On the Mark: Goodell Changing the Rules

[Jarv]

Can you point me to the section in the CBA or Player Conduct policy where it states that the Commish can when you are indicted, or are brought up on heinous charges?

My problem with the whole thing is that it doesn't say anything like that, as far as I know. It says, "for conduct deemed detrimental to the league." Well whoopty freakin do? What is conduct detrimental? And who deems it detrimental? Oh that's right, the Commish gets to decide.

Have any of you ever had problems trying to read and/or interpret some kind of legal document (i.e. a contract, a divorce decree, etc)? The problems usually arise (and suits to challenge those documents are filed) when there is some ambiguity in the terms.

You can't get more ambiguous than this. Well, save for maybe Ace and Gary.

The Commish decides what is and what isn't "conduct detrimental to the league."

At least in the legal realm there are things called, sentencing guidelines and ranges of punishment. Hell in our system of government, there are checks and balances between the three branches. What are the guidelines for Goodell? What are the checks and balances on him?

Do you know why those things were created? Because people with unchecked power tend to be inherently untrustworthy.

I think Goodell needs some checks. And I think if most of you were honest with yourself, and not so hellbent on PUNISHING THE THUGS!! you'd agree.

Thats a fair argument, if we are dealing with legal issues or someones legals rights, but life doesn't work that way in the workforce.

The guidelines in the workforce is don't piss off your boss, right to hire and right to fire and all that stuff you probably know more about than I.

I know a guy years ago that was accused (I know he did it, by the way...I was there when it happened) of selling pot to the son of an owner of a company. The owner told him to quit and the guy did.

The owner could have called the cops, the guy could have been brought up on charges and he could have been found innocent. That would not have mattered to the owner of the company, the guy was gone and would not be hired back.

Goodell is at least still paying Vick to see how this case turns out before he takes away the guys wages, which is more than fair in the workplace.

I admire your stand as a lawyer in believing innocent until proven guilty against charges brought against a defendant, but those do not apply in the workforce.

Now a union shop is different because there is an agreement between the union and the employer on how to handle certain situations. Its just that in this situation the union is not dis-agreeing with the employer on how this should be handled.

Lets get this straight this is a work issue, not a legal issue.

 

[superpunk]

With the pressure outside groups can exert in this current policy, it puts an economic factor into "conduct detrimental." That shouldn't be the main concern, and in this case, i think it is. Goodell's more concerned about his bottom line than he is with Vick's legal rights. A strongly worded, consistent policy would take care of that IMO.

Great post. I'm going to let it erupt all over me with hot, gooey wisdom. The course of action specified makes it easier on everyone involved to handle these situations, takes pressure off the Commissioner, and would likely serve as a more effective deterrent than "If you get in trouble - watch out - because your punishment will be dependent upon your worth to the league, name, stature, severity of offense, amount of dreadlocks, gold teef, thugginess, and an oracle named Larry."

 

[peplaw06]

Thats a fair argument, if we are dealing with legal issues or someones legals rights, but life doesn't work that way in the workforce.

The guidelines in the workforce is don't piss off your boss, right to hire and right to fire and all that stuff you probably know more about than I.

I know a guy years ago that was accused (I know he did it, by the way...I was there when it happened) of selling pot to the son of an owner of a company. The owner told him to quit and the guy did.

The owner could have called the cops, the guy could have been brought up on charges and he could have been found innocent. That would not have mattered to the owner of the company, the guy was gone and would not be hired back.

Goodell is at least still paying Vick to see how this case turns out before he takes away the guys wages, which is more than fair in the workplace.

I admire your stand as a lawyer in believing innocent until proven guilty against charges brought against a defendant, but those do not apply in the workforce.

Now a union shop is different because there is an agreement between the union and the employer on how to handle certain situations. Its just that in this situation the union is not dis-agreeing with the employer on how this should be handled.

Lets get this straight this is a work issue, not a legal issue.

1) Typically contracts govern in the workplace. A part-time or lower level employee is technically hired "at will," and can be fired on a moment's notice. Otherwise a contract applies. The terms will tell you what you can and can't be fired for. And if you are going to be terminated wrongfully, then severance packages can be and are given.

Vick's contract probably covers this, but it's still probably not very clear. Probably refers to the player conduct policy which says "conduct detrimental," we're back to the same problem.

2) I don't buy for one second that this is a work issue and completely separate from a legal issue. The legal issue started the whole thing. If the legal issue were non-existent, then Vick would be reporting Thursday.

And when you start jumping the gun on legal issues, wrongful termination and/or suspensions are the risk you run.

Look I know the Duke Lacrosse case is the favorite parallel from pundits, but it's a cautionary tale, and IMO should be of concern when dealing with this stuff.

 

[5Stars]

Lets get this straight this is a work issue, not a legal issue.

I think this is what the divide is over whether Goodall has the right to do what he is doing.

And to think that just telling these activists to "blow it out their arse" is not very sensible, because that will just make them more agressive in thier causes...

I know I would hate it if Vick were to play and the game was at Texas Staidum! And, not only that, these people would probably picket at all NFL games regardless of wether it's the Falcons or not, it's the NFL that they would get mad at.

I'm glad I don't have to make the choice...

 

[Jarv]

Great post. I'm going to let it erupt all over me with hot, gooey wisdom. The course of action specified makes it easier on everyone involved to handle these situations, takes pressure off the Commissioner, and would likely serve as a more effective deterrent than "If you get in trouble - watch out - because your punishment will be dependent upon your worth to the league, name, stature, severity of offense, amount of dreadlocks, gold teef, thugginess, and an oracle named Larry."

Substitute "league" with the word "Cowboys" and isn't that pretty much how Jimmy Johnson handled the Cowboys in the 90's ?

 

[superpunk]

Substitute "league" with the word "Cowboys" and isn't that pretty much how Jimmy Johnson handled the Cowboys in the 90's ?

No.

Jimmy cut people from the team who didn't perform well, or to make a point - but he was not keeping them from playing football for a team, nor was he making his decisions based on legal matters. Even if he was, team's are fine to cut people whenever they see fit - and there are salary consequences in the form of guaranteed money penalties.

 

[peplaw06]

I think this is what the divide is over whether Goodall has the right to do what he is doing.

And to think that just telling these activists to "blow it out their arse" is not very sensible, because that will just make them more agressive in thier causes...

I know I would hate it if Vick were to play and the game was at Texas Staidum! And, not only that, these people would probably picket at all NFL games regardless of wether it's the Falcons or not, it's the NFL that they would get mad at.

I'm glad I don't have to make the choice...

Goodell has the right, as it stands right now. There is no argument that I'm aware of saying otherwise. Should he? That's the issue.

And if there were a strong consistent policy in place, that would definitely quell the protesters a bit. Sure, you'd get a few crazies, but not enough to exert any substantial amount of pressure on you. You can tell the crazies to blow it out their arse, especially if you have a specific policy that you are not going to waver from.

 

[5Stars]

You can tell the crazies to blow it out their arse, especially if you have a specific policy that you are not going to waver from.

:laugh2: Wanna bet on that? Why do you think you just labled them "crazies"? Never underestimate the power of groups...by the way, the population of the world and the "crazies" in that population highly out number the attendence of all NFL fans on game day...not saying that 80,000 crazies would be there for a game...but the power of groups is nothing to balk at.

 

[Jarv]

No.

Jimmy cut people from the team who didn't perform well, or to make a point - but he was not keeping them from playing football for a team, nor was he making his decisions based on legal matters. Even if he was, team's are fine to cut people whenever they see fit - and there are salary consequences in the form of guaranteed money penalties.

So, just so I'm straight on this. You are okay if Blank cuts Vick but not if Goodell gives him a leave of absense with pay ?

If I was "the player", I would rather have a leave of absense with pay than be cut, but that is just me. I like money.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Goodell has the right, as it stands right now. There is no argument that I'm aware of saying otherwise. Should he? That's the issue.

I don't really think it's an issue, except for those who think the league should do nothing more than what the courts decide.

And I read that Goodell, the Falcons, and the Players Asssociation were all huddling on this subject the last few days. So apparantly the NFLPA is fine with this decision.

And if there were a strong consistent policy in place, that would definitely quell the protesters a bit. Sure, you'd get a few crazies, but not enough to exert any substantial amount of pressure on you. You can tell the crazies to blow it out their arse, especially if you have a specific policy that you are not going to waver from.

How exactly would you word the policy so that the punishment of every single potential incident is clearly outlined? You couldn't do it. Unless you left it up to the courts, which you obviously would like. But the people who own the league want a higher standard than that. And I don't blame them.

 

[superpunk]

So, just so I'm straight on this. You are okay if Blank cuts Vick but not if Goodell gives him a leave of absense with pay ?

If I was "the player", I would rather have a leave of absense with pay than be cut, but that is just me. I like money.

The player's signing bonus is guaranteed. They get their money if they're cut. (I believe I mentioned that ) Don't get pedantic with some "So, you would rather" interpretive statement. If owners don't want players on their team, for whatever reason, there are clear guidelines for making that happen. If the comissioner want to suspend them, he can do whatever he wants. There is a clear difference.

 

[Stash]

Goodell has the right, as it stands right now. There is no argument that I'm aware of saying otherwise. Should he? That's the issue.

And if there were a strong consistent policy in place, that would definitely quell the protesters a bit. Sure, you'd get a few crazies, but not enough to exert any substantial amount of pressure on you. You can tell the crazies to blow it out their arse, especially if you have a specific policy that you are not going to waver from.

Leave it to the lawyer to label those protesting against animal cruelty as 'crazies' while sticking up for the rights of the 'accused'.

And they wonder why they get the reputation that they do.

Here's why.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

It is doubtful Vick is intelligent enough to make the right decision to stay away from his team.

Therefore, Goodell is making it for him.

A valid point for sure.....

 

[Jarv]

The player's signing bonus is guaranteed. They get their money if they're cut. (I believe I mentioned that ) Don't get pedantic with some "So, you would rather" interpretive statement. If owners don't want players on their team, for whatever reason, there are clear guidelines for making that happen. If the comissioner want to suspend them, he can do whatever he wants. There is a clear difference.

Honestly I don't know what "pedantic" means, but I take it, its not flattering ?

I know the signing bonus is already paid, but this years salary isn't if Vick is cut by Blank.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but right now Vick is getting paid not to play this season (6 million for this years salary, I believe), per the commish.

Of the 2 choices (both choises already have his bonus) I'm just saying that I would choose the latter...

 

[Jarv]

Leave it to the lawyer to label those protesting against animal cruelty as 'crazies' while sticking up for the rights of the 'accused'.

And they wonder why they get the reputation that they do.

Here's why.

Stash, that made me laugh...

No offense intended peplaw06...

 

[superpunk]

Honestly I don't know what "pedantic" means, but I take it, its not flattering ?

I know the signing bonus is already paid, but this years salary isn't if Vick is cut by Blank.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but right now Vick is getting paid not to play this season (6 million for this years salary, I believe), per the commish.

Of the 2 choices (both choises already have his bonus) I'm just saying that I would choose the latter...

It's not only about Vick - you're getting off track. This is only the first step for him - the next is suspended without pay. Given Goodell's prior punishments (which are nonsense and random) Vick should be punished, and it should be soon. Otherwise, the inconsistency continues.

 

[peplaw06]

I don't really think it's an issue, except for those who think the league should do nothing more than what the courts decide.

And I read that Goodell, the Falcons, and the Players Asssociation were all huddling on this subject the last few days. So apparantly the NFLPA is fine with this decision.

You mean to tell me Upshaw agreed with Goodell? Color me surprised.

How exactly would you word the policy so that the punishment of every single potential incident is clearly outlined? You couldn't do it. Unless you left it up to the courts, which you obviously would like. But the people who own the league want a higher standard than that. And I don't blame them.

Oh it wouldn't be easy, but I'm sure the league and all their attorneys could get it done, rather than pushing through some vague policy that basically gives one guy the final say in all things "detrimental."

It doesn't even have to come up with every permutation of criminal activity. Hell I'd be happy if it said, if you're indicted, you get suspension with pay... if convicted you get x, if executed you get x. Rather, we get some cryptic phrase with full Commissioner discretion, and everyone's okay with that.

Create a higher standard, I don't care. But right now we have no standard. Just Goodell.

 

[Doomsday101]

Funny thing is I see some getting on Goodell yet I don't see anyone coming down on the NFLPA. Goodell is looking after the interest of the league the NFLPA looks after the interest of the player and they don't seem not to have a problem with this latest move.

 

[superpunk]

Funny thing is I see some getting on Goodell yet I don't see anyone coming down on the NFLPA. Goodell is looking after the interest of the league the NFLPA looks after the interest of the player and they don't seem not to have a problem with this latest move.

You must be new to the forums.



Either that, or you're not quite sure who Gene Upshaw is.

 

[Jarv]

It's not only about Vick - you're getting off track. This is only the first step for him - the next is suspended without pay. Given Goodell's prior punishments (which are nonsense and random) Vick should be punished, and it should be soon. Otherwise, the inconsistency continues.

On a brighter note, thanks for the link to that Tourent. The Dallas vs. Indy game just finished downloading