, or if you follow the NFL, but the NFL already has a history of punishing crimes that have nothing to do with the "sport". Roethlisberger received a 4 game suspension for an allegation of rape that he was never charged for. And of course there have been numerous suspensions for drugs. There is a personal conduct clause that allows for discipline if the commissioner sees fit.


Also for those that don't know, he was entered into a pretrial intervention program. If he completes it without incident, the charges will be dismissed. There is also apparently a video of the actual punch in the elevator (an uppercut) that has yet to be released.

DonJudgeMe said:

Let us get as close to"apples-to-apples" as we can. Suh was suspended for stomping on a Packer player. He received two games. Now, he wasn't knocked unconcious, nor did he press charges. Is this just as bad as beating your wife?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't look at an in-game infraction and a domestic abuse case and say that's an "apples-to-apples" comparison. If anything, you're furthering my argument.

I am also curious as to how this incident does not relate to the game?

Click to expand...

I don't remember saying it doesn't relate to the game, but I'll play along.

There's nothing in any football rule book about domestic assault. It doesn't give one player or team a competitive advantage over another.

Rice is basically a representative of the NFL.

Click to expand...

Okay, I could go along with that.

Everything that these players do as a direct effect on the game.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so.

Why do you think they get suspended and fined for DUI'S and such?

Click to expand...

One guess is because the league has rules specifically spelled out concerning substance abuse, but in any event, I never suggested that suspending him was out of line.

DonJudgeMe said:

First, he should not be allowed to play until this is settled in court.

Click to expand...

Whoa, now - are you suggesting that ANYONE accused of a criminal offense should not be allowed to go to work, or just NFL players? You're really reaching now.

bradl said:

I think the word you are looking for is 'representative', not 'sponsor'.

However, you are looking at this from the mindset of the sport, and not the mindset of a business. The sport hasn't been really called into disrepute, so try to separate the sport, because the league has.

Just like the NBA, McDonalds, Burger King, and Subway, the NFL teams are franchises: businesses of their own. Rice works for the owner of the franchise, and that is who he needs to answer to as far as his job and reputation as a footballer for that team goes. To be honest, his punishment/repercussions should be tons worse from his teammates, franchise, and franchise owner than what it has been, as well as what it has been from the league.

Now, if he had done something like what Greg Williams did in the AFL a few years ago while arguing with his opponent and shoved and pushed an umpire/referee down, that's a different story, as that calls his conduct in the sport into disrepute (subsequently, Williams was suspended for 9 matches). Or like the biter guy in the World Cup. That's where the league and officials come in.

For this, the worst should come from the law (the woman and the VAWA will deal with him financially), followed by the owner of the franchise for whom he works (who should take his job, to be honest). If he's lucky, he'll work his way back in from the CFL or Japan, after a few rounds of rehab and counseling.

BL.

Click to expand...

Speaking of owners, Jim Irsay was arrested for DUI and possession, yet he has not been suspended from the league.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...m-irsay-charged-two-misdemeanors-march-arrest

Tomorrow said:

Sorry, I can't look at an in-game infraction and a domestic abuse case and say that's an "apples-to-apples" comparison. If anything, you're furthering my argument.



I don't remember saying it doesn't relate to the game, but I'll play along.

There's nothing in any football rule book about domestic assault. It doesn't give one player or team a competitive advantage over another.



Okay, I could go along with that.



No, I don't think so.



One guess is because the league has rules specifically spelled out concerning substance abuse, but in any event, I never suggested that suspending him was out of line.



Whoa, now - are you suggesting that ANYONE accused of a criminal offense should not be allowed to go to work, or just NFL players? You're really reaching now.

Click to expand...

You're completely ignoring the personal conduct policy that the NFL has....

You can read it here.

Here's a snippet:

Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and
subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime.
Discipline may be imposed in any of the following circumstances:

• Criminal offenses including, but not limited to, those involving: the use or threat of violence;
domestic violence and other forms of partner abuse; theft and other property crimes; sex
offenses; obstruction or resisting arrest; disorderly conduct; fraud; racketeering; and money
laundering;
• Criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or substances of abuse;
• Violent or threatening behavior among employees, whether in or outside the workplace;
• Possession of a gun or other weapon in any workplace setting, including but not limited to
stadiums, team facilities, training camp, locker rooms, team planes, buses, parking lots, etc., or
unlawful possession of a weapon outside of the workplace;
• Conduct that imposes inherent danger to the safety and well being of another person; and
• Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs, or
NFL players.

Click to expand...

And again, Roethlsberger was given a 6 game suspension (4 after appeal) for an allegation that didn't even lead to charges. That's more apples to apples than the Suh comparison, but you can argue that Rice's is worse as he has been adjudicated and there is ample video evidence.

Moyank24 said:

I'm not sure if you've read my previous response, or if you follow the NFL, but the NFL already has a history of punishing crimes that have nothing to do with the "sport". Roethlisberger received a 4 game suspension for an allegation of rape that he was never charged for. And of course there have been numerous suspensions for drugs. There is a personal conduct clause that allows for discipline if the commissioner sees fit.

Click to expand...

I have to admit, I haven't followed the NFL since the mid-80s. Sounds blasphemous coming from Nebraska, where the state religion is football. But honestly, it started to bore me with all the stop/start play, timeouts, challenges, and to be honest, padding.

That's why I got hooked on Aussie Rules Football. None of that, and basically, anything goes. As far as something like Rice happening in the AFL, both the league and the club handle it, and they don't take the BS that goes on in the NFL. Match review panel reviews every game to see if there is any misconduct, and there's a tribunal that handles any contests for suspensions/reprimands/fines. Perhaps it is time to implement something like that in the NFL.

BL.

Moyank24 said:

Roethlsberger was given a 6 game suspension (4 after appeal) for an allegation that didn't even lead to charges. That's more apples to apples than the Suh comparison, but you can argue that Rice's is worse as he has been adjudicated and there is ample video evidence.

Click to expand...

Yes. You could argue all day long whether Roethlisberger's transgression (if it indeed took place; I really have no idea one way or the other) or Rice's is worse - but, going back to my original argument, neither one is a 16-game suspension for a drug infraction, because drug infractions are specifically spelled out by the league. Domestic abuse and sexual misconduct, although lumped in with the "personal conduct policy" you mentioned, and neither one has a specific punishment listed next to it. The drug abuse policy does. That was my original statement.

Tomorrow said:

Yes. You could argue all day long whether Roethlisberger's transgression (if it indeed took place; I really have no idea one way or the other) or Rice's is worse - but, going back to my original argument, neither one is a 16-game suspension for a drug infraction, because drug infractions are specifically spelled out by the league. Domestic abuse and sexual misconduct, although lumped in with the "personal conduct policy" you mentioned, and neither one has a specific punishment listed next to it. The drug abuse policy does. That was my original statement.

Click to expand...

I can't remember what your original statement was!

However, I believe you said that the league had less leeway as there weren't specific punishments written out, as there were with substance abuse and PED's and, when in reality, the league actually has MORE leeway with the personal conduct policy (and other actions that don't directly effect the game itself). They also have a precedent set with the Roethlisberger suspension.

At the end of the day, as a woman, and as a season ticket holder, I'm ticked off. I think it was handled poorly from the beginning, especially by the Ravens (who have already shown themselves to be a classless organization) and now by the league.

The league will continue to sell pink jerseys and have the players wear pink cleats one game / season and continue to remind us how much they love and respect women. And that will make it all better.

Moyank24 said:

At the end of the day, as a woman, and as a season ticket holder, I'm ticked off. I think it was handled poorly from the beginning, especially by the Ravens (who have already shown themselves to be a classless organization) and now by the league.

Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head here.

As a person with a sense of decency, I'm ticked off that his team and his head coach haven't done more to emphasize that they don't condone his behavior.

In the end, Rice works for the Ravens, not for the NFL. As far as I'm concerned, the onus is on his team to send the message that behavior like his won't be tolerated. I care a lot less about what the league thinks (largely because I have contempt for the league as a whole, for many reasons outside of this incident).

So ESPN sacked Stephen A. Smith over his comments pertaining to Rice for a week.

DonJudgeMe said:

So, instead of confronting the root of the problem(that is the NFL) we should blame the team(that follows the NFL's bylaws)?

Click to expand...

No, we should confront the root of the problem (Rice) and have his employer (his team) deal with it. Believe it or not, Rice doesn't have a contract with the league, and is not one of its employees; he's the team's problem, first and foremost.

Tomorrow said:

No, we should confront the root of the problem (Rice) and have his employer (his team) deal with it. Believe it or not, Rice doesn't have a contract with the league, and is not one of its employees; he's the team's problem, first and foremost.

Click to expand...

This. And if it came to it, the league could sanction the team. But it is a far stretch for the league to shake down the entire team for one man's actions. I mean, I would support it if they did, but it is hard to watch someone on that team who has been married to their wife for double-digit years and raised 2 or 3 loving kids get shaken down because of someone who beat their wife.

It isn't the first guy's fault, which is why it puts the league in a precarious situation with very little that it can do.

BL.

DonJudgeMe said:

Wow, way to take what I said out of context. We were talking about whos problem it was to discipline. You are the one who brought up your contempt for the NFL. I simply pointed out that you think the NFL has a problem, and that is why you do not hold them responsible for disciplining Rice. Your words, not mine.

Now, you are saying that Rice does not have a contract with the league. As a matter of fact, he does. His contract with the Ravens IS the contract with the NFL. You do know that, right? In each and every single contract that is signed, it explicitly states that the comissioner has the power to fine, suspend and even terminate a players contract. They are the end all, be all, final word.

The point being, the team should punish their own player, you are absolutely correct. But, if said team fails to deliver a realistic punishment, the NFL should then step in and "put the hammer down". Goodell is a moron. God that feels good to type.

Click to expand...

Agreed; if the franchise owner(s) don't deliver adequate punishment, then the league should step in. but what should the ramifications of such punishment be? It couldn't go after the single person without going through the entire team or the owners of the franchise first.

Someone working at Mcdonald's corporate in Des Plaines, Illinois couldn't go off and fire a person working on the grill at the restaurant on the Turner Turnpike in Vinita, Oklahoma, as they'd have to deal with the franchise owner first.

Same applies with the NFL. The NFL operates the league, while the franchise owners operate the teams. The League can suspend/block Rice from playing in any league games, but that's roughly it. Anything further would have to involve the franchise owner(s). There's a line of demarcation there that has to be observed.

That isn't saying that I support the team and their actions; quite the opposite: Rice needs more done to him. But we're talking the concepts of franchising here.

BL.

How you can be a female NFL fan at this point is beyond me. Also, the pink in October needs to stop, because the NFL obviously doesn't give a crap about women based on this nonsense ruling.

And what the heck is with the Ravens? When there's video of Rice abusing his significant other and he gets off, you don't follow it up by celebrating him. You bury it and bury it deep.

I can't wait until he comes back and is terrible anyway.

I simply pointed out that you think the NFL has a problem, and that is why you do not hold them responsible for disciplining Rice. Your words, not mine.

Click to expand...

Those weren't my words. My words were that I don't really care what the league thinks.

I also didn't say that the league has no authority to punish him; what I said is that it's first and foremost his team's responsibility, since his contract is with them.

Now, you are saying that Rice does not have a contract with the league. As a matter of fact, he does.

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, he does not. He has a contract with the Ravens. The Ravens have a contract with the league. The league does have some degree of authority over players, but that doesn't mean that the player's contract with the league, and it doesn't mean that the league is his primary employer.

But, if said team fails to deliver a realistic punishment, the NFL should then step in and "put the hammer down".

Click to expand...

Here's what I'm getting at - what is "realistic," and who gets to define it? You? Goodell?

My original point, if you go back far enough, is that such a standard has not been codified by the league. Punishments for substance abuse offenses have.

Tomorrow said:

Those weren't my words. My words were that I don't really care what the league thinks.

I also didn't say that the league has no authority to punish him; what I said is that it's first and foremost his team's responsibility, since his contract is with them.



As a matter of fact, he does not. He has a contract with the Ravens. The Ravens have a contract with the league. The league does have some degree of authority over players, but that doesn't mean that the player's contract with the league, and it doesn't mean that the league is his primary employer.



Here's what I'm getting at - what is "realistic," and who gets to define it? You? Goodell?

My original point, if you go back far enough, is that such a standard has not been codified by the league. Punishments for substance abuse offenses have.

Click to expand...

Goodell, in his role as Lord of the Shield, gets to define it. A role that he has gone out of the way to embrace.

Once it became obvious that the Ravens weren't going to treat this seriously - they marched the victim out and had her apologize in a press conference - it fell on his shoulders. And as camp got underway, they continue to dig themselves a deeper hole.

Is there a set punishment for knocking your girlfriend out? No. However, as mentioned many times before, he did create some sort of precedent with the Roethlisberger suspension.

It's extremely curious that Goodell, who normally has no problem sticking his face in front of microphones, has had underlings comment. In the face of a ton of criticism, he hasn't said a word.

And in terms of this discussion, I think we can all have an opinion on what is "realistic". And I don't think this punishment is.

Do you?

Moyank24 said:

And in terms of this discussion, I think we can all have an opinion on what is "realistic". And I don't think this punishment is.

Do you?

Click to expand...

I do have an opinion. My wish is that since what he did happened off the field and doesn't affect competition in any way, that he simply be disciplined by the courts (criminal and civil), and that his employer - meaning the Ravens, not the league - discipline him in a way that they see fit.

The reason I will call this opinion (and that's all it is) "realistic" is because if I were to beat my wife, that's exactly what would happen to me. I'd likely go to jail, I could possibly get sued, and I would lose my license as a result of being incarcerated - meaning I would most likely lose my job. That's "realistic."

Now, if the courts decide to give him a slap on the wrist, I can have an opinion about that, too. I don't necessarily think that it's up to someone else to punish him if they don't believe the courts acted harshly enough; it would be my wish that his team punish him or not on their own judgment, regardless of what (or whether) the courts do to him.

I understand that the league's rules say they can punish him; I don't necessarily believe they should. That's the team's job.

In my opinion, that's realistic.

bradl said:

I'm going to be blunt here.

That is about the most that the NFL can do. If he brought the game or the league into disrepute, then it would be another story. But as this was off-field, there is little the NFL (read: the LEAGUE) could do.

Now, the football club, is a different story. The league could suspend him; that is about as much as the league could do. Then the team could either fine or suspend him (preferably both), or worse: terminate his contract. Then after that, let the law deal with him.

Everyone is thinking that the league is be all/end all here, where this has much more of a cascading effect than people are thinking about. Let the league dole out its punishment. Then the team. Then the law. He'll get some recoil from this fair enough. But let it be a tiered approach instead of everyone being up in arms about what's happened so far.

BL.

Click to expand...

I don't completely agree that his actions being off-field and out of season had anything to do with the consequences he faced. Although murder is not domestic abuse, I feel the following still applies…loosely. Belichick quite literally, as I recall it, tossed Hernandez even before he was arraigned. The second there was a ripple in the water and a question of his involvement, Belichick gave him the boot. This is exactly what Harbaugh should do. Maybe not give him the boot, but take a stand. Maybe Harbaugh needs the NFL to back the decision, I haven't looked into that, but I really thought that Belichick put his concerns about ticket sales and Super Bowls aside and just took the poison out of the water before the team was affected.

Then again, I suppose if Ray Lewis was able to continue to play after he murdered...no wait, didn't murder...then may as well let his buddy Rice stick around.

AustinIllini said:

How you can be a female NFL fan at this point is beyond me. Also, the pink in October needs to stop, because the NFL obviously doesn't give a crap about women based on this nonsense ruling.

And what the heck is with the Ravens? When there's video of Rice abusing his significant other and he gets off, you don't follow it up by celebrating him. You bury it and bury it deep.

I can't wait until he comes back and is terrible anyway.

Click to expand...

With such an absurd comment as this, the only response possible has to be equally absurd. I am a female NFL fan and I will continue to be because what Ray Rice did is indeed or should have been met with a harsher consequence than a 2-game suspension; however, there are all kinds of players who are doing all kinds of horrible things. They continue to play along. So really, as a male, if you continue to be a fan of the NFL then you clearly have zero respect for all women. Can you see the absurdity in that manner of thinking?