OT - Patriots, again- say it aint so Bill

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by Louis

That's a given.

I think the stretch goal should be 50 pages. This is already in the Top 10 based on # of replies, but Top 5 is well within reach.

We haven't even started talking about the locker room attendant yet.

#29

[Vientomas]

Originally Posted by Aaron O

Unless there are specific sanctions that weren't followed, I think it's absurd to hold the employer responsible. So how about you find where he agreed that he'd be subject to that sanction for an occurrence. Otherwise, you are just upset that their internal sanction wasn't severe enough for your liking.

It's the prosecutors job to represent society - not roger goodells. If society's representative elected lax punishment, why are you looking to goodell to make up that gap?

I have no interest in Ray Rice or his sanction or lack thereof. My interest is your position that an employer cannot sanction an employee for conduct during non-work hours. I disagree with your position and cite the NFL personal conduct policy in support of my position. As a player employed by an NFL team, Rice was subject to the personal conduct policy. Read it for yourself.

You may think it is an absurd result to hold an NFL player liable for their actions during non-work hours, but it is the reality. You just refuse to accept it. If you want to be in the NFL's club, you play buy their rules. One of which is that you can be sanctioned for actions during non-work hours.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

We haven't even started talking about the locker room attendant yet.

#29

Don't need to go there - this was discovered in BB's office a few days ago:

[unterhausen]

do you think the Pats have practice letting out 2psi air? Seems to me that they would end up with some underinflated balls that were unusable if they just handed out inflation needles to everyone

[djg21]

Originally Posted by Aaron O

Unless there are specific sanctions that weren't followed, I think it's absurd to hold the employer responsible. So how about you find where he agreed that he'd be subject to that sanction for an occurrence. Otherwise, you are just upset that their internal sanction wasn't severe enough for your liking.

It's the prosecutors job to represent society - not roger goodells. If society's representative elected lax punishment, why are you looking to goodell to make up that gap?

I started to prepare a response containing the language from the NFL policy but the browser on my iPad crashed before it was saved.

I'll leave it at this: the policy speaks for itself with respect to its contents, and explicitly provides that conduct may be a violation without being a crime. It also expressly lists possible sanctions, which include banishment from the league.

The only thing in your post that is remotely correct is that I believe the initial suspension of Rice should have far exceeded 2-days, and that Goedell mismanaged the League's response to the incident.

[djg21]

Originally Posted by Aaron O

By the way - for the pseudo legal eagles - a conduct policy is NOT an employment contract. There is no offer/acceptance. It's a procedural manual that substantiates internal policy and establishes process. That's it.

The NFL has a collective bargaining agreement and has individual contracts with players.

Are you serious? What exactly do you think an employment contract would say?

[unterhausen]

the NFL contract is reasonably strict and Ray Rice's suspension was lifted. OTOH, he is still out of a job, so the teams have fairly wide leeway to just cut someone. I don't think this is going to happen to anyone on the Pats.

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by Louis

Don't need to go there - this was discovered in BB's office a few days ago:

This was discovered in Pete Carroll's office a few days ago:



#theroadto30

[bironi]

Shovelhd,

You do know that Brandon Browner is now with the Pats, right? Did you see his comments about telling his team mates to target the injured secondary players for the Seahawks, his former mates?

Were almost halfway there, and when you east coasters are house bound due to the blizzard - ding, ding, ding..........

[Louis]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

This was discovered in Pete Carroll's office a few days ago:

Retroactive prescription has already been forwarded to the commissioner's office.

[Len J]

Originally Posted by ergott

This will all go away if Seattle wins. If NE wins I can't imagine how many pages. Mods be ready to merge a lot of new threads!

If Patriots lose, and they get penalized for this, they run the risk of never escaping the mantle of "can't win a SB w/o cheating".

Len

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by bironi

Shovelhd,

You do know that Brandon Browner is now with the Pats, right? Did you see his comments about telling his team mates to target the injured secondary players for the Seahawks, his former mates?

Were almost halfway there, and when you east coasters are house bound due to the blizzard - ding, ding, ding..........

EVERY team takes advantage of opposing players that aren't 100%. I used to do it when I played and coached youth sports. Not to intentionally hurt them, but to take an easy advantage. Their coach decides who plays.

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by Len J

If Patriots lose, and they get penalized for this, they run the risk of never escaping the mantle of "can't win a SB w/o cheating".

Len

Exactly which Super Bowl did they cheat to win and how were they cheating in it?

#30beforewednesday

[Aaron O]

Originally Posted by Vientomas

I have no interest in Ray Rice or his sanction or lack thereof. My interest is your position that an employer cannot sanction an employee for conduct during non-work hours. I disagree with your position and cite the NFL personal conduct policy in support of my position. As a player employed by an NFL team, Rice was subject to the personal conduct policy. Read it for yourself.

You may think it is an absurd result to hold an NFL player liable for their actions during non-work hours, but it is the reality. You just refuse to accept it. If you want to be in the NFL's club, you play buy their rules. One of which is that you can be sanctioned for actions during non-work hours.

You didn't undrtstand what I wrote or what my concern is. I didn't say they couldn't sanction him, nor did I say they couldn't fire him. That's between them and their union. What I said is that society looking to the NFL to supply justice is a mistaken perspective.

[Aaron O]

Originally Posted by djg21

I started to prepare a response containing the language from the NFL policy but the browser on my iPad crashed before it was saved.

I'll leave it at this: the policy speaks for itself with respect to its contents, and explicitly provides that conduct may be a violation without being a crime. It also expressly lists possible sanctions, which include banishment from the league.

The only thing in your post that is remotely correct is that I believe the initial suspension of Rice should have far exceeded 2-days, and that Goedell mismanaged the League's response to the incident.

No - actually you didn't understand what you read or the context. It's a process guideline. Their process was followed within the context of their agreement with the union. You're looking for them to enforce their process in a way that satisfies you as an act of justice. It's not their freaking job to perform justice on the behalf of society. It's the Ravens job to sell tickets. Does having Ray rice help or hurt that endeavor? That's their decision to make within the legal framework of the agreement with the union.

The NFL's job is that of a league promoter...it's to promote the league as a whole and regulate issues between owners from a league wide perspective. It is not the NFL's job to punish Ray rice.

It is the prosecutor's job.