SlinkyRedfoot
Well-Known Member
There's a difference between punishing a player for a negative impact on the NFL's image (every bit their right) and punishing a player for the crime itself.
Give it a name.
There's a difference between punishing a player for a negative impact on the NFL's image (every bit their right) and punishing a player for the crime itself.
Give it a name.
Your rant was quaint, but it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. No one suggested don't punish anyone that makes the league look bad. That falls under the promoting the league part of their mandate. Nothing you said goes against them having to come down hard on cheating, lying about cheating, and/or doing things against the league rules.Would you mind rephrasing the question, please?
Of course, the NFL was trying to remain "consistent" when it gave Rice a 2-game suspension for a DV incident and then there was an uproar. People can't have it both ways.
Your rant was quaint, but it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. No one suggested don't punish anyone that makes the league look bad. That falls under the promoting the league part of their mandate. Nothing you said goes against them having to come down hard on cheating, lying about cheating, and/or doing things against the league rules.