ESPN: Goodell's Conduct Policy Has Some Gray Areas

[theogt]

Goodell's conduct policy has some gray areas

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/columnists/Reese_Floyd_55.jpg (http://x.go.com/cgi/x.pl?goto=http://search.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=floyd_reese&name=SEARCH_m_archive&srvc=sz)
By Floyd Reese
ESPN.com
(Archive (http://x.go.com/cgi/x.pl?goto=http://search.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=floyd_reese&name=SEARCH_m_archive&srvc=sz))

Updated: June 16, 2007Recently, the NFL's personal conduct policy has been widely covered in the media. Before I give my stance on this issue, let me first make a few things clear.

• I am in full support of commissioner Roger Goodell's new conduct policy.
• I support the NFL's discipline of Adam "Pacman" Jones (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=7182) and Chris Henry (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=7259).
• Although I am not a lawyer, I understand the relationship between the league, clubs, agents and lawyers.
• Possibly the two most important elements to a player and his career are money and playing time.
• I harbor no ill-will against Tank Johnson (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6806), Jones or Henry.
• Consistency is by far the most frustrating part of the league-mandated policy. The same incidents should face the same punishment with no exceptions.

Although never convicted of a crime since drafted, Jones will miss a year of compensation based on the frequency and magnitude of his brushes with the law, and the negative impact they have had on the league. I completely understand and support the logic. Even though Jones may not have a record, he has certainly failed to conduct himself with the integrity that this league's players, coaches, staff and alumni would expect.

Henry had a combination of convictions and incidents, but they were less severe and fewer in number than Jones'. Therefore, a lesser, but still significant amount of discipline fits the program.

Then we have Johnson, who has been accused of a number of serious crimes and also has been convicted and sentenced to prison time. Yet Johnson received an eight-game suspension, meaning he will still play and get paid for a half of the 2007 season.

The logic escapes me. What is the lesson? Admit guilt and do your time so you can still play and, more importantly, get paid? Is the severity of the incident less of an issue? Have frequency and publicity become the key elements? Isn't being convicted of a crime much more severe than being a suspect? Did the fact that Johnson has paid his debt to society have any bearing on the penalty?

The roles of the union and the courts are out of the commissioner's hands, but the consistency and logic of the league-mandated policy and punishments are within his scope. I believe a conviction must carry at least as much weight as several nonconvictions. Loss of playing time and salary must be imposed on a basis unique to the NFL, yet easily understood by the public and players. I guarantee a policy based on clear-cut crime-and-punishment parameters would be the best method to curtail these incidents.

To reiterate, the single most important element of this new player conduct policy is consistency. The player's name, position, ability and team should have nothing to do with the disciplinary measures. I completely agree with the severity of the punishment that Jones and Henry received, but I cannot say with complete certainty that Johnson was judged with the same austerity.

Former Tennessee Titans general manager Floyd Reese contributes frequently to ESPN.com.

[DallasEast]

Goodell's conduct policy has some gray areas

http://www.w3bdevil.com/forums/No-Darth_Vader.jpg

[Hypnotoad]

As long as someone applies common sense to the Conduct Policy it will not have any gray area. It isn't a word for word guide you should follow for punishments. The punishments prescribed on players will be fair and just. Someone like Tank Johnson who served his time in prison will get a smaller punishment then someone who is a nuisance, refuses to listen to repeat warnings, and harms the image of the league.

If you start making things consistent then you will end up like the stubborn NBA commissioner who follows the rule of law as written in the books rather then use your common sense and ask yourself, "Does this punishment fit this crime?"

[theogt]

As long as someone applies common sense to the Conduct Policy it will not have any gray area. It isn't a word for word guide you should follow for punishments. The punishments prescribed on players will be fair and just. Someone like Tank Johnson who served his time in prison will get a smaller punishment then someone who is a nuisance, refuses to listen to repeat warnings, and harms the image of the league.

If you start making things consistent then you will end up like the stubborn NBA commissioner who follows the rule of law as written in the books rather then use your common sense and ask yourself, "Does this punishment fit this crime?"The bolded portion does not at all jive with the rest of the post. It's perfectly fine if you want to argue for an inconsistent policy, so long as you admit it and can justify it. But don't pretend it isn't inconsistent or doesn't have gray areas.

[burmafrd]

Like judges are consistent all the time? One judge is lenient, another is not. BUT the law says that thats ok. Just like the CBA says what Goodell does is ok. Johnson has ADMITTED his guilt; and has ADMITTED that he was bad and has no excuses. Just like in the legal system, someone who does that will get better treatment then idiots like Pacman who keep claiming that they are really not bad, and did not do it, etc. Seems logical to me. Maybe not right in some respects, and I would be happy to drop the hammer just as hard on a repentent as someone who is defiant, but for those that keep screaming about due process and so forth, its very hypocritical for them to criticize THAT.

[theogt]

Like judges are consistent all the time? One judge is lenient, another is not. BUT the law says that thats ok. Just like the CBA says what Goodell does is ok.No, it doesn't. It overturns them if they overstep their boundaries. Who overturns Goodell if he oversteps his boundaries? Oh, that's right -- appeals are made directly to -- GOODELL.

But let's go with a classic, two wrongs make a right point. That always works, right?

Johnson has ADMITTED his guilt; and has ADMITTED that he was bad and has no excuses. Just like in the legal system, someone who does that will get better treatment then idiots like Pacman who keep claiming that they are really not bad, and did not do it, etc. Seems logical to me. Maybe not right in some respects, and I would be happy to drop the hammer just as hard on a repentent as someone who is defiant, but for those that keep screaming about due process and so forth, its very hypocritical for them to criticize THAT.Hence, the article.

[Hypnotoad]

The bolded portion does not at all jive with the rest of the post. It's perfectly fine if you want to argue for an inconsistent policy, so long as you admit it and can justify it. But don't pretend it isn't inconsistent or doesn't have gray areas.

A policy like this needs "flexibility" not "consistency." You don't know what possible combination of situations you might run into and it wouldn't be wise to start preparing punishment guidelines just to scare players and deter unsupported behavior. Pacman was free to do whatever he wanted, because he was winning games. Now there is precedent to the players that says....even if your a somebody you will get suspended. That alone should be enough deterrent.

EDIT: In addition to what Pacman has done AFTER being drafted, he also lied about previous investigations BEFORE getting drafted. That lie fell under the previous conduct policy and his punishment should have been longer just because of it.

Floyd Reese was the titans General Manager that drafted Pacman Jones.

[burmafrd]

Love how all those that kept pointing to the legal system now suddenly say that is not right. AND you are full of crap OGT. Very rarely is a sentence changed by an appeals court unless it is very outrageous. Judges give more lenient sentences then the law allows a lot. Goodell is being quite consistent comparatively.

[theogt]

A policy like this needs "flexibility" not "consistency." You don't know what possible combination of situations you might run into and it wouldn't be wise to start preparing punishment guidelines just to scare players and deter unsupported behavior. Pacman was free to do whatever he wanted, because he was winning games. Now there is precedent to the players that says....even if your a somebody you will get suspended. That alone should be enough deterrent.It's not about deterrence. You can get that with consistency. The question is, how does flexibility that leads to inconsistency trump foreknowledge in this circumstance?

[theogt]

Love how all those that kept pointing to the legal system now suddenly say that is not right. AND you are full of crap OGT. Very rarely is a sentence changed by an appeals court unless it is very outrageous. Judges give more lenient sentences then the law allows a lot. Goodell is being quite consistent comparatively.I've worked in the judicial system. I think I know a little bit about it. Thanks, bye.

But again, two wrongs don't make a right. You can't say, "The legal system is flawed so it's okay for the NFL system to be flawed!" That's a horrible argument.

[burmafrd]

Less then 1% of all sentences are changed by an appeals court. AND virtually all of THOSE are because the sentence was considered too harsh. Its hard to tell if Johnson is serious and honest about his contrition. Time will tell. I have no problem, frankly, with giving him a chance. Pacman deserves no leeway.
So in that respect as far as I am concerned Goodell so far has been right on the money. Since we are only talking about 3 cases so far.

[theogt]

Less then 1% of all sentences are changed by an appeals court. AND virtually all of THOSE are because the sentence was considered too harsh.Really? Considering that 95+% are plea bargains that's amazing. Who would have thought that a negotiated sentence signed off by the defendant would not be overturned on appeal? That truly is remarkable.

Its hard to tell if Johnson is serious and honest about his contrition. Time will tell. I have no problem, frankly, with giving him a chance. Pacman deserves no leeway.

So in that respect as far as I am concerned Goodell so far has been right on the money. Since we are only talking about 3 cases so far.It's interesting that you admit you have no idea about Johnson's contrition but know for a fact that Pacman deserves no leeway. Judge, jury, and excecutioner you are.

[burmafrd]

Yes I am OGT because I have the guts to put it out there. You whine and cry about Pacman. He deserves EVERYTHING he has gotten so far. Your inability to admit that is pathetic and says a lot about you. By the way- I laugh at your comment about haveing experience in the judicial system. Its probably like watching a couple of high school games and then claiming great knowledge about high school football all over the country.

[theogt]

Yes I am OGT because I have the guts to put it out there. You whine and cry about Pacman. He deserves EVERYTHING he has gotten so far. Your inability to admit that is pathetic and says a lot about you. By the way- I laugh at your comment about haveing experience in the judicial system. Its probably like watching a couple of high school games and then claiming great knowledge about high school football all over the country.Is it possible for you to make a point without calling me pathetic?

If you noticed, my point isn't that Pacman doesn't deserve to be suspended, but that the league should be consistent in its suspensions.

[Hypnotoad]

It's not about deterrence. You can get that with consistency. The question is, how does flexibility that leads to inconsistency trump foreknowledge in this circumstance?

Right now the league is being hit by a storm of misconduct. The new Conduct policy is designed to deter those type of player from being drafted, take away the play time of those currently active, and to kick them out of the league if necessary. There is no need for consistency if you do the right job drafting/punishing players. I don't think one day, suddenly, Payton manning is going to start going to strip clubs and making it rain, bite a cop, or lie about his prior criminal activity. So the need for a consistent set of punishments is not going to effect him or a majority of other players who aren't involved in those kind activities anyway.

[burmafrd]

Consistent? HOW? Unless the player committs the SAME infraction, etc in exactly the same way, how do you make it consistent?
By the way my high school analogy is slightly wrong. I should have said your experience with the judicial system is probably the same as going to a high school game then claiming to know all about all football from jr high to the pros.

[theogt]

Right now the league is being hit by a storm of misconduct. The new Conduct policy is designed to deter those type of player from being drafted, take away the play time of those currently active, and to kick them out of the league if necessary. There is no need for consistency if you do the right job drafting/punishing players. I don't think one day, suddenly, Payton manning is going to start going to strip clubs and making it rain, bite a cop, or lie about his prior criminal activity. So the need for a consistent set of punishments is not going to effect him or a majority of other players who aren't involved in those kind activities anyway.I'll repeat. You can deter behavior while maintaining consistency. You completely dodged my question.

[theogt]

Consistent? HOW? Unless the player committs the SAME infraction, etc in exactly the same way, how do you make it consistent?
By the way my high school analogy is slightly wrong. I should have said your experience with the judicial system is probably the same as going to a high school game then claiming to know all about all football from jr high to the pros.Please see the original article posted.

[Hypnotoad]

I'll repeat. You can deter behavior while maintaining consistency. You completely dodged my question.

I guess ill restate what I just said, Why would you need to limit your actions within consistency? If you can eliminate the problem do you need instructions on how to deal with the problem?

I guess thats what this policy attempts to do. It attempts to deal with the bad seeds, keep them out of the league (punishments for teams who drafted the bad seed), keep them off the field (suspensions for the bad seed) , or kick them out of the league (bans for the bad seed). So you don't need to box yourself in with your own guidelines.

[theogt]

I guess ill restate what I just said, Why would you need to limit your actions within consistency? If you can eliminate the problem do you need instructions on how to deal with the problem?

I guess thats what this policy attempts to do. It attempts to deal with the bad seeds, keep them out of the league, keep them off the field, or kick them out of the league. So you don't need guidelines.Because there's utility in knowing what punishment will follow from your actions. Knowing the possible consequences of your own behavior is fundamental to an organized, functioning society.

If you want to override consistency, then you should have a valid justification. Your justification appears to be deterrence. But you can have deterrence with consistent punishment. With that in mind, how does deterrence justify inconsistency in a way that isn't maintained through consistency? Or do you have another justification for inconsistency?

[superpunk]

Good article.

' a, Peter.

a.

You cannot have a system wherein the punishments for your actions are unclear, or subject to whimsy and personal opinion. We've spent thousands of years of human existence establishing that, and it's unreasonable to throw it out simply because we cannot abide "thuggery." There MUST be a clearly established conduct policy with clearly established levels of punishment (tiered systems seem effective). You can't have one man wielding dictatorial power with no established guidelines to check him.

[Hypnotoad]

Because there's utility in knowing what punishment will follow from your actions. Knowing the possible consequences of your own behavior is fundamental to an organized, functioning society.

If you want to override consistency, then you should have a valid justification. Your justification appears to be deterrence. But you can have deterrence with consistent punishment. So the question is, how does deterrence justify inconsistency? Or do you have another justification for inconsistency?

This isn't the criminal justice system where theres a seemingly never ending flow of criminal activity. There is a very small number of players who commit punishable activity. Each player is unique and have a specific set of circumstances. These circumstances must be discussed with the team owner, with the union, with the coaches, with lawyers, and with the player.

My point is clear, going to stop arguing it now. But id like to add, If Floyd Reese "guarantees it" then I shouldn't question it.

[theogt]

Good article.

' a, Peter.

a.

You cannot have a system wherein the punishments for your actions are unclear, or subject to whimsy and personal opinion. We've spent thousands of years of human existence establishing that, and it's unreasonable to throw it out simply because we cannot abide "thuggery." There MUST be a clearly established conduct policy with clearly established levels of punishment (tiered systems seem effective). You can't have one man wielding dictatorial power with no established guidelines to check him.Thankfully we have burmafrd to set us on the right path after so many years of wondering through the desert.

This isn't the criminal justice system where theres a seemingly never ending flow of criminal activity. There is a very small number of players who commit punishable activity. Each player is unique and have a specific set of circumstances. These circumstances must be discussed with the team owner, with the union, with the coaches, with lawyers, and with the player.

My point is clear, going to stop arguing it now. But id like to add, If Floyd Reese "guarantees it" then I shouldn't question it.You're still dodging the question. How does this at all address what I'm asking?

[Bob Sacamano]

No, it doesn't. It overturns them if they overstep their boundaries. Who overturns Goodell if he oversteps his boundaries? Oh, that's right -- appeals are made directly to -- GOODELL.

But let's go with a classic, two wrongs make a right point. That always works, right?

Hence, the article.

Goodell has yet to overstep his boundaries

but keep expecting it so you can say you told us so

[theogt]

Goodell has yet to overstep his boundaries

but keep expecting it so you can say you told us soI guess you didn't read the word "if." The system doesn't actually have to fail before you can point out its flaws.

[Bob Sacamano]

Consistent? HOW? Unless the player committs the SAME infraction, etc in exactly the same way, how do you make it consistent?
By the way my high school analogy is slightly wrong. I should have said your experience with the judicial system is probably the same as going to a high school game then claiming to know all about all football from jr high to the pros.

they're talking about consistent as in handing down consistent penalties, and they have a point, why was Tank only suspended for 8 games when he, unlike PacMan, was convicted of a crime? because he was contrite?

I see the logic behind Goodell's move, as it is numerous brushes w/ the law in PacMan's case, it's obvious he needs outside influence in order to behave, or at least point him in that direction, and I see the logic behind the consistency argument, although at this stage, I don't think it's that big a deal, because I think Goodell needs to come down hard on these repeat offenders of the conduct policy

[burmafrd]

As long as a player knows he is going to get suspended for a considerable number of games if he acts really stupid, what else matters? The smarter ones will shape up, the stupid ones keep getting suspended and eventually permanently banned.

[Bob Sacamano]

I guess you didn't read the word "if." The system doesn't actually have to fail before you can point out its flaws.

no doubt, and I see the main one, the consistency of the suspensions given out

[burmafrd]

It seems to me clear that Tank acted differently once he was out of prison and made it a point to try and look and act differently then Pacman and Henry. To me that seems to be the reason why he got off relatively lightly. Just like in the judicial system that some here seem to worship. Contrition often gets a lighter sentence. How is that for consistency?

[Bob Sacamano]

It seems to me clear that Tank acted differently once he was out of prison and made it a point to try and look and act differently then Pacman and Henry. To me that seems to be the reason why he got off relatively lightly. Just like in the judicial system that some here seem to worship. Contrition often gets a lighter sentence. How is that for consistency?

I actually think it's a combination of contriteness on his part, and the fact that he paid his debt to society already

[theogt]

As long as a player knows he is going to get suspended for a considerable number of games if he acts really stupid, what else matters? The smarter ones will shape up, the stupid ones keep getting suspended and eventually permanently banned.So why not give out consistently harsh punishment? What problem do you have with punishing a guy that was convicted of a crime?

It seems to me clear that Tank acted differently once he was out of prison and made it a point to try and look and act differently then Pacman and Henry. To me that seems to be the reason why he got off relatively lightly. Just like in the judicial system that some here seem to worship. Contrition often gets a lighter sentence. How is that for consistency?Sometimes spending time in prison works. Sometimes it doesn't. We won't know about Tank until a few years from now.

I actually think it's a combination of contriteness on his part, and the fact that he paid his debt to society alreadyBut what about his debt to the league? The league's image was tarnished and now it looks like it goes light on ex-convicts. That makes no sense.

[burmafrd]

Got no problem with any of the punishments handed out. You seem to be the one with the problem.

[theogt]

Got no problem with any of the punishments handed out. You seem to be the one with the problem.I'm trying to say Tank's wasn't harsh enough and you seem to be disagreeing. Either you agree with me or not.

[Bob Sacamano]

But what about his debt to the league? The league's image was tarnished and now it looks like it goes light on ex-convicts. That makes no sense.

I'm trying to see the logic behind it, not saying I agree w/ it, but that's the only thing I'm coming up w/, also, maybe because it's Tank's only transgression as opposed to 4 or whatever for PacMan, I don't really know, nor do I care, I'm just glad PacMan's punkarse got pounded

if it doesn't make sense, whatever, you do better trying to figure it out

[burmafrd]

Tank got suspended a good number of games. No problem for me. You, OGT, are the one whining about inconsistancy. As far as I am concerned I see none. Just trying to explain why Tank got 8 games for being convicted. I think it was his contrition that made the difference- VS Pacman and Henrys defiance.

[theogt]

I'm trying to see the logic behind it, not saying I agree w/ it, but that's the only thing I'm coming up w/, also, maybe because it's Tank's only transgression as opposed to 4 or whatever for PacMan, I don't really know, nor do I care, I'm just glad PacMan's punkarse got pounded

if it doesn't make sense, whatever, you do better trying to figure it outOh really?

In November 2005, Johnson was arrested at the Excalibur nightclub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excalibur_%28nightclub%29) in Chicago's Cook County for possession of a handgun in his sport utility vehicle. Johnson pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor gun charge and was sentenced to 18 months probation and 40 hours of community service.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-3) On February 12, 2006, Johnson, while still on probation, was charged with aggravated assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggravated_assault) and resisting arrest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrest) after allegedly verbally threatening a police officer. Johnson was leaving Level Nightclub on Chicago's Rush Street when the police officer was ticketing a limousine driver whom Johnson had hired. As Johnson allegedly put up a struggle, he was maced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mace_%28spray%29) and subdued with the help of other police officers. The charges were eventually dropped.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-4)

On December 14, 2006, Lake County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_County%2C_Illinois) police officers searched Johnson's home in Gurnee, Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurnee%2C_Illinois), and allegedly discovered that he possessed six firearms, including two assault rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle). Although Johnson was at football practice during the search, his bodyguard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyguard) William Posey was arrested from his house for alleged possession of marijuana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana). Johnson was charged with violation to probation and possessing unlicensed weapons. Bears coach Lovie Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovie_Smith) deactivated Johnson for the following game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Buccaneers) based on this incident.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-5)

On December 16, 2006, Johnson's best friend and bodyguard William Posey was killed in a shooting at Ice Bar in Chicago's River North (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_North) neighborhood. Posey was shot after he was allegedly involved in a fight around midnight. Posey was rushed to Northwestern Memorial Hospital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Memorial_Hospital), where he was pronounced dead at 1:30am. Posey's assailant was not apprehended by the police.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-6) On December 28, Chicago Police apprehended Michael Selvie, Posey's alleged assailant. Selvie, a "reputed gang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang) member" has been implicated in over 30 other crimes. However, Selvie's defense attorney claims that Selvie does not posses a firearm or any gang affiliations. If found guilty, Selvie will face charges of first degree murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_degree_murder).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-7)

On December 22, 2006, Cook County Circuit Judge John J. Moran, Jr. (Skokie courthouse, Second District, Cook County, Illinois) placed Johnson on home confinement, preventing him from driving by himself or leaving the state of Illinois.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-8) On February 8, 2007, Johnson entered a guilty plea in Cook County's Courthouse in Skokie for violating his probation.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-9) On March 15, 2007, Johnson was sentenced to a 120 days in prison (Cook County Jail) and fined $2,500 for violating his probation. [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-10) On February 17, 2007, Johnson's lawyer contested a Lake County Circuit Court to drop Johnson's unlicensed weapons charges. His attorney claimed that since Johnson is a resident of Arizona, he does not have to abide to gun registration laws of Illinois.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-11) Johnson entered a plea of not guilty on 10 counts of possessing a weapon without the proper state-required ID. [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-12)

On December 30, 2006, Tank Johnson contacted Gurnee Police Department to file harassment charges. [14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-13) This news story is at best a footnote in many articles but deserves much more recognition. The information in the references is actually there but hard to find. Local youths left a toilet seat with a harassing message on his doorstep. Local news said that "Police did not disclose what the message on the garbage can said" [15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-14) However, other sources claim that "Nice Job Tank" was written on the seat. [16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Johnson#_note-15) In reality the words "GO TANK" was written lovingly with duct tape. This toilet seat was duct taped to a garbage can.

On April 30, Johnson pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor weapons charge as part of an arrangement with prosecutors that will keep him from serving additional jail time. He was sentenced to 45 days in jail, which will be served concurrently with a four-month sentence he's already serving in the Cook County Jail for violating his probation; to donate $2,500 to the Gurnee Police Department and $2,500 to the Gurnee Exchange Club's child abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse) prevention program.

[Bob Sacamano]

then I don't know what it is theo, care to enlighten me?

I still won't care

[theogt]

Tank got suspended a good number of games. No problem for me. You, OGT, are the one whining about inconsistancy. As far as I am concerned I see none. Just trying to explain why Tank got 8 games for being convicted. I think it was his contrition that made the difference- VS Pacman and Henrys defiance.Tank's transgressions were worse than Pacman's. He got less time. I think he should have got more. You want to go light on him. I'm just wondering why. Apparently you think he should get away with a light punishment because he's "sorry" he was such a bad guy.

then I don't know what it is theo, care to enlighten me?

I still won't careIf I knew I wouldn't be crowing about it.

[Bob Sacamano]

If I knew I wouldn't be crowing about it.

who says you have to crow about it? who's crowing about anything? if my reasoning on why Tank got less games makes no sense, do better, that's all I ask, formulate your own hypothesis and let's hear it

[5Stars]

Because there's utility in knowing what punishment will follow from your actions. Knowing the possible consequences of your own behavior is fundamental to an organized, functioning society.

If you want to override consistency, then you should have a valid justification. Your justification appears to be deterrence. But you can have deterrence with consistent punishment. With that in mind, how does deterrence justify inconsistency in a way that isn't maintained through consistency? Or do you have another justification for inconsistency?


You know, theogt...I would really like to see you make some kind of matrix, some kind of chart, some kind of "consistant" guideline...something, that will show just EXACTELY what punishment should be handed down for all the MANY, MANY, VARIOUS crimes or misdeeds that a player could get into!

If you and others have such a problem with the way this behavior is being handled, propose a solution?

What about rape? How much time?

What about DUI?

What about wife beating?

What about breaking into a girls house and taking a dump in her laundry basket?

What about pulling a gun but not shooting it?

What about pulling a gun and then shooting it?

What about stealing an ATV?

What about shoplifting?

What about being involved in a gang fight?

What about inciting a riot?

What about being a peeping tom?

What about car thieft?

Don't forget about exposing yourself to someone, that too!

What about...there are literally thousands of way that a player can get in trouble. Your telling us that there should be some "consistancy" in how punishment is handled. Now, lets leave all the above, and all the other thousands of ways that a player can get in trouble away from the "courts". OK? That is an entirely different subject...if a player is arrested or convicted, that is a different matter in itself and is more clear. However, bad behavior is a different matter!

Can you suggest just how a matrix, chart, flip of the coin, roll of the dice, whatever...can be constructed so that ALL THE THOUSANDS OF WAYS a player can cause trouble and harm the reputation of the NFL can be devised? And the matrix better be "consistant"...meaning if a player does multiple misdeeds compared to a player that had done the same misdeed ONE time.

I'll be waiting...!

;)

P.S. Don't leave any bad behavior out, be "consistant"!

[theogt]

who says you have to crow about it? who's crowing about anything? if my reasoning on why Tank got less games makes no sense, do better, that's all I ask, formulate your own hypothesis and let's hear itLooks like you are upset that nothing you threw at the wall stuck.

You know, theogt...I would really like to see you make some kind of matrix, some kind of chart, some kind of "consistant" guideline...something, that will show just EXACTELY what punishment should be handed down for all the MANY, MANY, VARIOUS crimes or misdeeds that a player could get into!

If you and others have such a problem with the way this behavior is being handled, propose a solution?

What about rape? How much time?

What about DUI?

What about wife beating?

....

I'll be waiting...!

;)You know, there's something in between what you're suggesting and the "whatever I say goes" policy set up now. I'm not getting paid to figure it all out, but someone should be.

[Bob Sacamano]

Looks like you are upset that nothing you threw at the wall stuck.

COP-OUT. I'm not upset at all, PacMan is suspended for a year and you're here crying, I'm good

but seriously, all I got is that Tank must have went into the meeting w/ a plan to get his life straight, to obey the player contract and acted genuinely contrite, admitting your mistakes and being willing to take what comes your way from it, goes a long way, I learned that at my DUI trial

[theogt]

COP-OUT.I said I didn't know. How is that a cop out?

I'm not upset at all, PacMan is suspended for a year and you're here crying, I'm goodWho said I was upset about Pacman's punishment? I simply think Tank should have been punished more.

but seriously, all I got is that Tank must have went into the meeting w/ a plan to get his life straight, to obey the player contract and acted genuinely contrite, admitting your mistakes and being willing to take what comes your way from it, goes a long way, I learned that at my DUI trialMessage to "thugs": Do whatever you want and then just act really sorry.

[Bob Sacamano]

I said I didn't know. How is that a cop out?

so you don't know, yet you know that my reasoning is wrong, hmm

Who said I was upset about Pacman's punishment? I simply think Tank should have been punished more.

and Tank probably should have

[Bob Sacamano]

Message to "thugs": Do whatever you want and then just act really sorry.

I guess I'm a thug then

[5Stars]

Looks like you are upset that nothing you threw at the wall stuck.

You know, there's something in between what you're suggesting and the "whatever I say goes" policy set up now. I'm not getting paid to figure it all out, but someone should be.


Who is that someone? Because I want to see this genious come up with something like that!

It cannot be done! ;) It is up to the "descretion" of the man doling out the punishment, period! That is his job! Just like a parent does a child...

Make him a matrix...help him be "consistant"...!

So, if you are not getting paid to do it, yet, you and others are against "descretion"(am I spelling that right)?:confused: ....;) then tell us how it could be done? How would YOU do it?


:confused:

[theogt]

so you don't know, yet you know that my reasoning is wrong, hmmHuh? You said it was his only transgression. That was objectively wrong.

and Tank probably should haveGlad you agree with me. Our conversations usually end that way.

[theogt]

Who is that someone? Because I want to see this genious come up with something like that!

It cannot be done! ;) It is up to the "descretion" of the man doling out the punishment, period! That is his job! Just like a parent does a child...

Make him a matrix...help him be "consistant"...!

So, if you are not getting paid to do it, yet, you and others are against "descretion"(am I spelling that right)?:confused: ....;) then tell us how it could be done? How would YOU do it?


:confused:What? Sure it can be done. Law firms are hired every day to handle problems that are much more complex. Just because you can't think of it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Bob Sacamano]

Huh? You said it was his only transgression. That was objectively wrong.

that was after you rejected my original idea, guess you missed "maybe"

Glad you agree with me. Our conversations usually end that way.

whatever that means

[theogt]

that was after you rejected my original idea, guess you missed "maybe"The transgressions bit was the only premise you offered that I completely rejected. Please, do keep up with the conversation.

[Bob Sacamano]

The transgressions bit was the only premise you offered that I completely rejected. Please, do keep up with the conversation.

really?


Originally Posted by Bob Sacamano http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1530888#post1530888)
I actually think it's a combination of contriteness on his part, and the fact that he paid his debt to society already

But what about his debt to the league? The league's image was tarnished and now it looks like it goes light on ex-convicts. That makes no sense.

it seems you're the one who can't follow along

[theogt]

that was in reply to saying that his 8 games could have been a combination of contriteness and paying his debt to society

don't lie kidYour point? I asked a question, because it didn't make sense to me. You immediately abandoned that thread of the conversation. I didn't completely reject it.

[Bob Sacamano]

Your point? I asked a question, because it didn't make sense to me.

:lmao2: wow

[theogt]

:lmao2: wowIs your head spinning? Try reading things twice.

[5Stars]

What? Sure it can be done. Law firms are hired every day to handle problems that are much more complex. Just because you can't think of it, doesn't mean it can't be done.


Did I just ask you to leave the freaking law out of this?!! This is not a matter of the courts!!!! What part of that do you not understand? :confused:

I specifically said that anything "outside" the court of law! I asked you how YOU would handle bad behavior on a "consistant level" regarding the thousands of ways a player can harm the reputation of the NFL.

Do I need a lawyer to dicipline my children if they get into trouble? If I need to punish my kids for bad behavior, should I call a lawyer first? I mean, they have not been convicted in a court of a law?

Leave the "lawyer", the "court", the "justice system" crap out of this. How can players recieve punishment on a consistant basis...

:cool:

[Bob Sacamano]

Is your head spinning? Try reading things twice.

from watching your spin cycle, yes

you just said the transgression bit I offered was the only idea you rejected, which is clearly wrong if you've been following along, you rejected the premise of contriteness on Tank's part and paying his debt to society because you didn't understand it as well, I don't know how that is hard to understand, but there it is

but this topic is beat anyways, we both think Goodell has been inconsistent in handing out his punishments, why I get into retarded arguments w/ people, I don't know

[theogt]

Did I just ask you to leave the freaking law out of this?!! This is not a matter of the courts!!!! What part of that do you not understand? :confused:

I specifically said that anything "outside" the court of law! What are you talking about? Who said anything about the courts?

I asked you how YOU would handle bad behavior on a "consistant level" regarding the thousands of ways a player can harm the reputation of the NFL.And I told you I'm not getting paid to do it. It would be a significant undertaking and I don't have the time or desire to do it.

Do I need a lawyer to dicipline my children if they get into trouble? If I need to punish my kids for bad behavior, should I call a lawyer first? I mean, they have not been convicted in a court of a law?No, but if you're an employer and decide to start punishing them in ways that cost parties millions of dollars (the players aren't the only ones losing out), then I'd suggest getting a lawyer to help you out.

Leave the "lawyer", the "court", the "justice system" crap out of this. How can players recieve punishment on a consistant basis...Who on earth said anything about the court system or the law?

[theogt]

from watching your spin cycle, yes

you just said the transgression bit I offered was the only idea you rejected, which is clearly wrong if you've been following along, you rejected the premise of contriteness on Tank's part and paying his debt to society because you didn't understand it as well, I don't know how that is hard to understand, but there it is

but this topic is beat anyways, we both think Goodell has been inconsistent in handing out his punishments, why I get into retarded arguments w/ people, I don't knowI said it was the only bit I completely rejected. The other part I simply didn't understand. Still don't. I haven't rejected it, though. Seriously, if you're going to participate in conversations with others, learn to use words and language correctly. Otherwise we get in these roundabouts going nowhere.

[Bob Sacamano]

I said it was the only bit I completely rejected. The other part I simply didn't understand. Still don't. I haven't rejected it, though. Seriously, if you're going to participate in conversations with others, learn to use words and language correctly. Otherwise we get in these roundabouts going nowhere.

:confused: what of my language use was incorrect?

idk about you, but when I say something doesn't makes sense, I'm disregarding it, but when I truly don't understand it, I say, "I don't know what you're talking about", or "it didn't make sense to me"

but you're arguing w/ burm's contrite argument, so I think you do know what I'm talking about

[theogt]

:confused: what of my language use was incorrect?

idk about you, but when I say something doesn't makes sense, I'm disregarding it, but when I truly don't understand it, I say, "I don't know what you're talking about", or "it didn't make sense to me"Is that not exactly what I said, but in fewer words?

[5Stars]

What are you talking about? Who said anything about the courts?

And I told you I'm not getting paid to do it. It would be a significant undertaking and I don't have the time or desire to do it.

No, but if you're an employer and decide to start punishing them in ways that cost parties millions of dollars (the players aren't the only ones losing out), then I'd suggest getting a lawyer to help you out.

Who on earth said anything about the court system or the law?


As I thought! You are not getting paid to do it, yet you moan and groan about it. This is exactely why it says "at the descrestion"(sp;) ) of the Commish!

You did? You brought the "lawyer" crap into it, when I asked you not too!

;)

[theogt]

As I thought! You are not getting paid to do it, yet you moan and groan about it. This is exactely why it says "at the descrestion"(sp;) ) of the Commish!What? Can I not tell you something isn't perfect without having to come up with a perfect alternative? Why does the former require the latter?

You did? You brought the "lawyer" crap into it, when I asked you not too!

;)What are you talking about? I said law firms deal with more complex problems (and, accordingly, draft more complex documents) on a daily basis. What does that have to do with the law or the courts?

[Bob Sacamano]

Is that not exactly what I said, but in fewer words?

just saying it doen't make sense is talking in general, meaning the statement is illogical, but when you include yourself into the statement, it means it doesn't make sense to you

idk, but again, when I say something doesn't make sense, it's meaning I think it's illogical, I guess it's just me who sees a difference between "it doesn't make sense" and "it doesn't make sense to me"

[5Stars]

What? Can I not tell you something isn't perfect without having to come up with a perfect alternative? Why does the former require the latter?

What are you talking about? I said law firms deal with more complex problems (and, accordingly, draft more complex documents) on a daily basis. What does that have to do with the law or the courts?


There is no way in hell a lawyer or anyone else that can come up with a solution that punishes bad behavior in the thousands of way a player can behave and make it consistant!

Yeah, I don't make sense at all...you make all the sense in the world. You cannot even make a proposal on how the Commish can be "consistant" with bad behavior, yet you and others can moan and groan about, huh? ;)

And screw the million of dollars that player might lose! If the player is a dumb bastid...he doesn't need to have that kind of cash to begin with!

Anyway, carry on...

:confused:

[theogt]

There is no way in hell a lawyer or anyone else that can come up with a solution that punishes bad behavior in the thousands of way a player can behave and make it consistant!Again, just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it can't happen.

Yeah, I don't make sense at all...you make all the sense in the world. You cannot even make a proposal on how the Commish can be "consistant" with bad behavior, yet you and others can moan and groan about, huh? ;)There's a nice chasm between spending hours and hours working on a proposal and coming up with one instantly on the internet. Somehow I don't think being unable to do the latter precludes the former.

And screw the million of dollars that player might lose! If the player is a dumb bastid...he doesn't need to have that kind of cash to begin with!

Anyway, carry on...

:confused:Great. I'm glad it's your decision who makes money and who doesn't. Can I please make a lot of money? I enjoy it.

[5Stars]

Again, just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it can't happen.

There's a nice chasm between spending hours and hours working on a proposal and coming up with one instantly on the internet. Somehow I don't think being unable to do the latter precludes the former.

Great. I'm glad it's your decision who makes money and who doesn't. Can I please make a lot of money? I enjoy it.


Make all the money you want, theogt! Just stay out of trouble if you work for me, OK?

;)

[jay cee]

I actually think it's a combination of contriteness on his part, and the fact that he paid his debt to society already

So in your opinion, it is actually better to commit a crime that is punishable with jail time than to just be an idiot doing stupid crap.

[Bob Sacamano]

So in your opinion, it is actually better to commit a crime that is punishable with jail time than to just be an idiot doing stupid crap.

one is worse than the other, both bad the same, I agree that Tank should see a 1-year suspension

but he's not, oh well

[jay cee]

Did I just ask you to leave the freaking law out of this?!! This is not a matter of the courts!!!! What part of that do you not understand? :confused:

I specifically said that anything "outside" the court of law! I asked you how YOU would handle bad behavior on a "consistant level" regarding the thousands of ways a player can harm the reputation of the NFL.

Do I need a lawyer to dicipline my children if they get into trouble? If I need to punish my kids for bad behavior, should I call a lawyer first? I mean, they have not been convicted in a court of a law?

Leave the "lawyer", the "court", the "justice system" crap out of this. How can players recieve punishment on a consistant basis...

:cool:

If you have kids and you have no rhyme or reason as to how you punish them when they do something wrong and you give one a more severe punishment than the other, I would call you a poor excuse for a parent.

That's what this thread was about, the commish did not seem to consistent with his punishment.

[jay cee]

one is worse than the other, both bad the same, I agree that Tank should see a 1-year suspension

but he's not, oh well

So why are you arguing with those who feel like the commissioner made a mistake?

Just feel like typing, huh?

[Bob Sacamano]

So why are you arguing with those who feel like the commissioner made a mistake?

Just feel like typing, huh?

I'm only pointing out that Goodell hasn't overreached his bounds yet, which everyone seems to want to warn us about

hell, I even tried to explain to burm what Goodell had to be consistent about

and just because I feel Goodell wasn't being consistent doesn't mean I think he made a mistake, he had every right to do it

[peplaw06]

There is no way in hell a lawyer or anyone else that can come up with a solution that punishes bad behavior in the thousands of way a player can behave and make it consistant!


*raises hand*

Uh, I think the legal system we have in place in America does exactly that.

[theogt]

*raises hand*

Uh, I think the legal system we have in place in America does exactly that.But that legal system was thought up by gnomes, not actual lawyers. If only we had more gnomes.

[Hypnotoad]

*raises hand*

Uh, I think the legal system we have in place in America does exactly that.

Give Goodell 200 some years, and I'll guarantee he will work the kinks out of this policy.

This post goes in circles, and theres insults flying left and right.

For those tuning in:

Theogt wants a clear specific policy with set penalties that eliminates the gray areas, yet proposes no solution or frame describing how to get it done. Just says outsource it. Also peppers replies with insults.

Bob Sacamano feels that since there is no problems happening right now we shouldn't start worrying about the policy. But what happens when a new commissioner takes Goodell's place. Will they be fair? What if a penalty system is proposed, will that commissioner become the next David Stern?

5Stars listed the crimes hes committed this weekend in chronological order starting from Saturday Morning to Sunday Night.

Hypnotoad is sleepy.

[lspain1]

Right now the league is being hit by a storm of misconduct. The new Conduct policy is designed to deter those type of player from being drafted, take away the play time of those currently active, and to kick them out of the league if necessary. There is no need for consistency if you do the right job drafting/punishing players. I don't think one day, suddenly, Payton manning is going to start going to strip clubs and making it rain, bite a cop, or lie about his prior criminal activity. So the need for a consistent set of punishments is not going to effect him or a majority of other players who aren't involved in those kind activities anyway.

Hypnotoad is sleepy.

You may be sleepy Hypnotoad but you succinctly stated both the correct rationale for action and why consistency is at the bottom of the list of requirements. Those that refuse to recognize this miss the whole point.

[theogt]

You may be sleepy Hypnotoad but you succinctly stated both the correct rationale for action and why consistency is at the bottom of the list of requirements. Those that refuse to recognize this miss the whole point.Perhaps you could explain. How does inconsistency deter any more than consistency? Shouldn't it deter less?

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by Hypnotoad http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1530733#post1530733)
Right now the league is being hit by a storm of misconduct. The new Conduct policy is designed to deter those type of player from being drafted, take away the play time of those currently active, and to kick them out of the league if necessary. There is no need for consistency if you do the right job drafting/punishing players. I don't think one day, suddenly, Payton manning is going to start going to strip clubs and making it rain, bite a cop, or lie about his prior criminal activity. So the need for a consistent set of punishments is not going to effect him or a majority of other players who aren't involved in those kind activities anyway




Which is irrelevant. Why does our justice system try to establish a set punishment for crimes?

Why not just randomly spin a wheel and select a punishment?

Because the punishment has to fit the 'crime.'

[superpunk]

You may be sleepy Hypnotoad but you succinctly stated both the correct rationale for action and why consistency is at the bottom of the list of requirements. Those that refuse to recognize this miss the whole point.

You've got to be kidding.

That IS the whole point.

[lspain1]

You've got to be kidding.

That IS the whole point.

That is simply wrong. No system will EVER be completely consistent because it is made and administered by human beings. The point is to deter bad behavior. You folks (and the author Floyd Reese) continue to dismiss the bad behavior (see Fred's "I'm in complete support") and fault the NFL for various and sundry "failures."

The whole "two wrongs don't make a right" argument chokes on the gnat while it swallows the camel. Hypnotoad's point about the "storm of misconduct" should be your focus....but it's not.

[superpunk]

That is simply wrong. No system will EVER be completely consistent because it is made and administered by human beings. The point is to deter bad behavior. You folks (and the author Floyd Reese) continue to dismiss the bad behavior (see Fred's "I'm in complete support") and fault the NFL for various and sundry "failures."

The whole "two wrongs don't make a right" argument chokes on the gnat while it swallows the camel. Hypnotoad's point about the "storm of bad behavior" should be your focus....but it's not.

You continue to not know how to read. Noone dismisses the bad behavior - no misquoted biblical metaphor is going to change that.

This isn't about the behavior, save for how the extent of misbehavior relates to the severity of punishment.

Half this damn forum needs a reading comprehension course. :rolleyes: