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 it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
