Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-16 Thread Bob Jersey 

John Edwards, to Kevin and PGage:
>
> The sooner you realize that everything *is* about Rihanna, the happier 
> you'll be
>
> Crumbs, she's gotta make up for the crap she took for making *Battleship*
...

B

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-16 Thread John Edwards 
The sooner you realize that everything *is* about Rihanna, the happier
you'll be

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Kevin M.  wrote:

> In related news Rihanna wants to make it all about her:
>
> https://twitter.com/rihanna/status/511844041131327488
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:26 AM, PGage  wrote:
>
>> A subject header of "More NFL BS" I now realize is so elastic as to
>> invite infinite contributions. I hesitate to continue piling on, but add
>> here for the record a nice summary of the BS inherent in the announcement
>> last night of former FBI Director Robert Mueller to conduct an
>> "independent" investigation of the NFL's handling of Ray Rice's violent
>> behavior.
>>
>>
>> http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/11/how-independent-will-robert-mueller-be/
>>
>> Muller is a senior partner at WilmerHale, the law firm that handled the
>> most recent multi-billion dollar contract between the NFL and DirecTV, has
>> represented Dan Snyder, the owner of the NFL team in Washington DC, and
>> from which several attorneys have gone on to high placed jobs in the NFL,
>> including Dick Cass, who worked at WilmerHale for 30 years before assuming
>> his current position as.wait for itpresident of the Baltimore
>> Ravens. and Muller's supposedly independent investigation will be overseen
>> by two of the oldest NFL families - Mara (Giants) and Rooney (Steelers).
>>
>> Unless they have already decided to hang Goodell out to dry, and wants to
>> show its most die hard supporters that even those sucking at the NFL teat
>> have concluded Goodell must be fired, this is shockingly cynical and
>> disgraceful, even for a corporation with the pockmarked moral culture of
>> the National Football League.
>>
>> Literally nothing Muller says in any final report that is positive about
>> Goodell or the NFL can be taken seriously. They have guaranteed before it
>> starts that this will be a complete and total waste of time, and merely
>> confirm that assumption that the NFL is a cynical and exploitative
>> organization only concerned with its own profits and covering its own ass -
>> again, unless the owners know they are in real trouble, and are just trying
>> to lay the groundwork for firing Goodell.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> --
>> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "TVorNotTV" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
John Edwards
"You can insure against the weather, but you can't insure against
incompetence, can you?" - Phil Tufnell

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-16 Thread Tom Wolper 
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Kevin M.  wrote:

> In related news Rihanna wants to make it all about her:
>
> https://twitter.com/rihanna/status/511844041131327488
>

That will be hard on all the people who watch the NFL for the songs.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-16 Thread Kevin M. 
In related news Rihanna wants to make it all about her:

https://twitter.com/rihanna/status/511844041131327488

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:26 AM, PGage  wrote:

> A subject header of "More NFL BS" I now realize is so elastic as to invite
> infinite contributions. I hesitate to continue piling on, but add here for
> the record a nice summary of the BS inherent in the announcement last night
> of former FBI Director Robert Mueller to conduct an "independent"
> investigation of the NFL's handling of Ray Rice's violent behavior.
>
>
> http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/11/how-independent-will-robert-mueller-be/
>
> Muller is a senior partner at WilmerHale, the law firm that handled the
> most recent multi-billion dollar contract between the NFL and DirecTV, has
> represented Dan Snyder, the owner of the NFL team in Washington DC, and
> from which several attorneys have gone on to high placed jobs in the NFL,
> including Dick Cass, who worked at WilmerHale for 30 years before assuming
> his current position as.wait for itpresident of the Baltimore
> Ravens. and Muller's supposedly independent investigation will be overseen
> by two of the oldest NFL families - Mara (Giants) and Rooney (Steelers).
>
> Unless they have already decided to hang Goodell out to dry, and wants to
> show its most die hard supporters that even those sucking at the NFL teat
> have concluded Goodell must be fired, this is shockingly cynical and
> disgraceful, even for a corporation with the pockmarked moral culture of
> the National Football League.
>
> Literally nothing Muller says in any final report that is positive about
> Goodell or the NFL can be taken seriously. They have guaranteed before it
> starts that this will be a complete and total waste of time, and merely
> confirm that assumption that the NFL is a cynical and exploitative
> organization only concerned with its own profits and covering its own ass -
> again, unless the owners know they are in real trouble, and are just trying
> to lay the groundwork for firing Goodell.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Kevin M. (RPCV)

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-11 Thread PGage 
A subject header of "More NFL BS" I now realize is so elastic as to invite
infinite contributions. I hesitate to continue piling on, but add here for
the record a nice summary of the BS inherent in the announcement last night
of former FBI Director Robert Mueller to conduct an "independent"
investigation of the NFL's handling of Ray Rice's violent behavior.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/11/how-independent-will-robert-mueller-be/

Muller is a senior partner at WilmerHale, the law firm that handled the
most recent multi-billion dollar contract between the NFL and DirecTV, has
represented Dan Snyder, the owner of the NFL team in Washington DC, and
from which several attorneys have gone on to high placed jobs in the NFL,
including Dick Cass, who worked at WilmerHale for 30 years before assuming
his current position as.wait for itpresident of the Baltimore
Ravens. and Muller's supposedly independent investigation will be overseen
by two of the oldest NFL families - Mara (Giants) and Rooney (Steelers).

Unless they have already decided to hang Goodell out to dry, and wants to
show its most die hard supporters that even those sucking at the NFL teat
have concluded Goodell must be fired, this is shockingly cynical and
disgraceful, even for a corporation with the pockmarked moral culture of
the National Football League.

Literally nothing Muller says in any final report that is positive about
Goodell or the NFL can be taken seriously. They have guaranteed before it
starts that this will be a complete and total waste of time, and merely
confirm that assumption that the NFL is a cynical and exploitative
organization only concerned with its own profits and covering its own ass -
again, unless the owners know they are in real trouble, and are just trying
to lay the groundwork for firing Goodell.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-10 Thread Joe Hass 
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Joe Hass  wrote:

> I'll add one additional missing piece:
>
> It would not surprise me if everyone employed by the NFL who saw (or knew
> what was on) that tape was a member of NFL Security, since fundamentally
> it's all in the police report. I believe that information had to have
> gotten to Roger Goodell. I'll bet you dollars for doughnuts that it was
> communicated to him in written form (which squares the "I never saw the
> video!" circle). But if you go back to the attendees at that meeting, no
> one from NFL Security was represented. Any one of them would *have* to know
> what was happening was spectacularly wrong (as PG notes, it's not like the
> data on handling situations like this is at all new, and you don't work for
> pro sports security without knowing a whole lot about this field).
>

And now AP is reporting "an NFL executive" at 345 Park Avenue had the video
in April, which fits this scenario (Goodell never saw it, but at least had
access to the contents of it):

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_RICE_VIDEO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-10-16-51-00

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-10 Thread Joe Hass 
I'll add one additional missing piece:

It would not surprise me if everyone employed by the NFL who saw (or knew
what was on) that tape was a member of NFL Security, since fundamentally
it's all in the police report. I believe that information had to have
gotten to Roger Goodell. I'll bet you dollars for doughnuts that it was
communicated to him in written form (which squares the "I never saw the
video!" circle). But if you go back to the attendees at that meeting, no
one from NFL Security was represented. Any one of them would *have* to know
what was happening was spectacularly wrong (as PG notes, it's not like the
data on handling situations like this is at all new, and you don't work for
pro sports security without knowing a whole lot about this field).

But Roger Goodell decided to be Roger Goodell. He got his data from the
internal investigation, he was going to handle this, and he was going to
play judge and jury. That's how he's behaved for years. And being a lawyer,
he decided to have a lawyer by his side: a nice, corporate lawyer who
probably hasn't seen the inside of a criminal court room in decades.

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:58 AM, PGage  wrote:

> FWIW, I now have what I think is a more clear theory as to why the video
> made a difference to the NFL in terms of Rice's penalty. Nothing new here,
> just that things have come together for me better. This is long and will be
> of no interest to most I suppose, but I post it here for the record in any
> case. I am not labeling it off-topic, because I think this whole affair is
> intimately intertwined with television and its impact on our culture.
>
> As we discussed on this thread yesterday, NFL "reporters" (scare quotes
> needed because often these guys are little more than stooges for the
> league, and have about the same relationship to the NFL that many Fox News
> on air employees have to the Republican Party) are beginning to show signs
> of a backbone, calling bull shit more or less on the NFL's denials that
> they ever saw the elevator video. Deadspin has a nice summary of that here:
>
>
> http://deadspin.com/espners-are-pissed-at-the-nfl-over-its-ray-rice-video-c-1632424069
>
>
> NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was interviewed by Norah O'Donnell, and
> portions aired on the CBS Evening News yesterday - see here:
>
>
> http://deadspin.com/roger-goodell-no-one-in-the-nfl-viewed-ray-rice-tape-1632715561?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email
>
> It is quite possible that Goodell is incorrect when he says nobody at the
> NFL saw the video (and I don't rule out the possibility that he is straight
> out lying). The NFL "Insiders" reported months ago not only that their
> sources told them that the NFL had seen the video, but were able to report
> from their sources (very accurately we now know for a fact) what was
> depicted in the elevator video. One of these Insider reporters has now gone
> so far as to identify her source as a "league source" - which has always
> been implied by all of these people, but as far as I know this is the first
> explicit attribution. So we now know beyond doubt that the league has known
> what was in that elevator video for months.
>
> If we want to assume that Goodell is not technically lying, then I think
> this is probably what happened:
>
> As we know, Goodell and other league officials met (horrifically and
> outrageously) with Ray Rice, his lawyer, and Janay Rice (the victim). At
> this meeting Ray was very apologetic, but also indicated that what was not
> apparent from the parking garage video is that Janay had provoked and
> started the violence with her words, and by spitting at him and (I think
> some reports include this) slapping him. What apparently was definitive for
> Goodell is that Janay, at this meeting, confirmed and repeated everything
> that Ray said. All the powerful men in that room concluded that Ray was
> being unfairly depicted as a bad guy, that he was just defending himself,
> maybe got a little carried away, and the injury that led to her loss of
> consciousness was more of an unfortunate accident than a physical assault.
> The NFL did make pro forma requests for the elevator videotape, but at the
> top level did not really push for it very hard (evidenced by all the
> keystone kops absurdity we are seeing in their responses about this - see
> Olbermann on this from yesterday). However it seems likely that somewhat
> lower level league officials did either see the elevator video themselves,
> or (and I think this is most likely) had that video described to them by
> someone who did see it. This person represented to the higher ups that the
> elevator video was consistent with the story the Rices had told, and then,
> to bolster the league when giving background to the "Insiders", this league
> source seems to have exaggerated the truth (otherwise known as lied) by
> telling them they had actually seen the video, when probably they had just
> had it described to them.
>
> The elevator video

[TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-10 Thread PGage 
FWIW, I now have what I think is a more clear theory as to why the video
made a difference to the NFL in terms of Rice's penalty. Nothing new here,
just that things have come together for me better. This is long and will be
of no interest to most I suppose, but I post it here for the record in any
case. I am not labeling it off-topic, because I think this whole affair is
intimately intertwined with television and its impact on our culture.

As we discussed on this thread yesterday, NFL "reporters" (scare quotes
needed because often these guys are little more than stooges for the
league, and have about the same relationship to the NFL that many Fox News
on air employees have to the Republican Party) are beginning to show signs
of a backbone, calling bull shit more or less on the NFL's denials that
they ever saw the elevator video. Deadspin has a nice summary of that here:

http://deadspin.com/espners-are-pissed-at-the-nfl-over-its-ray-rice-video-c-1632424069


NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was interviewed by Norah O'Donnell, and
portions aired on the CBS Evening News yesterday - see here:

http://deadspin.com/roger-goodell-no-one-in-the-nfl-viewed-ray-rice-tape-1632715561?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email

It is quite possible that Goodell is incorrect when he says nobody at the
NFL saw the video (and I don't rule out the possibility that he is straight
out lying). The NFL "Insiders" reported months ago not only that their
sources told them that the NFL had seen the video, but were able to report
from their sources (very accurately we now know for a fact) what was
depicted in the elevator video. One of these Insider reporters has now gone
so far as to identify her source as a "league source" - which has always
been implied by all of these people, but as far as I know this is the first
explicit attribution. So we now know beyond doubt that the league has known
what was in that elevator video for months.

If we want to assume that Goodell is not technically lying, then I think
this is probably what happened:

As we know, Goodell and other league officials met (horrifically and
outrageously) with Ray Rice, his lawyer, and Janay Rice (the victim). At
this meeting Ray was very apologetic, but also indicated that what was not
apparent from the parking garage video is that Janay had provoked and
started the violence with her words, and by spitting at him and (I think
some reports include this) slapping him. What apparently was definitive for
Goodell is that Janay, at this meeting, confirmed and repeated everything
that Ray said. All the powerful men in that room concluded that Ray was
being unfairly depicted as a bad guy, that he was just defending himself,
maybe got a little carried away, and the injury that led to her loss of
consciousness was more of an unfortunate accident than a physical assault.
The NFL did make pro forma requests for the elevator videotape, but at the
top level did not really push for it very hard (evidenced by all the
keystone kops absurdity we are seeing in their responses about this - see
Olbermann on this from yesterday). However it seems likely that somewhat
lower level league officials did either see the elevator video themselves,
or (and I think this is most likely) had that video described to them by
someone who did see it. This person represented to the higher ups that the
elevator video was consistent with the story the Rices had told, and then,
to bolster the league when giving background to the "Insiders", this league
source seems to have exaggerated the truth (otherwise known as lied) by
telling them they had actually seen the video, when probably they had just
had it described to them.

The elevator video does seem to show that Janay spit at Ray, and maybe
slapped or tried to slap him. However it is painfully clear when actually
watching the videotape that Ray's response can not in any way be
characterized as self-defense, nor her injury as an accident. He hits her
twice, once a full roundhouse punch to the jaw. Maybe it was the rail her
head hit with the great force of his punch that led directly to her loss of
consciousness, but it also looks like the force of the punch itself was
fully capable of rendering her unconscious alone. When Goodell and
associates at the league, and the Ravens (who had been told the same story
by Ray and Janay) saw this video, they felt lied to because the Rice's
generic description of what happened inside the elevator, while not
technically incorrect, left out so many important details that it was
essentially dishonest. This last is important because it probably provides
the justification for what otherwise seems like an over-reaction following
the initial under-reaction. Rice's indefinite suspension is in excess of
what the brand new policy on Domestic Abuse that Goodell is so proud of
would seem to call for (6 games). While the league has not clarified this,
Dan Patrick and others (at least yesterday, I don't know what they are
saying today) hav

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-09 Thread Mark Jeffries 
And receives a comment from a moron calling the AP "Administration
Propaganda" and bringing up Al Sharpton.  I don't admire Sharpton, but he
is infinitely more intelligent than Douchebag or the alleged "Sports Guy."

And this is why I refused to set foot in the lobby of my motel in Wichita
until they switched the TV from FNC to the Weather Channel after I checked
in--and why I walked back out of a restaurant in Blackwell, OK Sunday
morning the second I saw the overfamiliar FNC lower third design on the TV
set.

Mark Jeffries
Saints Spotlight Editor
spotligh...@gmail.com

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Bob Jersey  wrote:

>
> Kilmeade and Doocy will have to regret the error of particular comments
> about the Rice case on F&F... Aypee via TVNewsCheck
> 
>
> B
>
>  --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-09 Thread Joe Hass 
Kilmeade and Doocy will have to regret their very existence at this point
to even try to break even.

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Bob Jersey  wrote:

>
> Kilmeade and Doocy will have to regret the error of particular comments
> about the Rice case on F&F... Aypee via TVNewsCheck
> 
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-09 Thread Bob Jersey 

Kilmeade and Doocy will have to regret the error of particular comments 
about the Rice case on F&F... Aypee via TVNewsCheck 


B

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-09 Thread PGage 
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Bob Jersey  wrote:

>
> Joe Hass, in part, on the Adam Schefter gripes monitored on Deadspin:
>>
>> Here, fundamentally, is what makes this video so significant. Immediately
>> after the initial suspension was handed down, the implication came from the
>> league (though water carriers like Schefter and Peter King, who effectively
>> admitted to a journalistic felony in his piece yesterday) that there was
>> some sort of mitigating circumstance that the public didn't know, and the
>> head tilting was that mitigating circumstance happened in the elevator, in
>> video that was not public. It clearly didn't work, but that was how it went
>> down. Now we see the elevator tape, and there is no mitigating
>> circumstance: Palmer, at worst, spits on him, and his response was to cold
>> cock her. The NFL proceed to make that "it's the poh-lease's fault"
>> statement, which again holds no water.
>>
>
> Deadspin
> 
> (link): The NJ state police are pieved that the League, at least on the
> public level, confused them with the local Atlantic City cops. Another
> obvious question arises: did the league investigators have any clues as to
> which department to approach?
>

Well, I think it is clear the NFL claims that "we asked the police and they
didn't give the video to us" is a small fig leaf constructed of bull shit,
so I don't think anyone there ever really got to the point of really
thinking about the different jurisdictions involved. Ray Rice's lawyer has
stated that he had a copy of the video, and would have provided it to the
NFL if they had ever asked.

To add to the question of whether it is ethical to keep watching NFL games
on TV, secular prophet Keith Olbermann made a convincing case against last
night. I link to Deadspin's page that has the youtube video, because they
also provide a verbatim transcript (
http://deadspin.com/keith-olbermann-on-roger-goodell-an-enabler-of-men-wh-1632150757).
Here is a relevant snippet:

"Mr. Goodell's ineptitude has not merely rendered this football season
meaningless and irrelevant by contrast, it has not only reduced supporting
or watching football to a distasteful, even a disrespectful act, but most
importantly it has comforted the violent and afflicted the victim. (SNIP)

And lastly, I accuse us, all of us, executives, players, fans, reporters,
of failing to draw a line in the sand when one was needed most. Any games
played by Baltimore without its executives and the Commissioner having been
dismissed, and without Ray Rice Being permanently banned by the National
football League, must be fully boycotted by all of us. If not, we become
accessories After the fact."

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-09 Thread Bob Jersey 

Joe Hass, in part, on the Adam Schefter gripes monitored on Deadspin:
>
> Here, fundamentally, is what makes this video so significant. Immediately 
> after the initial suspension was handed down, the implication came from the 
> league (though water carriers like Schefter and Peter King, who effectively 
> admitted to a journalistic felony in his piece yesterday) that there was 
> some sort of mitigating circumstance that the public didn't know, and the 
> head tilting was that mitigating circumstance happened in the elevator, in 
> video that was not public. It clearly didn't work, but that was how it went 
> down. Now we see the elevator tape, and there is no mitigating 
> circumstance: Palmer, at worst, spits on him, and his response was to cold 
> cock her. The NFL proceed to make that "it's the poh-lease's fault" 
> statement, which again holds no water.
>

Deadspin 

 
(link): The NJ state police are pieved that the League, at least on the 
public level, confused them with the local Atlantic City cops. Another 
obvious question arises: did the league investigators have any clues as to 
which department to approach?

B

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-09 Thread Joe Hass 
I can tell you what started me over the edge.

I was a Lions season ticket holder for about six years, would describe my
self as a step above a casual fan. So after the 2001 terrorist attacks, I
was not surprised that there was heightened security (I went to the first
Monday Night game after the attacks with my then-girlfriend/now-wife and
her friend, and we were told absolutely nothing bag-like could be brought
into the stadium. But the NFL and its teams would announce a season or two
later a new security policy: all ticket holders would be required to
undergo a physical pat down before entering the facility. This, I thought,
was insane. You're imposing a higher standard of security than at any venue
I had ever heard of, short of perhaps correctional facilities. And I
fundamentally had a problem with this. So I started selling my season
tickets and refused to go to the games. When the resale value of the
tickets dropped below face a couple years later, I dropped the season
tickets, and just drifted away from the sport. And as they just kept going,
doing dumber and dumber things, I cared less and less. The last time I sat
down and watched a game in its entirety was Super Bowl 45 (and that was
because my wife is a Packers fan). The sports is insignificant to me now,
my awareness only because my wife is a Packers season ticket holder.

I was done with the league long before Ray Rice. But I think this incident
is effectively the breaking point of 10 years of behavior that could only
be described as psychopathic. The two-game suspension was the Mancini/Kim
fight. The video release is the Holmes/Cobb fight.


On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, PGage  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Joe Hass  wrote:
>
>> I got wrapped into something yesterday, but if you want to watch a single
>> video from yesterday, Adam Schefter was on SportsCenter yesterday morning
>> when this thing broke. Watch the second video. Schefter, who is considered
>> the gold standard of NFL insider stuff, was furious while talking to Hannah
>> Storm about it. And why was he furious? While he won't say it outright,
>> allow me: he (along with a lot of other reporters) was burned horribly by a
>> source.
>>
>> http://deadspin.com/adam-schefter-is-fed-up-with-the-nfl-1631937239
>>
>>
>
>> (SNIP) I wrote in a Facebook post yesterday that if this video does
>> anything, this is truly a put-up-or-shut-up moment for NFL fans. If you
>> support the sport (regardless of the color jersey you root for), you're
>> endorsing the behavior of these assholes. Do you have a problem with this
>> or don't you? And if you do, are you going to alter your behavior or do you
>> fundamentally not care, because FOOTBALL!
>>
>
> I did watch the Schefter segments last night (to clarify, Deadspin calls
> him the gold standard of insider hacks who make their living passing on
> handouts from the NFL) - it will be interesting to see if people like him
> take a more critical, journalistic stance toward the NFL in the future
> (Hint: They won't).
>
> In reference to your last note, as someone else said on the list
> yesterday, the NFL is making it harder and harder for ethical people to
> remain a fan. At this point I am not ready to go as far as you have here -
> after all, men who do not play for the NFL beat the shit out of their wives
> and girlfriends all the time, and I am not aware of any evidence that this
> is more common among NFL players than the general population (about 1.4
> million women are physically assaulted by intimate partners each year in
> this country; the common perception that there is a link between the Super
> Bowl and increased domestic violence is a myth). But the NFL consistently
> engages in the very worst of corporate evil, lying to its customers and
> exploiting its labor force, maximizing its obscene profits while diluting
> its product.
>
> So far I am not watching less football than I was - but I am thinking
> about it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit thi

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-09 Thread PGage 
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Joe Hass  wrote:

> I got wrapped into something yesterday, but if you want to watch a single
> video from yesterday, Adam Schefter was on SportsCenter yesterday morning
> when this thing broke. Watch the second video. Schefter, who is considered
> the gold standard of NFL insider stuff, was furious while talking to Hannah
> Storm about it. And why was he furious? While he won't say it outright,
> allow me: he (along with a lot of other reporters) was burned horribly by a
> source.
>
> http://deadspin.com/adam-schefter-is-fed-up-with-the-nfl-1631937239
>
>

> (SNIP) I wrote in a Facebook post yesterday that if this video does
> anything, this is truly a put-up-or-shut-up moment for NFL fans. If you
> support the sport (regardless of the color jersey you root for), you're
> endorsing the behavior of these assholes. Do you have a problem with this
> or don't you? And if you do, are you going to alter your behavior or do you
> fundamentally not care, because FOOTBALL!
>

I did watch the Schefter segments last night (to clarify, Deadspin calls
him the gold standard of insider hacks who make their living passing on
handouts from the NFL) - it will be interesting to see if people like him
take a more critical, journalistic stance toward the NFL in the future
(Hint: They won't).

In reference to your last note, as someone else said on the list yesterday,
the NFL is making it harder and harder for ethical people to remain a fan.
At this point I am not ready to go as far as you have here - after all, men
who do not play for the NFL beat the shit out of their wives and
girlfriends all the time, and I am not aware of any evidence that this is
more common among NFL players than the general population (about 1.4
million women are physically assaulted by intimate partners each year in
this country; the common perception that there is a link between the Super
Bowl and increased domestic violence is a myth). But the NFL consistently
engages in the very worst of corporate evil, lying to its customers and
exploiting its labor force, maximizing its obscene profits while diluting
its product.

So far I am not watching less football than I was - but I am thinking about
it.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-09 Thread Joe Hass 
I got wrapped into something yesterday, but if you want to watch a single
video from yesterday, Adam Schefter was on SportsCenter yesterday morning
when this thing broke. Watch the second video. Schefter, who is considered
the gold standard of NFL insider stuff, was furious while talking to Hannah
Storm about it. And why was he furious? While he won't say it outright,
allow me: he (along with a lot of other reporters) was burned horribly by a
source.

http://deadspin.com/adam-schefter-is-fed-up-with-the-nfl-1631937239

Here, fundamentally, is what makes this video so significant. Immediately
after the initial suspension was handed down, the implication came from the
league (though water carriers like Schefter and Peter King, who effectively
admitted to a journalistic felony in his piece yesterday) that there was
some sort of mitigating circumstance that the public didn't know, and the
head tilting was that mitigating circumstance happened in the elevator, in
video that was not public. It clearly didn't work, but that was how it went
down. Now we see the elevator tape, and there is no mitigating
circumstance: Palmer, at worst, spits on him, and his response was to cold
cock her. The NFL proceed to make that "it's the poh-lease's fault"
statement, which again holds no water.

Now we know someone's lying, but the question becomes who and when:
* A group of league reporters who have a history of carrying water for the
league all got together and concocted one of the most superb concerted
cover-ups in journalism history, covering multiple organizations, almost
immediately after the news breaks.
* The NFL conducted such a shitty investigation that they never even tried
to obtain the tape in question, but then lied to the reporters to implicate
they *had* seen the tape and there was something there.
* The NFL saw the tape, factored it into the two-game suspension, told
reporters that they had seen something, and now that it's been released, is
lying when they said they never saw it with a bunch of weasel words,
thereby hanging a bunch of reporters out to dry.

If you believe the first option, you have no knowledge of how reporting
works within pro sports (especially the NFL) or you regularly reply to the
emails sent to you about a large lottery winnings that they need you to
wire them $800 to help claim, to which they'll pay you back $20,000.

The question becomes the classic "crime or cover-up?" Because here's where
things get interesting: if it's second option, then yeah, at this point the
NFL looks even more pathetic than they already are, become even bigger
hypocrites, and at this point the biggest problem is just a public
relations nightmare becoming worse. If it's the third option, Ray Rice
suddenly has a card available, because as Schefter notes, the CBA
effectively has a "Double Jeopardy" clause in it. For the NFL to add to the
punishment already handed out could violate the CBA and Rice (if he chooses
to do so) could force the NFL to go to court to answer some questions they
*really* don't want to answer right now.

The NFL has turned into a nine-year-old who spins larger-and-larger
whoppers until the whole thing collapses, and then *keeps* telling the lies.

Though I'll note something interesting: around 4:30 PM CT yesterday, I went
on Facebook and checked the trending stories. There were two NFL items, and
neither were about Ray Rice. The level of media shitstorm has more to do
with the fact that they believe they were lied to than the level of fury
from the fans, who predictably disregarded this like every other NFL sin,
because, hey, there's football on the box again! I wrote in a Facebook post
yesterday that if this video does anything, this is truly a
put-up-or-shut-up moment for NFL fans. If you support the sport (regardless
of the color jersey you root for), you're endorsing the behavior of these
assholes. Do you have a problem with this or don't you? And if you do, are
you going to alter your behavior or do you fundamentally not care, because
FOOTBALL!

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 8:47 PM, PGage  wrote:

> I have not had a chance to read in depth the reactions to the release of
> the elevator video of Ray Rice punching his girlfriend, but what I have
> read has left me confused. What about that video is being cited as new
> evidence that justifies the NFL and the Ravens so profoundly changing their
> initial judgements? We knew he had punched her in the elevator, we knew
> that she was unconscious when the doors open, and that he callously dragged
> her half way out of the elevator. We knew they were the only two people in
> the elevator. It has always been certain that he punched her in the
> face/head and that this led to her losing consciousness. We knew it was
> vicious and ugly and unjustifiable, no matter how much Roger Godell and
> Stephen A Smith alluded to hypothetical provocations by the girlfriend.
> This is what the somewhat antiseptic term "domestic violence" means - a man
> who is almos

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-08 Thread PGage 
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Doug Fields  wrote:

> I made the exact same argument as you, below, earlier today, wondering
> what everybody’s seeing in the new video that didn’t just confirm what we
> were all assuming happened after we saw the first video.  The “best”
> response anybody could give me was “yeah, but now you actually see the act
> as it happens, and it gets everybody’s emotions involved!”  Which to me
> indicates that (due to the new “emotional” component) the new video should *
> *especially** not be used to consider any new/changed punishment.  Not
> that I’m disputing the need to get the guy out of the game…I would’ve
> suspended him for the year based  on the first video alone.  I just can’t
> see what “new evidence” we get with the new release that warrants a change
> in punishment that wasn’t dished out in the first place.
>

I think your are right about the emotional response to actually seeing the
violence, and that explains the change in the public reaction, but I don't
see how it relates to the rationale for the NFL's response. There is
nothing in the NFL rules (even the new ones) that say that a player gets a
2 game suspension if we only hear about him punching his girlfriend in the
face, but gets an indefinite suspension if we actually see it.

In its statement today, the NFL said: "We requested from law enforcement
any and all information about the incident, including the video from inside
the elevator. That video was not made available to us and no one in our
office has seen it until today."  Aside from doubling down on their tactic
of shifting blame to the police (which is another issue) this gives the
appearance that there was some new information in the video that justifies
a new, more severe punishment. But this of course is simply not true -
there is no new information in that video.

I guess a more honest statement would be something like: "We gave Ray Rice
the smallest penalty we thought the public would tolerate. We misjudged
that, which is why we issues the new guidelines. The video released today
made even the punishment under the new guidelines unlikely to find support
among the public, so we went with a larger punishment."

And the lesson from the NFL about domestic violence? "Guys, Its not that
bad to punch your girlfriend in the face, as long as you make sure not to
do it in front of video cameras".

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-08 Thread 'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV 
As someone who follows sports but only watches baseball with any regularity, 
there's little about this I find surprising.  I've found both Deadspin and 
Keith Olbermann quite persuasive in their arguments that various parties 
(including the relevant prosecutors) appear to have been incompetent or 
willfully negligent.

If tonight's Conan is any indication, he will have more jokes about the NFL's 
apparent tolerance of off-the-field violence (including murder).

David




 From: PGage 




Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence 
Changes Nothing



I have not had a chance to read in depth the reactions to the release of the 
elevator video of Ray Rice punching his girlfriend, but what I have read has 
left me confused. What about that video is being cited as new evidence that 
justifies the NFL and the Ravens so profoundly changing their initial 
judgements? We knew he had punched her in the elevator, we knew that she was 
unconscious when the doors open, and that he callously dragged her half way out 
of the elevator. We knew they were the only two people in the elevator. It has 
always been certain that he punched her in the face/head and that this led to 
her losing consciousness. We knew it was vicious and ugly and unjustifiable, no 
matter how much Roger Godell and Stephen A Smith alluded to hypothetical 
provocations by the girlfriend. This is what the somewhat antiseptic term 
"domestic violence" means - a man who is almost always bigger and stronger 
viciously and violently hitting, punching, kicking a
 woman.

Of course Rice should have been more seriously punished in the first place 
(despite the reports, this is no more a real life time ban than the NFL's "new 
and improved guidelines" call for; if Rice is so inclined, and maintains a 
clean legal record, he will be able to apply for reinstatement in 2 or 3 
years), but nothing that happened this morning changed anything.

Deadspin notes the double talk we have been getting about this from jump 
street. The NFL spin at first was that if only the public had seen the elevator 
video, we would understand why they gave Rice such a lenient penalty - implying 
strongly that the girlfriend had started it and Rice was only defending 
himself. Now the NFL claims it never saw that video, and now that they have 
they are shocked, shocked to see that Ray Rice punched his girlfriend into
 unconsciousness. Bull Shit.
http://deadspin.com/someone-is-lying-about-whether-the-nfl-saw-the-ray-rice-1631901404

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-08 Thread Doug Fields 
I made the exact same argument as you, below, earlier today, wondering what 
everybody’s seeing in the new video that didn’t just confirm what we were all 
assuming happened after we saw the first video.  The “best” response anybody 
could give me was “yeah, but now you actually see the act as it happens, and it 
gets everybody’s emotions involved!”  Which to me indicates that (due to the 
new “emotional” component) the new video should *especially* not be used to 
consider any new/changed punishment.  Not that I’m disputing the need to get 
the guy out of the game…I would’ve suspended him for the year based  on the 
first video alone.  I just can’t see what “new evidence” we get with the new 
release that warrants a change in punishment that wasn’t dished out in the 
first place.

 

Doug Fields

Tampa, FL

 

From: tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] On Behalf 
Of PGage
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:48 PM
To: tvornottv@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence 
Changes Nothing

 

I have not had a chance to read in depth the reactions to the release of the 
elevator video of Ray Rice punching his girlfriend, but what I have read has 
left me confused. What about that video is being cited as new evidence that 
justifies the NFL and the Ravens so profoundly changing their initial 
judgements? We knew he had punched her in the elevator, we knew that she was 
unconscious when the doors open, and that he callously dragged her half way out 
of the elevator. We knew they were the only two people in the elevator. It has 
always been certain that he punched her in the face/head and that this led to 
her losing consciousness. We knew it was vicious and ugly and unjustifiable, no 
matter how much Roger Godell and Stephen A Smith alluded to hypothetical 
provocations by the girlfriend. This is what the somewhat antiseptic term 
"domestic violence" means - a man who is almost always bigger and stronger 
viciously and violently hitting, punching, kicking a woman.

Of course Rice should have been more seriously punished in the first place 
(despite the reports, this is no more a real life time ban than the NFL's "new 
and improved guidelines" call for; if Rice is so inclined, and maintains a 
clean legal record, he will be able to apply for reinstatement in 2 or 3 
years), but nothing that happened this morning changed anything.

Deadspin notes the double talk we have been getting about this from jump 
street. The NFL spin at first was that if only the public had seen the elevator 
video, we would understand why they gave Rice such a lenient penalty - implying 
strongly that the girlfriend had started it and Rice was only defending 
himself. Now the NFL claims it never saw that video, and now that they have 
they are shocked, shocked to see that Ray Rice punched his girlfriend into 
unconsciousness. Bull Shit.

 

http://deadspin.com/someone-is-lying-about-whether-the-nfl-saw-the-ray-rice-1631901404

 

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:27 AM, PGage  wrote:

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell issued a memo yesterday announcing that players 
found to have committed acts of physical violence will: "Effective 
immediately...be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first 
offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer 
suspension when circumstances warrant." A second offense would trigger an 
indefinite suspension of at least a year, although a player could apply for 
reinstatement. The Los Angeles Times describes this as "the strictest mandatory 
punishment for first-time domestic violence offenders" 
(http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-domestic-violence-20140829-story.html)
 an evaluation that seems to have quickly become the consensus among the sports 
media. This evaluation is not just inaccurate, it is the complete opposite of 
the truth. Nothing has changed.

 

I was at the Giants game yesterday afternoon, and heard about this when I got 
home. At first I was impressed, but there were a few terms in the actual 
language that raised a red flag. This morning I spent some time looking for any 
analysis in the media that shared my suspicions, and found it (of course, why 
did I not start there) at Deadspin: 
http://deadspin.com/so-whats-actually-new-about-the-nfls-new-domestic-viole-1628098179.
 Here are some of the main points:

 

1. While it sounds like this new policy means a first domestic violence offense 
will result in a mandatory 6 game suspension, that is a (no doubt intended) 
misunderstanding. The suspension will be determined by "mitigating factors". 
This of course was the first red flag term that got my attention, since it was 
the phrase that got Stephen A suspended for a week. It is also what Goodell 
used to justify his 2 week suspension for Rice. Included among these mitigating 
factors was the fact that the leg

Re: [TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-09-08 Thread PGage 
I have not had a chance to read in depth the reactions to the release of
the elevator video of Ray Rice punching his girlfriend, but what I have
read has left me confused. What about that video is being cited as new
evidence that justifies the NFL and the Ravens so profoundly changing their
initial judgements? We knew he had punched her in the elevator, we knew
that she was unconscious when the doors open, and that he callously dragged
her half way out of the elevator. We knew they were the only two people in
the elevator. It has always been certain that he punched her in the
face/head and that this led to her losing consciousness. We knew it was
vicious and ugly and unjustifiable, no matter how much Roger Godell and
Stephen A Smith alluded to hypothetical provocations by the girlfriend.
This is what the somewhat antiseptic term "domestic violence" means - a man
who is almost always bigger and stronger viciously and violently hitting,
punching, kicking a woman.

Of course Rice should have been more seriously punished in the first place
(despite the reports, this is no more a real life time ban than the NFL's
"new and improved guidelines" call for; if Rice is so inclined, and
maintains a clean legal record, he will be able to apply for reinstatement
in 2 or 3 years), but nothing that happened this morning changed anything.

Deadspin notes the double talk we have been getting about this from jump
street. The NFL spin at first was that if only the public had seen the
elevator video, we would understand why they gave Rice such a lenient
penalty - implying strongly that the girlfriend had started it and Rice was
only defending himself. Now the NFL claims it never saw that video, and now
that they have they are shocked, shocked to see that Ray Rice punched his
girlfriend into unconsciousness. Bull Shit.

http://deadspin.com/someone-is-lying-about-whether-the-nfl-saw-the-ray-rice-1631901404

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:27 AM, PGage  wrote:

> NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell issued a memo yesterday announcing that
> players found to have committed acts of physical violence will: "Effective
> immediately...be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a
> first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a
> longer suspension when circumstances warrant." A second offense would
> trigger an indefinite suspension of at least a year, although a player
> could apply for reinstatement. The Los Angeles Times describes this as "the
> strictest mandatory punishment for first-time domestic violence offenders" (
> http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-domestic-violence-20140829-story.html)
> an evaluation that seems to have quickly become the consensus among the
> sports media. This evaluation is not just inaccurate, it is the complete
> opposite of the truth. Nothing has changed.
>
> I was at the Giants game yesterday afternoon, and heard about this when I
> got home. At first I was impressed, but there were a few terms in the
> actual language that raised a red flag. This morning I spent some time
> looking for any analysis in the media that shared my suspicions, and found
> it (of course, why did I not start there) at Deadspin:
> http://deadspin.com/so-whats-actually-new-about-the-nfls-new-domestic-viole-1628098179.
> Here are some of the main points:
>
> 1. While it sounds like this new policy means a first domestic violence
> offense will result in a mandatory 6 game suspension, that is a (no doubt
> intended) misunderstanding. The suspension will be determined by
> "mitigating factors". This of course was the first red flag term that got
> my attention, since it was the phrase that got Stephen A suspended for a
> week. It is also what Goodell used to justify his 2 week suspension for
> Rice. Included among these mitigating factors was the fact that the legal
> system decided not to convict Rice of a crime (this it self a willful
> distortion of what is going on with a Diversion Program), and the victim's
> change of heart regarding pressing charges, especially her comments at a
> meeting held with her, Goodell, her now-husband and a few other men.
> Mitigating factors would still allow the Commissioner to give a 1 or 2 game
> suspension (the average for all suspensions for domestic violence in the
> history of the NFL apparently has been 1.5 games - see
> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nfl-domestic-violence-policy-suspensions/?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email),
> or, I suppose, 0 games if those factor are super-mitigating.
>
> 2. While it is being widely reported that a second incident will result in
> a lifetime ban, this is not true. It is an indefinite suspension, from
> which the player can appeal for reinstatement after a year, a reinstatement
> which is frequently granted, assuming intervening good behavior.
>
> So, what the new, "stiffer" policy really amounts to is that for a first
> offense the Commissioner can give a suspension between 1 and 6 games (or
> longer if ci

[TV orNotTV] More NFL BS: "New" Policy on Domestic Violence Changes Nothing

2014-08-29 Thread PGage 
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell issued a memo yesterday announcing that
players found to have committed acts of physical violence will: "Effective
immediately...be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a
first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a
longer suspension when circumstances warrant." A second offense would
trigger an indefinite suspension of at least a year, although a player
could apply for reinstatement. The Los Angeles Times describes this as "the
strictest mandatory punishment for first-time domestic violence offenders" (
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-domestic-violence-20140829-story.html)
an evaluation that seems to have quickly become the consensus among the
sports media. This evaluation is not just inaccurate, it is the complete
opposite of the truth. Nothing has changed.

I was at the Giants game yesterday afternoon, and heard about this when I
got home. At first I was impressed, but there were a few terms in the
actual language that raised a red flag. This morning I spent some time
looking for any analysis in the media that shared my suspicions, and found
it (of course, why did I not start there) at Deadspin:
http://deadspin.com/so-whats-actually-new-about-the-nfls-new-domestic-viole-1628098179.
Here are some of the main points:

1. While it sounds like this new policy means a first domestic violence
offense will result in a mandatory 6 game suspension, that is a (no doubt
intended) misunderstanding. The suspension will be determined by
"mitigating factors". This of course was the first red flag term that got
my attention, since it was the phrase that got Stephen A suspended for a
week. It is also what Goodell used to justify his 2 week suspension for
Rice. Included among these mitigating factors was the fact that the legal
system decided not to convict Rice of a crime (this it self a willful
distortion of what is going on with a Diversion Program), and the victim's
change of heart regarding pressing charges, especially her comments at a
meeting held with her, Goodell, her now-husband and a few other men.
Mitigating factors would still allow the Commissioner to give a 1 or 2 game
suspension (the average for all suspensions for domestic violence in the
history of the NFL apparently has been 1.5 games - see
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nfl-domestic-violence-policy-suspensions/?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email),
or, I suppose, 0 games if those factor are super-mitigating.

2. While it is being widely reported that a second incident will result in
a lifetime ban, this is not true. It is an indefinite suspension, from
which the player can appeal for reinstatement after a year, a reinstatement
which is frequently granted, assuming intervening good behavior.

So, what the new, "stiffer" policy really amounts to is that for a first
offense the Commissioner can give a suspension between 1 and 6 games (or
longer if circumstances warrant), and at least a one year suspension for a
second offense.

This is, quite literally, no different from the status quo. Goodell already
had it within his power (the contract gives him almost absolute power to
discipline personal transgressions not related to drug use) to give Rice a
6 game suspension, and chose 2 games specifically because of those
mitigating factors. And, if Rice were to beat up his wife a second time, I
doubt anyone things he would have gotten less than a one season suspension
even without this "new" policy.

I guess the policy does establish a new baseline of 6 games as the de facto
punishment for a "standard" incidence of physical assault (whatever that
is). This may increase the average penalty going forward from 1.5 games to
closer to something like 3 games, once all mitigation is factored in. But
what I think this policy is really does is provide Goodell with an ex post
facto justification for his decision in the Rice case.

This is a PR document, pure and simple, designed to make the public think
the NFL has a new, get tough policy on domestic violence. As Deadpin notes,
it seems to have been successful. The question to ask Goodell though is
this: If the current policy (which specifically states it is not
retroactive) had been in force a month ago, would Rice have received a
different penalty? I don't know if anyone will get a chance to ask Goodell
that question, or if he would answer it honestly, but the real answer is
almost certainly, no.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from