Pacman's Argument on Appeal

[superpunk]

People are overlooking the fact that this is a new policy.

Ok...so it's a new policy. How many times has Pac-Man been arrested since Goodell's tenure began? Has it been once or twice, I dunno. Is that really something that necessitates possibly a year and a half ban, or whatever we're up to now? Is what Pac-Man is involved in more of a black-eye (or worse) than what Albert Haynesworth did on the field, on national television? Is it worse to the extent that it necessitates a minimum of twice the punishment, with the likelihood of four times the punishment? Both incidents happened under Goodell's tenure.

Can you say honestly that the punishment is consistent, and even-handed? I know I can't. There's no real way ofpredicting what a punishment will be, since Goodell has shown nearly no consistency so far.

Instead, he appears to be catering to the court of public opinion, and deciding to make an example out of Pac-Man because a group of people are all bent out of shape on their high horses about all these "thugs" that inhabit their precious NFL.

And so, what we appear to be getting is hypocritical grandstanding with regards to PacMan Jones. He's been punished far harsher than any athlete prior, and for far less egregious errors. He's been made an example of, and as much as that ideal might be appealing, it's completely unfair and arbitrary. IMO, instead of making Goodell seem like a strong leader, it's made him out to be a weak-minded hypocrite, pandering and dancing for the court of public opinion. He's taken excessively strong action against the off-field reprehensible behavior. And why? Is it so that my viewing experience on Sunday will be more enjoyable? Certainly not. It certainly won't have the effect on my viewing experience that a similar Haynesworth (a true "thug") suspension would have resulted in. No, PacMan's punishment is just some arbitrary ruling handed down so that the moral majority can say "Look at this commissioner - he's taking a stand. He won't stand for this off-field thuggery...black eye for the league....I can't stand watching people with dreds and gold teeth....bah humbug."

Whatever. I've never been impressed by reactionary, baseless punishments being handed down to make oneself look better to your audience. Rings hollow.

 

[zeromaster]

Where the court system is involved, it's not about justice. It's about who can construct the most convincing legal argument. Listen carefully to the judge and attorneys in your next jury summons: you can only consider what's introduced during the proceedings.

This may be the biggest fallacy of all: you don't have to vote (which has an impact on the laws under which a person can be judged), but you can be found in contempt for not serving on a jury that often weighs those same laws.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Pacman imo deserves what he got......and the NFL does need to try and clean up it's act.

 

[Jarv]

3.56 First honors my friend. Try again next year

Excellent man, keep up the good work.

 

[Jarv]

Pacman imo deserves what he got......and the NFL does need to try and clean up it's act.

Simple, pure and right to the point...

 

[joseephuss]

Ok...so it's a new policy. How many times has Pac-Man been arrested since Goodell's tenure began? Has it been once or twice, I dunno. Is that really something that necessitates possibly a year and a half ban, or whatever we're up to now? Is what Pac-Man is involved in more of a black-eye (or worse) than what Albert Haynesworth did on the field, on national television? Is it worse to the extent that it necessitates a minimum of twice the punishment, with the likelihood of four times the punishment? Both incidents happened under Goodell's tenure.

Can you say honestly that the punishment is consistent, and even-handed? I know I can't. There's no real way ofpredicting what a punishment will be, since Goodell has shown nearly no consistency so far.

Instead, he appears to be catering to the court of public opinion, and deciding to make an example out of Pac-Man because a group of people are all bent out of shape on their high horses about all these "thugs" that inhabit their precious NFL.

And so, what we appear to be getting is hypocritical grandstanding with regards to PacMan Jones. He's been punished far harsher than any athlete prior, and for far less egregious errors. He's been made an example of, and as much as that ideal might be appealing, it's completely unfair and arbitrary. IMO, instead of making Goodell seem like a strong leader, it's made him out to be a weak-minded hypocrite, pandering and dancing for the court of public opinion. He's taken excessively strong action against the off-field reprehensible behavior. And why? Is it so that my viewing experience on Sunday will be more enjoyable? Certainly not. It certainly won't have the effect on my viewing experience that a similar Haynesworth (a true "thug") suspension would have resulted in. No, PacMan's punishment is just some arbitrary ruling handed down so that the moral majority can say "Look at this commissioner - he's taking a stand. He won't stand for this off-field thuggery...black eye for the league....I can't stand watching people with dreds and gold teeth....bah humbug."

Whatever. I've never been impressed by reactionary, baseless punishments being handed down to make oneself look better to your audience. Rings hollow.

According to Chris Mortenson, a vast majority of the player representatives wanted Pacman out of the league. Not just a suspension, but he said they wanted Pacman banned for life. These players, who were chosen by their teammates to represent their respective teams, are not the court of public opinion. They are the NFL. That is way more telling than opinions on message boards. These are guys that play the game and it really is their precious NFL.

 

[WoodysGirl]

People are overlooking the fact that this is a new policy.

Actually, it's not a new policy. It's a revised policy. Everything that was in there prior to the revision is still there. What's been expanded is on who and what can be punished. And they've also added addendums into educating the players into what to expect as an NFL player. They also added an addendum that teams can now be punished for the acts of their players.

 

[superpunk]

According to Chris Mortenson, a vast majority of the player representatives wanted Pacman out of the league. Not just a suspension, but he said they wanted Pacman banned for life. These players, who were chosen by their teammates to represent their respective teams, are not the court of public opinion. They are the NFL. That is way more telling than opinions on message boards. These are guys that play the game and it really is their precious NFL.

That's fair - I haven't heard any of them specifically vocalize that, though - with regards to Pac-Man. Heck, I haven't seen any quotes even expressing displeasure particularly with Pac-Man. On the contrary, players all over the league have spoken out against what Haynesworth did, Jason Taylor has specifically called out Shawne Merriman with regards to DPOY consideration. Consider these quotes that came out directly after Haynesworth did what he did. Have you seen ANYTHING even approaching this on Pac-Man?

I would have asked for him to be kicked out of the league permanently," said the outspoken receiver. "Even if I was his teammate I would ask that he was kicked out of the league. I don't want any idiots on our team that would embarrass themselves. If they want to fight then go do Ultimate Fighting. They have a sport where you are allowed to kick someone in the face and it's not football.

"It's embarrassing to me as a black man," said Johnson. "Is that how we act? Because you're getting your *** whipped is that how we act? Is that how you represent yourself? What if he stomped on the guy's temple? He could have killed him. There is no place for something like that in this league."

I'd press charges," said All-Pro tight end Tony Gonzalez. "That was ridiculous. Seriously, I view that as a criminal offense. When I first saw it I was like, 'Are you kidding me?' That was one of the worst things I'd ever seen. I'd want him prosecuted.

That's the worst thing I've ever seen on a football field. There's a line you don't cross. It's one thing to be dirty, but he could have taken his eye out easily. He has kids, a family to feed -- you can't do that.

If he got suspended for a year, I don't think there would be anybody in the league who would mind it. They say you should leave everything on the field but this steps beyond it. His actions could hurt off the field so I'd take it off the field too and sue him. Absolutely, I'd sue him!

We haven't seen anything like that - from the players - about Pac-Man. Nothing so stinging or abrupt.

Yet Pac-Man is punished FAR more harshly? It doesn't wash. This is completely unfair grandstanding, and pandering.

 

[Biggems]

I love me some dog fighting.....unfortunately no one is willing to pay to see two chihuahuas fight over a cheesy gordita crunch......

:laugh1:

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Actually, it's not a new policy. It's a revised policy. Everything that was in there prior to the revision is still there. What's been expanded is on who and what can be punished. And they've also added addendums into educating the players into what to expect as an NFL player. They also added an addendum that teams can now be punished for the acts of their players.

Well, yeah, that's what I meant.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Ok...so it's a new policy. How many times has Pac-Man been arrested since Goodell's tenure began? Has it been once or twice, I dunno. Is that really something that necessitates possibly a year and a half ban, or whatever we're up to now?

Goodell has simply decided to start punishing players -- beginning with Pacman -- for acts that were always punishable. Pacman is being set up as the gold standard for bad behavior -- do this much and you're in big, big trouble.

Is what Pac-Man is involved in more of a black-eye (or worse) than what Albert Haynesworth did on the field, on national television? Is it worse to the extent that it necessitates a minimum of twice the punishment, with the likelihood of four times the punishment? Both incidents happened under Goodell's tenure.

This is a fair enough question. Goodell has apparently decided that off-the-field issues are a bigger problem for the NFL than on-the-field issues. Seems reasonable enough to me.

And so, what we appear to be getting is hypocritical grandstanding with regards to PacMan Jones. He's been punished far harsher than any athlete prior, and for far less egregious errors. He's been made an example of, and as much as that ideal might be appealing, it's completely unfair and arbitrary.

Really? "Completely unfair and arbitrary"? Presumably he's setting up a new standard -- do less than Pacman, you get punished less; do more, you get punished more; do about the same, you get punished about the same. Doesn't seem at all unfair or arbitrary to me. You may not like the distinction between the on-the-field and off-the-field transgressions that the commissioner is apparently making, but other than that it works right.

 

[Doomsday101]

Goodell just took over he is setting the new standards. I'm sorry some of you can cry for Pacman all you want but the NFL does not need thugs running around. The owners and Players went to Goodell about change and change is what is taking place and it is about time.

 

[superpunk]

Goodell has simply decided to start punishing players -- beginning with Pacman -- for acts that were always punishable. Pacman is being set up as the gold standard for bad behavior -- do this much and you're in big, big trouble.

We'll see how consistent he is with his "gold standard". It'll be interesting to see how he handles Vick and Tank Johnson. It's not like they don't have histories.

This is a fair enough question. Goodell has apparently decided that off-the-field issues are a bigger problem for the NFL than on-the-field issues. Seems reasonable enough to me.

How that could seem at all reasonable, I'll never know. I don't tune in because Tony Romo's a good citizen. I also don't tune in to see a helpless man brutalized while laying on the ground, or cheaters.

But Goodell has decided that things we can't see are more devastating to the league's image than those that occur in front of our face. Heck, we glorify the cheaters to Pro-Bowlers. Yeah - there's no hypocrisy here. Thank goodness we're keeping guys involved with stripper disputes off the field.

Really? "Completely unfair and arbitrary"? Presumably he's setting up a new standard -- do less than Pacman, you get punished less; do more, you get punished more; do about the same, you get punished about the same. Doesn't seem at all unfair or arbitrary to me. You may not like the distinction between the on-the-field and off-the-field transgressions that the commissioner is apparently making, but other than that it works right.

I don't like it. And I don't like that PacMan is being offered up as sacrifice for a system that's been put in place because of years of malfeasance - and is apparently governed by no set rules or standards, at least none that I've seen. PacMan was at no point able to say "If I screw up, I'm gonna be uot of work for a year." They're making an example because the media focused on PacMan, not because he did anything particularly reprehensible or deserving of the punishment he received. And PacMan had no way of knowing he'd be punished so harshly.

 

[burmafrd]

SP, I really cannot understand how you think that Pacman is so innocent.
The guy has been screwing up for years. the New commish decided enough is enough. You do recall the idiot went to a strip club the night BEFORE going to see the commish to plead his case. He is just flat out stupid and as far as I am concerned stupidity should be rewarded just as he is getting it.
Haynesworth got the LONGEST suspension for on field action in the history of the NFL. Was it enough- I did not think so. But then again the New Commish was just getting into it. You and others like OGT seem to CONVIENENTLY forget that many of the PLAYERS are right on board with this. So are the fans. Its only you and a few others that DON'T get it.

 

[theogt]

SP, I really cannot understand how you think that Pacman is so innocent.
The guy has been screwing up for years. the New commish decided enough is enough. You do recall the idiot went to a strip club the night BEFORE going to see the commish to plead his case. He is just flat out stupid and as far as I am concerned stupidity should be rewarded just as he is getting it.
Haynesworth got the LONGEST suspension for on field action in the history of the NFL. Was it enough- I did not think so. But then again the New Commish was just getting into it. You and others like OGT seem to CONVIENENTLY forget that many of the PLAYERS are right on board with this. So are the fans. Its only you and a few others that DON'T get it.

You've never been one to look past your own myopic viewpoints, so it's not surprising.

 

[WoodysGirl]

We'll see how consistent he is with his "gold standard". It'll be interesting to see how he handles Vick and Tank Johnson. It's not like they don't have histories.

Don't know about Vick, but from what I've read, Tank could get between 6-8 games. Then again, he could get tossed the whole year. We'll see.

How that could seem at all reasonable, I'll never know. I don't tune in because Tony Romo's a good citizen. I also don't tune in to see a helpless man brutalized while laying on the ground, or cheaters.

But Goodell has decided that things we can't see are more devastating to the league's image than those that occur in front of our face. Heck, we glorify the cheaters to Pro-Bowlers. Yeah - there's no hypocrisy here. Thank goodness we're keeping guys involved with stripper disputes off the field.

I understand the outrage, but like I mentioned earlier, Pacman isn't being punished for one instance of bad behavior. His name has popped up constantly in relation to all kinds of b.s. And I think the Haynesworth incident, because it was the first of its kind, did set a precedent. You may not like the discipline that was given to him, but it was precedent setting.

I don't like it. And I don't like that PacMan is being offered up as sacrifice for a system that's been put in place because of years of malfeasance - and is apparently governed by no set rules or standards, at least none that I've seen.

Pacman isn't being offered up as a sacrifice. He made himself a sacrificial lamb, by doing dumb ****. The league has this thing called the personal conduct policy. Even if it hadn't been revised, it was very clear what standard the players were held to. And just because Tags did things one way, doesn't mean Goodell had to continue in that vein. Tags chose to let things linger as long as there was no resolution in the court system. Once there was, then he acted. Goodell, like alot of employers, chooses not to. But Tags had the same discretion as Goodell, he chose not to use it.

PacMan was at no point able to say "If I screw up, I'm gonna be uot of work for a year." They're making an example because the media focused on PacMan, not because he did anything particularly reprehensible or deserving of the punishment he received. And PacMan had no way of knowing he'd be punished so harshly.

Honestly, why should anyone care what he did and didn't know? Pacman's no victim of the system. There's a policy in place and he violated it. Yeah the punishment was harsh, but he shouldn't have put himself in that situation to begin with.

 

[joseephuss]

We'll see how consistent he is with his "gold standard". It'll be interesting to see how he handles Vick and Tank Johnson. It's not like they don't have histories.



How that could seem at all reasonable, I'll never know. I don't tune in because Tony Romo's a good citizen. I also don't tune in to see a helpless man brutalized while laying on the ground, or cheaters.

But Goodell has decided that things we can't see are more devastating to the league's image than those that occur in front of our face. Heck, we glorify the cheaters to Pro-Bowlers. Yeah - there's no hypocrisy here. Thank goodness we're keeping guys involved with stripper disputes off the field.

I think you are reaching a little with that hypocrisy. Goodell doesn't have the power to prevent a player from receiving a pro-bowl vote or a post season award. Isn't the league about to change the rules about pro-bowls and other post season awards with respect to players who have been suspended? Didn't that come about because of Merriman?

They are trying to change things. They tried to change it with Haynesworth by giving him a record suspension for an on field incident toward another player. You may think he deserved more games, but he did get more than anyone ever had in the past. Maybe if he has another incident on the field, he will get twice the punishsment.

I just don't see the hypocrisy that you claim. At least not at this point. Once the whole Vick and Tank Johnson situations play out, then there may be something to it.

 

[superpunk]

SP, I really cannot understand how you think that Pacman is so innocent.
The guy has been screwing up for years. the New commish decided enough is enough. You do recall the idiot went to a strip club the night BEFORE going to see the commish to plead his case. He is just flat out stupid and as far as I am concerned stupidity should be rewarded just as he is getting it.
Haynesworth got the LONGEST suspension for on field action in the history of the NFL. Was it enough- I did not think so. But then again the New Commish was just getting into it. You and others like OGT seem to CONVIENENTLY forget that many of the PLAYERS are right on board with this. So are the fans. Its only you and a few others that DON'T get it.

Oh hai.

I'm the English language. Have we met? Secondarily, what in the world are you talking about, innocent?

Pacman isn't being offered up as a sacrifice. He made himself a sacrificial lamb, by doing dumb ****. The league has this thing called the personal conduct policy. Even if it hadn't been revised, it was very clear what standard the players were held to. And just because Tags did things one way, doesn't mean Goodell had to continue in that vein. Tags chose to let things linger as long as there was no resolution in the court system. Once there was, then he acted. Goodell, like alot of employers, chooses not to. But Tags had the same discretion as Goodell, he chose not to use it.

Honestly, why should anyone care what he did and didn't know? Pacman's no victim of the system. There's a policy in place and he violated it. Yeah the punishment was harsh, but he shouldn't have put himself in that situation to begin with.

Face it, WG - most of our behavior as humans is based on what we can and cannot get away with. What we will get in trouble for, and how much trouble we are willing to get in for our actions. There was no standard set up where PacMan could know that he might be punished like this. There wasn't even precedent. That isn't fair.

 

[Doomsday101]

Oh hai.

I'm the English language. Have we met? Secondarily, what in the world are you talking about, innocent?



Face it, WG - most of our behavior as humans is based on what we can and cannot get away with. What we will get in trouble for, and how much trouble we are willing to get in for our actions. There was no standard set up where PacMan could know that he might be punished like this. There wasn't even precedent. That isn't fair.

A guy not able to ever walk again in not fair, Pacman put himself in this position and only has himself to blame. The NFL is doing what should be done and if that means making a strong example out of Pacman then he clearly is a candidate for tough punishment and in the mean time hopefully it will open the eyes of other players that the NFL is not going to put up with it and has the full support of those in the league.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Face it, WG - most of our behavior as humans is based on what we can and cannot get away with. What we will get in trouble for, and how much trouble we are willing to get in for our actions. There was no standard set up where PacMan could know that he might be punished like this. There wasn't even precedent. That isn't fair.

Forgive me not caring whether it was fair or not. How often do you see a person get caught in criminal situations 10 times in one year without any type of repercussions... It might be trite, but sometimes life ain't fair.