Owners Neuter Goodell's Investigative Powers in New Conduct Policy

[FuzzyLumpkins]

NFL owners Wednesday unanimously approved a revised personal conduct policy, commissioner Roger Goodell announced.

The new policy takes effect immediately. Among the key changes:

• The policy embraces the use of independent investigations. To that end, the NFL will hire a special counsel for investigations and conduct who will oversee initial discipline.

• The policy will implement an element of leave with pay during investigations of people charged with violent crimes.

• The commissioner will maintain a role in the appeals process but also may appoint a panel of independent experts to participate in deciding an appeal.

Goodell said Wednesday that the person hired to fill the special counsel role will be a "highly qualified individual with a criminal justice background."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...ll-nfl-owners-outlines-conduct-policy-changes

Sheriff getting fired.

 

[visionary]

As usual with your hyperbole

Likely Goodell is tired of these personal conduct issues that are very public and are beyond the scope of what he wants to deal with. I would not be at all surprised if he asked the owners to do this

Unless you have evidence that the owners dud this against his wishes

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As usual with your hyperbole

Likely Goodell is tired of these personal conduct issues that are very public and are beyond the scope of what he wants to deal with. I would not be at all surprised if he asked the owners to do this

Unless you have evidence that the owners dud this against his wishes

Whether or not it was his wish is besides the point.

He was stripped of his investigative and punitive abilities. They even limited his involvement in appeals. It is what it is.

 

[visionary]

Whether or not it was his wish is besides the point.

He was stripped of his investigative and punitive abilities. They even limited his involvement in appeals. It is what it is.

So, unsubstantiated conjecture then?
Thought so

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, unsubstantiated conjecture then?
Thought so

So is it the reading or the comprehension part that gives you a problem? It's in the OP.

What do you think the counsel and panel mentioned in the OP are for?

 

[Rogah]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...ll-nfl-owners-outlines-conduct-policy-changes

Sheriff getting fired.

People have been saying he would get fired for about 3 months now.

And yet we're all still here waiting for it to happen. Of course, the further we get away from the incident, the more the public outrage dies down, the safer his job is.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

People have been saying he would get fired for about 3 months now.

And yet we're all still here waiting for it to happen. Of course, the further we get away from the incident, the more the public outrage dies down, the safer his job is.

I said sherrif in particular for a reason even if some are too obtuse to get . Additionally people have been calling for him to be removed from office for a lot longer than 3 months.

They created a institution to administer the investigations and punishing of conduct policy violations. They created another panel where our very own Jones Anderson will sit that provides oversight. They also made a contingency for an appeals panel.

IOW the conduct policy policing duties that had once been his domain have been stripped from him. The new sheriff in town as he dubbed himself has been fired.

 

[Rogah]

I said sherrif in particular for a reason even if some are too obtuse to get .

So you started a thread about Roger Goodell but when you said "Sheriff getting fired." you didn't mean "Roger Goodell getting fired."

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh kaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.....

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you started a thread about Roger Goodell but when you said "Sheriff getting fired." you didn't mean "Roger Goodell getting fired."

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh kaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.....

It's funny watching people demand a particular narrative and fixating on it. I don't think like you. You don't seem to understand that.

He was the self-styling 'new sherrif in town' a couple of years ago when they agreed to the new conduct policy. I was making a play on words as his role in said new policy has been completely removed.

His bosses took away authority and this is a pretty clear message that this is what he is getting as a penance for this failure. Whether or not he was fired, it is a severe reprimand for Goodell to have powers removed and his initiative to 'clean up the league' completely shut down. It was obvious that a penance was coming.

I actually like the owners new policy a lot. I think the institution and oversight is a good response to some very poor management over the past few years.

 

[Rogah]

It's funny watching people demand a particular narrative and fixating on it. I don't think like you. You don't seem to understand that.

Not true. Not only do I understand it, it is something for which I am immeasurably thankful.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not true. Not only do I understand it, it is something for which I am immeasurably thankful.

You keep applying your thoughts and narratives to me. It is what it is. Anyway, you gave up the rest of the argument.

 

[Rogah]

You keep applying your thoughts and narratives to me. It is what it is. Anyway, you gave up the rest of the argument.

What argument? You started a thread about Roger Goodell and said "Sheriff getting fired."... then as it seems more and more likely your prediction won't come to pass, you're trying a lame backtracking maneuver and saying "oh uh gee when I said sheriff getting fired I didn't mean Roger Goodell was getting fired.... I just meant he was being relieved of some of his duties...."

See, the whole concept of language is that we all agree on the meaning of words. All the rest of us know the word "fired" means "lose their job." But you seem to be under the delusion that the word "fired" means "keep your job and keep your pay but but simply be relieved of certain responsibilities."

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What argument? You started a thread about Roger Goodell and said "Sheriff getting fired."... then as it seems more and more likely your prediction won't come to pass, you're trying a lame backtracking maneuver and saying "oh uh gee when I said sheriff getting fired I didn't mean Roger Goodell was getting fired.... I just meant he was being relieved of some of his duties...."

See, the whole concept of language is that we all agree on the meaning of words. All the rest of us know the word "fired" means "lose their job." But you seem to be under the delusion that the word "fired" means "keep your job and keep your pay but but simply be relieved of certain responsibilities."

Normally it is polite if one is going to use artistic license to somehow indicate that not everything is as it seems. In this case, I referred to Goodell as a sheriff. Now, Rogah, is Goodell actually a sheriff?

Further, does the article say that Goodell was getting fired? It talks about giving his former authority to something else.

Stamp your feet some more and insist it be as you think of it.

 

[Rogah]

Normally it is polite if one is going to use artistic license to somehow indicate that not everything is as it seems. In this case, I referred to Goodell as a sheriff. Now, Rogah, is Goodell actually a sheriff?

Well when you said "sheriff" were you referring to someone else?

Stamp your feet some more and insist it be as you think of it.

Sorry, but it wouldn't be heard over you wailing that the word "fired" means "keep his job, keeps his pay, but is relieved of some duties."

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well when you said "sheriff" were you referring to someone else?
Sorry, but it wouldn't be heard over you wailing that the word "fired" means "keep his job, keeps his pay, but is relieved of some duties."

He did lose his job as sheriff that he declared with the former conduct policy. That is the point of the statement. You ability to discern nuance is lacking I guess.

 

[Rogah]

He did lose his job as sheriff that he declared with the former conduct policy. That is the point of the statement. You ability to discern nuance is lacking I guess.

Your problem (one of many) is that I'm not not the only one in this thread you've made that statement to. You made a statement and got a pair of responses.... but the responses weren't what you wanted so you accuse everyone else of having reading comprehension problems.

Ya. Ok. Sure thing, boy. Your post was crystal clear and everyone else is wrong for not understanding you.

Your childlike mind is clearly obsessed with having the last word so please enjoy. Maybe someday your childlike mind will realize that having the last word doesn't make you correct.

 

[CowboyChris]

anything that neuters Roger Goodell is good with me.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your problem (one of many) is that I'm not not the only one in this thread you've made that statement to. You made a statement and got a pair of responses.... but the responses weren't what you wanted so you accuse everyone else of having reading comprehension problems.

Ya. Ok. Sure thing, boy. Your post was crystal clear and everyone else is wrong for not understanding you.

Your childlike mind is clearly obsessed with having the last word so please enjoy. Maybe someday your childlike mind will realize that having the last word doesn't make you correct.

Last word? Age smack? Again, you project your worldview onto me. You even speak for everyone else when you claim no one understood me. Your failure is all your own, old man.

Old and stupid is still stupid and at the end of the day most of the greatest mathematical and scientific breakthroughs like Newton and Einstein occurred in their early twenties. There are exceptions like Euler and painting any brush that broad is folly but you worldview is unsubstantiated and self centered.

You misinterpreted what I said. Don't deign to speak for what I 'wanted' or what I mean. You are not qualified.

 

[Rogah]

anything that neuters Roger Goodell is good with me.

I don't think this does that as much as some people think. The players' association certainly still isn't happy. They handled this whole thing very poorly. All of Goodell's troubles with the Ray Rice incident ironically boils down to the fact that he was too lenient. The NFLPA was unwise to hang him out to dry the way they did.