Why is there no standard?

[NotRickJames]

Everytime an NFL player steps out of line, it seems that Goodell and company host a debate about it, and decide what punishment to give to said player.

This is annoying. As far as I'm concerned, Goodell should set a bar, and anybody who goes above it should be given the boot. Simple as that. For example, I think Goodell should just make it clear that anybody who is a convicted felon will be given the permanent boot from the NFL. There'd be no questions asked and no accusations of special treatment to better players, there'd be a standard that if violated, would result in immediate boot from the league. Yet I see no such standard from Goodell, the man of oh so many standards.

[superman8456]

is this serious?

[GB12]

Another thread where people ***** about Goodell, just what we needed.

[NotRickJames]

Originally Posted by superman8456

is this serious?

As serious as you wish it to be.

[Xonraider]

Has Goodell ever booted anyone from the league? I don't think so. I believe everyone deserves a second chance and the special treatment is not coming from Goodell, it comes from the teams really: If there is a not so good player who gets arrested nobody is going to want him.

[CashmoneyDrew]

Originally Posted by Xonraider

Has Goodell ever booted anyone from the league? I don't think so. I believe everyone deserves a second chance and the special treatment is not coming from Goodell, it comes from the teams really: If there is a not so good player who gets arrested nobody is going to want him.

Pretty much Odell Thurman.

[Brent]

I read the thread title and I thought of a Pantera lyric: "Is there no standard anymore? What it takes, who I am, where I've been, belong."

[SuperMcGee]

Originally Posted by Brent

I read the thread title and I thought of a Pantera lyric: "Is there no standard anymore? What it takes, who I am, where I've been, belong."

Ha, same thing happened with me and a Bronx lyric:

"We rewrote the standard, covered up the old scars so you believe it."

Wish I thought of yours, though. It actually makes sense AND kicks ass. Walk ftw.

[Boston]

Roger Goodell wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by Boston

Roger Goodell wakes up in the morning and pisses excellence.

yes, but sadly, he pisses on an NFL player's career.

[BlindSite]

Originally Posted by Brent

yes, but sadly, he pisses on an NFL player's career.

It's a pretty simple game, step out of line, you get whomped, so don't step out of line.

There's probably no standard because mandatory punishments are pointless and unfair to all involved. Would you rather 100% of decisions be unfair because of a ruling or one every now and then due to human error?

[Bengalsrocket]

Originally Posted by BlindSite

It's a pretty simple game, step out of line, you get whomped, so don't step out of line.

There's probably no standard because mandatory punishments are pointless and unfair to all involved. Would you rather 100% of decisions be unfair because of a ruling or one every now and then due to human error?

You just blatantly wrote off all mandatory punishments as pointless and unfair to all involved. How this even makes sense to you, I have no idea.


The point of mandatory punishments is to be fair to everyone involved. If person A get caught doing X, your punishment is Y. That way, if Person B get's caught doing X, their punishment is also Y.

The reason this isn't unfair is because then no one gets special treatment. You don't want one person being punished more or less harshly than another person who pulled of the same crime.

If your problem is that you think all mandatory punishments do not fit the crime, then that's subjective and you're entitled to that opinion. However, I find it very hard to believe that in the history of mandatory punishments there has never been one that fits the crime.

[Gay Ork Wang]

its like in a real court. Every case is different

[Bengalsrocket]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

its like in a real court. Every case is different

Yes, every case is unique. However, past cases do set a standard in U.S. courts.

[Bucs_Rule]

Kicking someone out of the league is a very serious deal. These are people that are very highly skilled in one specific job that doesn't translate at all to others.

It takes a whole lot for accountants or lawyers to lose thier license to practice their careers and the same should be true for football players.

And their are very serious reprecuations for continually breaking the law. Teams are much more hesitant to sign those players. You have to be much more skilled to be signed and for significantly less. For the none great players they are essentially kicked out as no one signs them.

[Addict]

Originally Posted by Bengalsrocket

Yes, every case is unique. However, past cases do set a standard in U.S. courts.

I guess that rule applies to the NFL too. Next time someone facilitates an illegal dog fighting ring, they'll know what to do. All this is precedent. But since the new tough stance on player misbehaviour in the NFL is relatively new, there just isn't that much precedent.

[LizardState]

Originally Posted by Xonraider

Has Goodell ever booted anyone from the league? I don't think so. I believe everyone deserves a second chance and the special treatment is not coming from Goodell, it comes from the teams really: If there is a not so good player who gets arrested nobody is going to want him.

Tell that to Odell Thurman.

Having said that, I do think there's a fair amount of celebrity justice meted out when he evaluates each case incrementally, see Ron Mexico. If anybody s/b lifetime banned, it's him. Leonard Little has an awesome body count from driving his vehicles while drunk, why is he starting DE for the Rams? Don't Call Me Pacman Jones is an obvious sociopath who's a menace to society when alcohol is poured in him, how many chances does he get?

[BlindSite]

Originally Posted by Bengalsrocket

You just blatantly wrote off all mandatory punishments as pointless and unfair to all involved. How this even makes sense to you, I have no idea.


The point of mandatory punishments is to be fair to everyone involved. If person A get caught doing X, your punishment is Y. That way, if Person B get's caught doing X, their punishment is also Y.

The reason this isn't unfair is because then no one gets special treatment. You don't want one person being punished more or less harshly than another person who pulled of the same crime.

If your problem is that you think all mandatory punishments do not fit the crime, then that's subjective and you're entitled to that opinion. However, I find it very hard to believe that in the history of mandatory punishments there has never been one that fits the crime.

Ever heard of extenuating circumstances? Heres a couple of examples:

How is it fair that a guy who gets a DUI but who's been in trouble in recent months for drug possession and lets say and illegal weapons charge deserving of the same suspension or punishment as a guy who's been a saint up until one night when he has that one extra drink that puts him from .08 to .09.

How would it be fair to suspend any player who's arrested for say assault if one guy gets into a fight to protect his wife for example and a guy who just beats the **** out of some guy in the street because he yelled out "YOUR TEAM IS ***"

There are always shades of gray, especially when it comes to law, and you cannot have mandatory punishments and be fair to all involved.

Originally Posted by LizardState

Tell that to Odell Thurman.

Having said that, I do think there's a fair amount of celebrity justice meted out when he evaluates each case incrementally, see Ron Mexico. If anybody s/b lifetime banned, it's him. Leonard Little has an awesome body count from driving his vehicles while drunk, why is he starting DE for the Rams? Don't Call Me Pacman Jones is an obvious sociopath who's a menace to society when alcohol is poured in him, how many chances does he get?

Bringing up Little and his manslaughter and lack of punishment by the league during a discussion about Goodell is the same as anyone brining up Hitler in a political discussion. It takes about 30 seconds for someone to get on their pedestal and rage about it for a few posts.

The fact is, three year olds point and say "but he got this, why can't I... Waaaa" Odell thurman had his chances, he was given the opportunity to play in the league and he threw it away, when he was given his second chance he threw it away.

It doesn't matter what Thurman got, Pacman got, or Vick got, it matters what player X did and why and that's what punishments should be based on.

[Bengalsrocket]

Originally Posted by BlindSite

Ever heard of extenuating circumstances? Heres a couple of examples:

How is it fair that a guy who gets a DUI but who's been in trouble in recent months for drug possession and lets say and illegal weapons charge deserving of the same suspension or punishment as a guy who's been a saint up until one night when he has that one extra drink that puts him from .08 to .09.

How would it be fair to suspend any player who's arrested for say assault if one guy gets into a fight to protect his wife for example and a guy who just beats the **** out of some guy in the street because he yelled out "YOUR TEAM IS ***"

There are always shades of gray, especially when it comes to law, and you cannot have mandatory punishments and be fair to all involved.

In the first example... it's fair because they did the same crime? You're now going to punish everyone for everything they did the past? Punish them for related crimes of their past, yes. But only related crimes in recent history.

In the second example you're getting yourself into some legal troubles here. Was defending your wife the absolute only way to protect her from physical harm? Because if so, it's no longer assault. If it wasn't the absolute only way to protect her, then the guy deserves an assault charge.

I'm not going to 100% disagree with you. On many levels you're correct, this world isn't black and white. However, no system is perfect, either way we take the extenuating circumstances or we take the human error.


I just feel that if you have standardized punishments, then everyone knows what they're getting into before it happens. That standard takes the shock value out of the punishment, which makes it a lot more fair regardless of the circumstances.

[BlindSite]

Originally Posted by Bengalsrocket

In the first example... it's fair because they did the same crime? You're now going to punish everyone for everything they did the past? Punish them for related crimes of their past, yes. But only related crimes in recent history.

In the second example you're getting yourself into some legal troubles here. Was defending your wife the absolute only way to protect her from physical harm? Because if so, it's no longer assault. If it wasn't the absolute only way to protect her, then the guy deserves an assault charge.

I'm not going to 100% disagree with you. On many levels you're correct, this world isn't black and white. However, no system is perfect, either way we take the extenuating circumstances or we take the human error.

I just feel that if you have standardized punishments, then everyone knows what they're getting into before it happens. That standard takes the shock value out of the punishment, which makes it a lot more fair regardless of the circumstances.

Same crime, yes, so in the real court, they deserve the same punishment. As far as breaking the NFL's code of conduct and getting punished by Goodell YES you take into account someone's history.

[LizardState]

Originally Posted by BlindSite

Bringing up Little and his manslaughter and lack of punishment by the league during a discussion about Goodell is the same as anyone brining up Hitler in a political discussion. It takes about 30 seconds for someone to get on their pedestal and rage about it for a few posts.

The fact is, three year olds point and say "but he got this, why can't I... Waaaa" Odell thurman had his chances, he was given the opportunity to play in the league and he threw it away, when he was given his second chance he threw it away.

It doesn't matter what Thurman got, Pacman got, or Vick got, it matters what player X did and why and that's what punishments should be based on.

You did read the title of the thread, didn't you? It's about standardization, a baseline for conduct bad enough to get a player thrown out of the league. I thought that was what we were talking about here.

It DOES matter what Don't Call Me Pacman or or Thurman or Vick got or didn't get. That's what standardization means.....

Differentiating case by case opens the door to selective justice, & that's one step removed from celebrity justice & preferential treatment for some, which his what I posted ..... & nobody got up on any pedestal here, the Hitler comparison is completely irrelevant. pls. read previous posts before posting your condemnations.

[vidae]

Originally Posted by LizardState

Differentiating case by case opens the door to selective justice, & that's one step removed from celebrity justice & preferential treatment for some, which his what I posted ..... & nobody got up on any pedestal here, the Hitler comparison is completely irrelevant. pls. read previous posts before posting your condemnations.

Yeah I agree with this. Should history play a part in determining fines and/or suspensions? I think so. But there absolutely has to be a minimum standard. You can't have two players with no history breaking the same rule and getting different sentences for it. It makes no sense.

[BlindSite]

Originally Posted by LizardState

You did read the title of the thread, didn't you? It's about standardization, a baseline for conduct bad enough to get a player thrown out of the league. I thought that was what we were talking about here.

It DOES matter what Don't Call Me Pacman or or Thurman or Vick got or didn't get. That's what standardization means.....

Differentiating case by case opens the door to selective justice, & that's one step removed from celebrity justice & preferential treatment for some, which his what I posted ..... & nobody got up on any pedestal here, the Hitler comparison is completely irrelevant. pls. read previous posts before posting your condemnations.

Did you? The title is a question, I'm providing an answer, albeit one you disagree with.

Standardization in punishment is only acceptable if there is miniums and maximums for certain violations and right now, there is not enough precedent to set down strict guidelines. Besides which, having mandatory sentences as we've been over already in this thread doesn't always lead to fair outcomes which is what you're all crying over.

That last paragraph shows were talking a little over your head, I read prior posts and understood exactly what the author was going for, I think you missed what I was saying absolutely.

Originally Posted by vidae-KC

Yeah I agree with this. Should history play a part in determining fines and/or suspensions? I think so. But there absolutely has to be a minimum standard. You can't have two players with no history breaking the same rule and getting different sentences for it. It makes no sense.

It does depending on the circumstances within which they broke the rule. Certain crimes or violations, sure, for all... certainly not.