The problem is they can't create a consistent policy when the legal matters have such variables. Today, Erik Walden would have gotten the same punishment as Peterson even though their incidents have nothing in common. Which is why the policy should be. Let legal matters be dealt with by the legal system. And once the legal system is finished, let the teams decided if they want to retain or employ the players based on their own business decision.
Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins
Part of the problem with tying it into the legal system is that the legal system takes so long to run its course. Do you suspend a guy as soon as he is arrested for a DUI or an alleged assault or do you wait until he goes to court or until he cops a plea or whatever happens to complete the legal part of it. The vast majority of things we are talking about will not involve any jail time unless its a repeat offense so once the court date is done, the trial over or the plea deal done the legal part can be considered over. If you suspend him right away what if it turns out he is innocent. If you wait the guy may play a whole season before the legal system clears him or convicts him. Take Peterson for example. Should he have been allowed to play until he took his plea deal and then the suspension kicks in. Some people say yes others say no.
I think they are trying to create a consistent policy the problem is I think they pussyfooted around for so long then the Rice thing blew up in their face and the over-reacted with a minimum of 6 games for any infraction. They needed to sit down and make a list of potential infractions and assign values to them along with mitigating circumstances and then place them in the appropriate length of suspension category. 2 or 3 games for lesser offenses, 6 or 8 games for more serious ones with the potential for these to be longer if circumstances dictate.
It's 100% a "protection of the brand" issue. The NFL is not in the business to punish a player for the crimes he commits. They have their suspensions in place to show the public that they will deal with rif raf in their own way outside of the law and they have that right. As other have said, they have conduct policies where they work and football players should too.
The biggest problem is that short of murder or clear cut violence people's opinions vary widely on what they think should be an infraction. Some people think a drug bust is no big deal. Some people think hitting your kid with a stick is acceptable form of punishment and does not warrant a suspension. The best way to get around that is to come up with a policy that is not unreasonable and be consistent in its application. Set it to start at some date in the future and disregard anything that has happened in the past. Finally, there needs to be a committee (normally I would hate saying something like that) to decide all this. It can't be up to one guy. It won't make everyone happy but if its consistent most people will accept it.
Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
The original Rice decision was consistent with past cases. It was reacting to the public outcry that screwed everything up.Part of the problem facing any future rules is trying to make them consistent with past cases because we all know past cases were anything but consistent. They need to forget about past cases and deal with the future. Its like Lynn swan in the HOF. He has 5400 yards in his career so does that mean everyone with more than that deserves to be in the HOF. You can't always decide the future based on the past. Sometimes you just have to move on and say sorry guys whats done is done but we are doing it this way from now on. Some people won't like it but that's tough.