Goodell's doing great; stop whining

[MHSL82]

Goodell perhaps the lack of examples are due to people not feeling like writing an 8 page novel do you have any idea how long it would take me to list all the reasons Goodell sucks

Maybe. But he didn't ask for all the reasons or all the examples. Again, not saying there aren't any, just list a few or don't. I think people here have brought up what they believe are things where Goodell has irritated them. So good for them.

 

[MHSL82]

Draft tie breakers decided by coin flips genius games neo.g decided by mistakes by officials let's just apologize its all good

Good. Will leave these to him. I have no dog in the fight.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Good. Will leave these to him. I have no dog in the fight.

You a Trojans fan

 

[MHSL82]

You a Trojans fan

Haven't followed them much, but I went there for undergrad. You?

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Huge Trojans fan Marcus Allen is the reason I became a raiders fan you guys had a great trojan too in Ronnie Lott

 

[NinerSickness]

It is NOT a judgement call. Watch the film. Brady goes into his slide cleats up with a defender near him. That was the action that happened and frankly, you cannot dispute that. A cut and dry uniform violation being the same as a player safety violation is a joke and if you are defending that, I feel bad for you.

I agree with this. But showing what happened isn't the same thing as proving intent. THAT is what makes it a jugement call. Brady could appeal & say the way he slid caused his legs to go up a little & didn't think about it. It would be BS IMO, but if it were as obvious as you said he would've gotten a flag (yes, I know it's Brady & they let him slide - no pun intended). However, criticizm of a specific decision is useless unless you offer an alternative.

But do you know why it's so hard for him to fine players? Because the NFL is constantly being sued. Brady himself sued the NFL not 6 months ago! The appeals cost time, paperwork & money. The uniform violations can't be questioned in court because it's in black & white in the code of conduct. The hits & chippy stuff can't be compared to those things because players appeal fines all the time.

Your assertion that the referees are replaceable is absolutely astounding to me considering what the world JUST FUCKING WITNESSED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SEASON! Those D III refs were terrible.

Nobody wanted the replacement ref's, but you act like the NFL should have just given them whatever they wanted. A few weeks of replacement ref's is one thing, but signing a contract that would have required payments for THE REST OF THEIR LIVES is a much bigger deal. You don't sign a bad 8-year contract with a defined life-long pension to avoid a few weeks of replacement ref's.

Sick, you are crazy if you think the players should have acted any differently. If you make $50k and your multi-millionaire boss told you that you were getting paid too much and that you should only get paid $40k, wouldn't you be pissed?!?

I don't have any problem with getting pissed off. I don't have any problem with the NFLPA trying to get as much money as they possibly can. That's entire point of a private sector negotiation. My point was that a decent number of vocal NFL players (and Demaurice Smith) acted like 15-year-old little shits with the comments they made. They had absolutely no class (which is not surprising because that's exacly how much class a bunch of professional athletes have: none). The name calling didn't help their negotiations, and there was no public outcry supporting the players. All it did was make the experience more foul.

 

[JMedlock5186]

Just so it is out there defending Goodell won't win the the Championship we are not poster boy Tom and the Patriots. if you think he is doing such a great job, okay, you are in your rights to your opinion, but you ask for examples then you just try and modify the parameters of the examples given. His whole fine system is completely inconsistent and needs to be addressed. He is a complete hypocrite, that pretends to care about the players. He could care less about anyone but the bank that cashes his check.

 

[NinerSickness]

but you ask for examples then you just try and modify the parameters of the examples given. His whole fine system is completely inconsistent and needs to be addressed. He is a complete hypocrite, that pretends to care about the players. He could care less about anyone but the bank that cashes his check.

I didn't try to modify the parameters. People offered a couple of specific things, and I pointed out why I didn't think they had very much merit to them.

I think football fans who hate Goodell are being a lot more emotional than objective.

But I agree he doesn't care about the players. I don't think he pretends to be magnanimous. He just doesn't want to get sued all the time, so he's covering his bases with the fines & regulations (and the Saints suspensions), so he can go to court and say he did everything he could to protect the players.

 

[dredinis21]

Sick, that's my exact point. His inconsistencies are what get the NFL sued. He has yet to provide a sliding scale outline of his fine system, which opens it to interpretation. With a substance abuse positive test, there is a protocol, not only in its gathering and testing but also in its suspensions. With the dress code, its the same thing. But somehow his inability or unwillingness to do the same for in-game and out-of-game actions is what most players and quite a few fans are left to shake their head at the commish and call him a hypocrite. I don't give a shit what Brady would say in a hearing, the action that could be lawyer-talked up in a handbook into something like "any perceived aggressive movement by a player outside of the scope of the rules that directly or indirectly puts another player's health at risk will be a first offense $50k fine and one game suspension". You could use even more pointed or more vague verbage if you so choose but you understand the premise and the key point, the fine spelled out based on the action that occurred. Instead, players are playing hesitant and have no idea what will be a fine, personal foul, suspension, or maybe some combo of both. I find that completely ridiculous that you expect players to play by rules yet you refuse to outline what consequences lie ahead if they break said rules, only that you get to choose based on whatever you decide to pull out of your ass.

I'm done arguing with you Sick on this. I don't think that Goodell has done a good job. I think he has done an average job at best, but if he were one of my employees, I wouldn't be very happy with his leadership skills based on his lack of communication and I would look to replace him from his position of power. If you don't feel that way, so be it.

Go Niners

 

[MHSL82]

Sick, that's my exact point. His inconsistencies are what get the NFL sued. He has yet to provide a sliding scale outline of his fine system, which opens it to interpretation. With a substance abuse positive test, there is a protocol, not only in its gathering and testing but also in its suspensions. With the dress code, its the same thing. But somehow his inability or unwillingness to do the same for in-game and out-of-game actions is what most players and quite a few fans are left to shake their head at the commish and call him a hypocrite. I don't give a shit what Brady would say in a hearing, the action that could be lawyer-talked up in a handbook into something like "any perceived aggressive movement by a player outside of the scope of the rules that directly or indirectly puts another player's health at risk will be a first offense $50k fine and one game suspension". You could use even more pointed or more vague verbage if you so choose but you understand the premise and the key point, the fine spelled out based on the action that occurred. Instead, players are playing hesitant and have no idea what will be a fine, personal foul, suspension, or maybe some combo of both. I find that completely ridiculous that you expect players to play by rules yet you refuse to outline what consequences lie ahead if they break said rules, only that you get to choose based on whatever you decide to pull out of your ass.

I'm done arguing with you Sick on this. I don't think that Goodell has done a good job. I think he has done an average job at best, but if he were one of my employees, I wouldn't be very happy with his leadership skills based on his lack of communication and I would look to replace him from his position of power. If you don't feel that way, so be it.

Go Niners

I can see your point, but I would be more concerned over outlining the rules, rather than the punishments for it. If it is against the rules, you shouldn't be factoring in the consequences in deciding whether to do it or not. You should either change the rules or don't do it. (I know players have no say over the rules, but cause a debate over it if it's a bad rule.) A petty theft might be minor, but it's still my responsibility not to commit a petty theft. I would be upset after the fact if I were put in jail for four years because of petty theft and I surely would have my lawyers challenge it, so where the punishment doesn't fit the crime, I see your frustration. But don't feel bad for me that I would have to deal with it because I didn't know what the consequences were. I shouldn't steal. Wear the right socks, don't kick the opponent, and try to hit legally. If the hit was legal, that has nothing to do with the consequences, just the interpretation and implementation of the rule.

Obviously, I chose petty theft because it's an easy thing to say is wrong (but not as wrong as armed robbery) - but there are other things that are more vague or not intentional - so when it comes to getting fined or suspended when you tried to hit hard correctly, I see the frustration, too. I think the NFL needs to do a good job at outlining where you can hit and where you can't, considering both safety and consulting those who play the game to figure out what a reasonable restriction is. I mean, you can't go high and you can't go at the knees - football is so fast where it's hard to avoid it. I support the on-field penalties, but when it's difficult to avoid wrongful contact, I can see how these fines and suspensions can be hard to conform to.

On the other hand, I would hate if Davis got hurt on an illegal play that has not been enforced or emphasized and the guy that did it did not have any incentive to avoid the illegal hit. Sometimes it's like flopping in the NBA, it might be worth it if it helps your team win. The only way to make that send a message is to make the fine not worth the action (unless it would clearly lead to victory). Also, the NFL can't sit back and allow itself to get sued without trying to avoid it.

People lament how the league is getting soft with all the protection, but the NFL would get sued more without the changes. Is the NFL supposed to just factor in the lawsuits and charge more for the game? Take the brunt of criticisms for both doing something and not?

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

My biggest problem with Goodell was always that he would step on players who got into trouble, to make the league look good and tough....no matter if it was fair or not. He would cater to an audience and public that doesn't know the facts of cases, but demands stiffer sentences regardless, usually to young black men they perceive as out of control and above the law.

One would be Vick, who was given a pretty substantial punishment by the courts....and Goodell felt the need to pile on to take some of the credit for stomping the villainous Vick. Nobody will defend a dog killer, it was a very safe way to make the league office look good.

Another would be Donte Stallworth, who while driving under the influence got into an accident that wasn't his fault - in fact according to most sources he could have gotten off with a simple DUI rather than any manslaughter charge, but Stallworth insisted on setting a good example and plead guilty. Nevermind that, Goodell administered further devastating punishment as if the court's decision wasn't good enough. Nobody will defend a DUI driver, so it was another safe guy to step on and boost the league's image

Johnny Jolly was another guy who was railroaded by the league - and they had help there from a Texas court with the same intolerant attitude, they stepped on Jolly together to send a stern message about purple drank. No fairness, just blast the guy and destroy his career for a minor crime.

Now, people will come back with "its a privilege to play in the league" or some such nonsense, but I don't buy that. The reason he does these things are self-interest, about making the league office look good no matter how unjust. We could go on, from the Saints to Roethlisberger to Belichick and so on, no consistency, some inordinate punishments, some light ones, very little consistency.

Something I'd add to this is that he only acts when there is some public outcry - you better believe there are many, many other instances where guys get into trouble, but it's taken care of quietly, doesn't become public - and you don't hear about Goodell doing anything in those cases. Its all about making the league office look tough, because there is a certain, significant portion of America - and especially the NFL audience - that just doesn't like the image of reckless, rich young (usually black) men.

 

[NinerSickness]

I don't think that Goodell has done a good job. I think he has done an average job at best, but if he were one of my employees, I wouldn't be very happy with his leadership skills based on his lack of communication and I would look to replace him from his position of power.

Fair enough. If I were calling the shots, I don't really know how I could have possibly made everyone happy and not gotten fired. Maybe you have higher expectations than I do, but I'd accept "average at best" as a reasonable opinion.

 

[MHSL82]

My biggest problem with Goodell was always that he would step on players who got into trouble, to make the league look good and tough....no matter if it was fair or not. He would cater to an audience and public that doesn't know the facts of cases, but demands stiffer sentences regardless, usually to young black men they perceive as out of control and above the law.

One would be Vick, who was given a pretty substantial punishment by the courts....and Goodell felt the need to pile on to take some of the credit for stomping the villainous Vick. Nobody will defend a dog killer, it was a very safe way to make the league office look good.

Another would be Donte Stallworth, who while driving under the influence got into an accident that wasn't his fault - in fact according to most sources he could have gotten off with a simple DUI rather than any manslaughter charge, but Stallworth insisted on setting a good example and plead guilty. Nevermind that, Goodell administered further devastating punishment as if the court's decision wasn't good enough. Nobody will defend a DUI driver, so it was another safe guy to step on and boost the league's image

Johnny Jolly was another guy who was railroaded by the league - and they had help there from a Texas court with the same intolerant attitude, they stepped on Jolly together to send a stern message about purple drank. No fairness, just blast the guy and destroy his career for a minor crime.

Now, people will come back with "its a privilege to play in the league" or some such nonsense, but I don't buy that. The reason he does these things are self-interest, about making the league office look good no matter how unjust. We could go on, from the Saints to Roethlisberger to Belichick and so on, no consistency, some inordinate punishments, some light ones, very little consistency.

Something I'd add to this is that he only acts when there is some public outcry - you better believe there are many, many other instances where guys get into trouble, but it's taken care of quietly, doesn't become public - and you don't hear about Goodell doing anything in those cases. Its all about making the league office look tough, because there is a certain, significant portion of America - and especially the NFL audience - that just doesn't like the image of reckless, rich young (usually black) men.

In some cases, if he didn't do anything, he'd be criticized for sanctioning or saying the acts are ok, or for allowing the players to play because it made him a profit. Vick could make the NFL some more money, if he didn't do anything, I can guarantee you some people would say he looked the other way because of the profit or star treatment.

I understand that crashes can happen to people who just happen to be drunk and the drunkenness didn't cause the crash, but just don't drink and drive and you will be safe from the NFL and public outcry. You may still get in the crash, but there'd be no NFL consequences. It doesn't say that the NFL is right to punish, I just don't feel bad for him. Whoever's fault it was, I feel bad for the guy who died's family - if the guy who died was at fault, I still feel bad for the family and am happy that Stallworth was safe. Stallworth and his attorneys should also consider consequences that go beyond criminal actions when pleading guilty. But I feel bad for him if he had no reason to think this would have further effect than the criminal charges.

As far as Jolly goes, the NFL didn't think it was minor, him or you saying it was minor doesn't make it so per se, so that's where they are coming from. I don't know the circumstances, so I could see how the NFL might have taken too staunch of position on it.

I agree that they should be uniform in application and if it's the right thing to do, they shouldn't get credit for being tough - just do the right thing, it shouldn't matter what your image is. Also, you should not do something for your image, other than to show you are doing t right thing. If it's the wrong thing, but it makes you look tough, that's wrong. I do see how if they passed on all these things and said that the legal process handles it, people would criticize the NFL for not curving the behavior. But it should be applied uniformly.

Also, it's in their contracts, so I don't feel bad for the punishment, but do see the PR thing to be overstated. Also, when the NFL misinterprets what happened, they're wrong, too.

 

[NinerSickness]

usually to young black men they perceive as out of control and above the law.

Just stop right there. The league is like 70% young black men. Don't do that.

Vick, Stallworth & drug dealer Jolly didn't deserve their suspensions? Are you serious?

Now, people will come back with "its a privilege to play in the league" or some such nonsense, but I don't buy that. The reason he does these things are self-interest, about making the league office look good no matter how unjust.

"Unjust?" Ok, you just HAVE to be left of Lennon, because I've never heard anyone defend criminals with so much zeal and use words like "unjust" for the people who punish them than borderline communist trial lawyer types. (No offense to you liberals whose hearts don't bleed for murders, rapists & drug delaers) All I can say to that is cry me a river. If you don't like it, don't fight dogs, don't drive drunk & don't be a drug dealer. Thank you for reminding me why I'm against everything in which you believe.

I left out "don't r*pe women" because Roethlisberger was never convicted.

 

[MHSL82]

Just stop right there. The league is like 70% young black men. Don't do that.

Vick, Stallworth & drug dealer Jolly didn't deserve their suspensions? Are you serious?



"Unjust?" Ok, you just HAVE to be left of Lennon, because I've never heard anyone defend criminals with so much zeal and use words like "unjust" for the people who punish them than borderline communist trial lawyer types. (No offense to you liberals whose hearts don't bleed for murders, rapists & drug delaers) All I can say to that is cry me a river. If you don't like it, don't fight dogs, don't drive drunk & don't be a drug dealer.

I left out "don't r*pe women" because Roethlisberger was never convicted.

Glad to know raping women is still an option. Ok, not funny.

Not sure if you were talking about John or Lenin, the Communist (I'm guessing the latter), but drugs and "unjust" punishment and John Lennon reminds me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sinclair_(poet)

 

[NinerSickness]

Yes, you got me on the spelling of Lenin. I should have just said left of Vladimir.

By the way, John Lennon supported Ronald Regan when he got older.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

I understand that crashes can happen to people who just happen to be drunk and the drunkenness didn't cause the crash, but just don't drink and drive and you will be safe from the NFL and public outcry. You may still get in the crash, but there'd be no NFL consequences.

See, the problem with the DUI issue in our society is that people act like driving above .08 means you're a slobbering fool and anything that happens is your fault - even if a guy tries to cross the middle of a fast, busy street at 4 am and you can't get out of the way in time before you hit him.

So you read around the web, and people are OUTRAGED that Stallworth isn't still in prison - they don't understand the facts of the case, they react based on emotion rather than logic, they don't know or care if the accident was the pedestrian's fault. And this was was the league based its penalty on, the basis for Goodell giving him a year suspension - far more than any other DUI offender in the league. The court heard the facts and levied the proper punishment, the league just seems to go on how much outrage there is.

I'm not saying DUIers shouldn't get *any* penalty from the league, but most get 4 games, Stallworth got 16....which also amounts to millions in fines.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

All I can say to that is cry me a river. If you don't like it, don't fight dogs, don't drive drunk & don't be a drug dealer.

You're a great example of who I'm talking about, of course. Nevermind the facts, nevermind that the courts dealt with these things - to you, no punishment is ever enough. Vick got two years in jail - and already that was heightened based on public outcry and lobbying from animal groups - but to people like you, you can never be too harsh to criminals. All emotion. This is why I talk about fairness.

BTW, Jolly the "drug dealer", is pure nonsense. If you want to get into the facts of this case, its ridiculous. They charged him with "200 grams" of codeine, when there was actually only like 10g or less, but they included the weight of the juice that he poured the codeine into as drug itself to make it sound worse. But whatever, the facts are irrelevant, young black guy - throw the book at him.

 

[NinerSickness]

I understand all of the facts of the case, and Stallworth should be in jail for the 25 years. I'd be fine with him getting the death penalty. And don't say it was the pedestrian's faul like that's a fact; we don't have a video of the event.

The family saw some ca$h & suddently got a lot more understanding.

I followed the Jolly case, and it was still enough drugs to distribute to a bunch of people. The difference bewteen you and me is that I don't have any sympathy for him.

As far as Vick goes... I once had a manager at my work who probably made 40K a year & got arrested for a DUI and missed some work. They fired him immediately. So no, I don't feel bad that Vick had to sit out a year for dog fighting. He doesn't have a right to play in the NFL.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

I understand all of the facts of the case, and Stallworth should be in jail for the 25 years. I'd be fine with him getting the death penalty.

Thank you for proving my point so succinctly.