Greg Hardy's appeal is this week (May 28th)

[mitchell2254]

It really irks me to think Ray McDonald wasn't even suspended going in to this season and Hardy got 10 games on top of the 15 he sat out last year. Ray now has three seperate incidents and Hardy has been cleared of charges. Way to go, NFL.

 

[Nightman]

Thats exactly why people trying to compare the two just need to stop. Personal employers usually have a broad policy and can fire you for whatever offense they deem worthy, particularly those without a union. If they did have a set penalty for an offense, they could not punish further than that. It's extremely simple. Nobody in their right mind is going to accept a punishment beyond the maximum punishment and they shouldn't have to.

People always throw the "in the real world" line out, and to me it screams envy. The NFL players do operate in the real world, just not the same one 99% of people get to see. Like everyone else, if they break a rule of their employer, they should be punishable up to the full extent of whatever their conduct policy calls for, not above that.

I've seen people fired for making Twitter jokes and for posting internet videos of them yelling at a Chick-fil-a worker. And these were high powered executives, not just worker bees.

Your point about there being a policy in place is the big one. If they have a set policy then they have to follow it. Otherwise they have a lot of leeway.

 

[Nightman]

It really irks me to think Ray McDonald wasn't even suspended going in to this season and Hardy got 10 games on top of the 15 he sat out last year. Ray now has three seperate incidents and Hardy has been cleared of charges. Way to go, NFL.

it makes zero sense

and Ray Rice is already eligible to play and his one year probation just ended and all charges were formally erased

Hardy was never even brought to trial and gets 10 games?????????

 

[phildadon86]

To think this you'd have to first believe that what Brady did is more damaging to the league's image than the perception of being lenient on DV offenders would be.

I think blatantly cheating your way to a 4th superbowl is pretty damaging. Thats just me though

 

[gmoney112]

You may not like it, but it happens ALL THE TIME.

A company has a right to protect its image. Even when a situation is unjust or even if an employee has been cleared legally, if the damage to the company's reputation is too great, the employee won't be brought back on board.

No, I know it isn't illegal, but it still means you're kind of a jerk. Well, unless you're a "protected class" or something.

And in most cases where a person is fired, there's at least some justification for it. I don't know too many company's that'd fire someone for a DV charge that they never got convicted for, most wouldn't even know about it.

And let's be honest, if all the employees of the Fortune 500's dirty laundry was aired and they had a clause like this in their contract, I doubt most of them could even continue to function. A little hyperbole, haha. Well, maybe not. But you get the point.

Which brings to my next point there should at least be some discretion/leniency in these issues. Everything they do is put under a microscope playing in the NFL, the punishment should at least be "reasonable" business practices. Like I said, most companies wouldn't even know about these charges, and it especially wouldn't be common public knowledge. It's also doubtful a productive employee would be let go because of an accusation, like this one at least.

I just think that offense "conduct detrimental to the league" is setting a pretty dangerous precedent.

In these instances, it's like you can't even be accused of a crime without suffering the wrath of Dictator Goodell. Anything negative pursued on ESPN could fit under that umbrella statement. That's pretty weak. It's also pretty weak that they're milking this whole "suspended while the process is ongoing" to prevent players from even seeking an opinion different from his.

The whole situation is just weird.

 

[AzorAhai]

Those high powered execs likely weren't protected from that discipline. I worked at UPS warehouse for a couple of years and they had an extremely strong union. The only thing you could really get fired for was committing a crime while at work. Some of the supervisors flaunted drug use, workers would no call, no show twice a week, show up late, leave when they felt like it and much much more that most jobs would fire them for on the spot. I made $10/hr there. To the real world crowd, I ask what world was I living in?

The NFL collectively bargained the punishment and has to stick to it. Other unions bargain for other protection. If its there, who wouldn't use that protection to serve them and fight when it wasn't stuck to by the employer?

It just seems envious to me to make those claims. Just because they are star athletes doesn't mean they should be treated with extraordinary measures. Yes it's a privilege to play in the NFL. No the commisioner shouldn't be able to give out punishment past the maximum. It's the leagues fault anyways for not addressing the issue before Rice. Was DV not as bad before the tape came out? What makes it so much worse now than 5 years ago? If the NFL really cared, they would have changed the policy years ago. It's not a new problem, it's been around for a long time.

I've seen people fired for making Twitter jokes and for posting internet videos of them yelling at a Chick-fil-a worker. And these were high powered executives, not just worker bees.

Your point about there being a policy in place is the big one. If they have a set policy then they have to follow it. Otherwise they have a lot of leeway.

 

[gmoney112]

It really irks me to think Ray McDonald wasn't even suspended going in to this season and Hardy got 10 games on top of the 15 he sat out last year. Ray now has three seperate incidents and Hardy has been cleared of charges. Way to go, NFL.

I didn't even know about. So, Hardy is actually being punished more because he was an upper echelon type player, thereby leading to ESPN/news outlets to run the story more, adding on more bad publicity that was "detrimental to the league."

That's kinda messed up. Hardy shouldn't be punished more because he got more publicity. The policy seems really inconsistent.

Equal crime, equal time yall

 

[MeTed]

At will employees can be fired with or without cause. Doesn't apply to Hardy. Hardy's case is going to court. If the NFL wants to settle they should offer 2 games.

 

[DallasEast]

Domestic violence has been around for as long as people have been breathing air on this mudball. It's one of many societal problems that societies (which is American society in this discussion) eventually have gotten around to defining as a problem.

Sure, the NFL did not create policies combating domestic violence until recently. Literally thousands of other companies in this country alone dragged their feet implementing anti-domestic violence policies also.

However, there isn't any way to change the past. Companies and organizations like the NFL have finally caught up to dealing with this important issue. Perhaps the league can receive some credit for evolving now to deal with it and not waiting until sometime into the unforeseen future.

 

[Hoofbite]

I think blatantly cheating your way to a 4th superbowl is pretty damaging. Thats just me though

It can be damaging. It just isn't as damaging as the league giving off the impression it doesn't care about DV.

 

[AzorAhai]

Domestic violence has been around for as long as people have been breathing air on this mudball. It's one of many societal problems that societies (which is American society in this discussion) eventually have gotten around to defining as a problem.

Sure, the NFL did not create policies combating domestic violence until recently. Literally thousands of other companies in this country alone dragged their feet implementing anti-domestic violence policies also.

However, there isn't any way to change the past. Companies and organizations like the NFL have finally caught up to dealing with this important issue. Perhaps the league can receive some credit for evolving now to deal with it and not waiting until sometime into the unforeseen future.

The timing of the new policy is no coincidence though. If it's truly about wanting to fix the problem and not a PR issue it would have been addressed long ago. Even the Rice incident initially only drew a 2 game suspension. It wasn't until after the uproar and the leaked tape that Goodell suspended him indefinitely. I will give them no credit for changing the policy for PR reasons. They are also over compensating for the failure from Ray Rice by coming down hard on AP and Hardy.

 

[DallasEast]

The timing of the new policy is no coincidence though. If it's truly about wanting to fix the problem and not a PR issue it would have been addressed long ago. Even the Rice incident initially only drew a 2 game suspension. It wasn't until after the uproar and the leaked tape that Goodell suspended him indefinitely. I will give them no credit for changing the policy for PR reasons. They are also over compensating for the failure from Ray Rice by coming down hard on AP and Hardy.

No one can fix domestic violence. It can be tempered and lessened through education and understanding but it will not cease to be in the foreseeable future. Violence is a part of the human identity. Maybe it will disappear the way of the dodo but we have a long road of evolving before that day comes.

You're right though. The league created policies as a reaction and not because it was proactive. The noncoincidental action is just one of many countless others that humanity finally adopted throughout its millennia that were positive.

There have been NFL players who have committed domestic violence. There are some presently committing domestic violence, known and unknown. There will be players in the future who shall do the same. I will give the league credit for taking a step in the right direction addressing a problem ignored for far too long. Doing something good is always preferable than never doing anything at all. Just my opinion though.

 

[AzorAhai]

No one can fix domestic violence. It can be tempered and lessened through education and understanding but it will not cease to be in the foreseeable future. Violence is a part of the human identity. Maybe it will disappear the way of the dodo but we have a long road of evolving before that day comes.

You're right though. The league created policies as a reaction and not because it was proactive. The noncoincidental action is just one of many countless others that humanity finally adopted throughout its millennia that were positive.

There have been NFL players who have committed domestic violence. There are some presently committing domestic violence, known and unknown. There will be players in the future who shall do the same. I will give the league credit for taking a step in the right direction addressing a problem ignored for far too long. Doing something good is always preferable than never doing anything at all. Just my opinion though.

I'm glad the steps were taken to try to address the issue. I just didn't like the reason it was done. The way they went about it and the reason worries me to be blunt. What happens next time is my biggest concern. When, not if, another Ray Rice incident occurs with video evidence what happens then? You will always have the very vocal minority that won't accept any punishment outside of a lifetime ban. Does the NFL yet again cave to negative PR and increase the suspension? How long will it be before they start banning people for 1st offenses? It's a slippery slope they are on and it could have been handled much better imo. PR should never, never play a part in punishment.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You may not like it, but it happens ALL THE TIME.

A company has a right to protect its image. Even when a situation is unjust or even if an employee has been cleared legally, if the damage to the company's reputation is too great, the employee won't be brought back on board.

You many not like it beut the NFL is not a 'company.' The NFL is a trust and cannot just do whatever it wants whenever it wants. What happens ALL THE TIME is that both you and the NFL has to be reminded of this and be demonstrated to be wrong in the ultimate arbiters in this country. Also in a corporate environment, a company cannot just disavow company policy on a whim. The law of the shop is a legal principle that is brought up.

The Bears have the right to terminate him at whim. A club is an actual company and can do as you say. You have been pointed out this difference at least 3 times in the past month. Your willful ignorance is noted.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My guess is....Reduced to 6 games he comes back in the 7th game full of pee and vinegar, gets a sack and proceeds to tear his acl and we never see him an a Cowboys uniform again.

It took 5 months for Rice to be heard. OTOH, Hardy has grounds for an immediate injunction assuming this is not 'arising out of a labor dispute.'

My guess is his first game is at latest early October.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's c personal conduct policies at all companies. Right to work states (i.e. most jobs) can fire you for essentially any subjective thing they can tie an action to that policy. Even posts on facebook

Who cares? The NFL is subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act and cannot take a piss without the protection of a CBA.

Sorry if that is rude but this discussion does not apply to the NFL and is a misleading red herring. The NFL is not comparable to anywhere anyone here works at unless you work for Blue Ridge Mining interests.

 

[TheDude]

Who cares? The NFL is subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act and cannot take a piss without the protection of a CBA.

Sorry if that is rude but this discussion does not apply to the NFL and is a misleading red herring. The NFL is not comparable to anywhere anyone here works at unless you work for Blue Ridge Mining interests.

which is a point I made. The initial sentence of the first post to which I replied was : "the vast majority of companies don't have dont have a policy that limits DV punishment. If your job..." It wasnt my comparison. And the last sentence of that post is just as incorrect about private companies.

I said 2 games once it goes to federal court and all the rest is posturing

The vast majority of companies don't have a policy in place that limits DV punishment either. If your job had a policy that stated you could only be suspended without pay for 2 weeks, but suspended you for 2 months you would be okay with that? Because that's what is happening.

"In the real world" you can't be punished beyond the maximum punishment be it a job or court, so why is the NFL exempt from this? Can you explain that?

 

[Floatyworm]

I can't believe a guy could miss 25 games because.........he wasn't convicted of a crime

This a just a huge chess match between lawyers and the NFL...that is just beginning

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

which is a point I made. The initial sentence of the first post to which I replied was : "the vast majority of companies don't have dont have a policy that limits DV punishment. If your job..." It wasnt my comparison. And the last sentence of that post is just as incorrect about private companies.

I said 2 games once it goes to federal court and all the rest is posturing

Yeah it's why I tempered in the second paragraph. I just don't know why it's brought up. Well I get that people -not you- are trying to identify with what is going on but it simply does not apply.

 

[WoodysGirl]