NFL week 1 (Ray Rice/Goodell fiasco)

[WrigleyField 22]

I think the outcry against Goodell and specifically him stepping down is stronger post elevator video release.

 

I mean, obviously.

 

 

What are you trying to say?

Pointing out why someone might make the statement that there was NO outrage. They're creating a clear separation between the types of outcry because calling for rule changes is quite different than a change in leadership.

 

Right or wrong, I think the initial point that was made was that many people are claiming the second video changes nothing but weren't quite ready to call for Goodell to step down until they saw the video. So it must have meant something to the general public opinion because just as the leagues punishment shifted, so too did public opinion.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jersey cubs fan]

I think the outcry against Goodell and specifically him stepping down is stronger post elevator video release.

 

I mean, obviously.

 

 

What are you trying to say?

Pointing out why someone might make the statement that there was NO outrage. They're creating a clear separation between the types of outcry because calling for rule changes is quite different than a change in leadership.

 

People weren't calling for a rule change, the rule change was the NFL's response to what happened, and it was scoffed at by many.

 

the only reason somebody might make the statement that there was no outrage pre-video was that they weren't paying attention.

[Banedon]

I think the outcry against Goodell and specifically him stepping down is stronger post elevator video release.

 

I mean, obviously.

 

 

What are you trying to say?

Pointing out why someone might make the statement that there was NO outrage. They're creating a clear separation between the types of outcry because calling for rule changes is quite different than a change in leadership.

 

Right or wrong, I think the initial point that was made was that many people are claiming the second video changes nothing but weren't quite ready to call for Goodell to step down until they saw the video. So it must have meant something to the general public opinion because just as the leagues punishment shifted, so too did public opinion.

 

The second video does change something in regards to Goodell though. Before, he just didn't care. Now, he's a liar who doesn't care.

[Formerly Snayke]

Clay Travis is just the [expletive] worst:

[WrigleyField 22]

I think the outcry against Goodell and specifically him stepping down is stronger post elevator video release.

 

I mean, obviously.

 

 

What are you trying to say?

Pointing out why someone might make the statement that there was NO outrage. They're creating a clear separation between the types of outcry because calling for rule changes is quite different than a change in leadership.

 

Right or wrong, I think the initial point that was made was that many people are claiming the second video changes nothing but weren't quite ready to call for Goodell to step down until they saw the video. So it must have meant something to the general public opinion because just as the leagues punishment shifted, so too did public opinion.

 

The second video does change something in regards to Goodell though. Before, he just didn't care. Now, he's a liar who doesn't care.

So people's issue is that Goodell won't admit to seeing the video before?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Banedon]

So people's issue is that Goodell won't admit to seeing the video before?

 

It's one part of it, absolutely.

[Ryne Ween]

Actually. Based on the original video (the one where rice coldly dragged an obviously unconscious woman out of an elevator, combined with the fact there was never a denial or attempt at mitigating what happened by Rice; the video of the inside of the elevator is actually not nearly as bad as it could have been.

 

She slaps at him, he hits her, she lunges toward him and he knocks her out. This is obviously very very bad. But based on what we knew prior to the video, id say this video is almost better than what you'd expect to see. It could have been far more gruesome. So the nfl hiding behind only seeing the video now, and I think we are all naive to think that goodell's office won't e able to claim plausible deniability on viewing the tape, is extra [expletive]. They knew unequivocally he knocked her out in the elevator. I still don't understand why not seeing the tape absolves goodell from anything.

 

Goodell had long set himself up as the judge jury and executioner of the off-field conduct of nfl players. It's probably his most most public role. Tape or no tape he failed at his most public role, a role which he defined for himself. The NBA has billy hunter for this and not david stern. If the nfl had such a guy, then he could shield goodell but they don't. So I think tape or no tape the owners should fire goodell.

 

Goodell is probably too smart to publicly deny seeing the tape if there was any way to prove that he saw the tape. So it's kinda [expletive] that the goalposts are now "did he see the tape", and once he proves he didn't he "wins".

[WrigleyField 22]

I think the outcry against Goodell and specifically him stepping down is stronger post elevator video release.

 

I mean, obviously.

 

 

What are you trying to say?

Pointing out why someone might make the statement that there was NO outrage. They're creating a clear separation between the types of outcry because calling for rule changes is quite different than a change in leadership.

 

People weren't calling for a rule change, the rule change was the NFL's response to what happened, and it was scoffed at by many.

 

the only reason somebody might make the statement that there was no outrage pre-video was that they weren't paying attention.

Honestly I didn't pay super close attention before but people generally wanted a stricter punishment. While that doesn't necessarily mean a set of rules like the NFL put into place they have the same general result- longer suspension. And now suspension times really aren't the focus- Goodell specifically has become the focus.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jersey cubs fan]

Actually. Based on the original video (the one where rice coldly dragged an obviously unconscious woman out of an elevator, combined with the fact there was never a denial or attempt at mitigating what happened by Rice; the video of the inside of the elevator is actually not nearly as bad as it could have been.

 

She slaps at him, he hits her, she lunges toward him and he knocks her out. This is obviously very very bad. But based on what we knew prior to the video, id say this video is almost better than what you'd expect to see. It could have been far more gruesome. So the nfl hiding behind only seeing the video now, and I think we are all naive to think that goodell's office won't e able to claim plausible deniability on viewing the tape, is extra [expletive]. They knew unequivocally he knocked her out in the elevator. I still don't understand why not seeing the tape absolves goodell from anything.

 

Goodell had long set himself up as the judge jury and executioner of the off-field conduct of nfl players. It's probably his most most public role. Tape or no tape he failed at his most public role, a role which he defined for himself. The NBA has billy hunter for this and not david stern. If the nfl had such a guy, then he could shield goodell but they don't. So I think tape or no tape the owners should fire goodell.

 

Goodell is probably too smart to publicly deny seeing the tape if there was any way to prove that he saw the tape. So it's kinda [expletive] that the goalposts are now "did he see the tape", and once he proves he didn't he "wins".

 

It's not about whether or not Goodel saw it. It's whether or not any NFL employee saw it plus the fact that they absolutely had the opportunity to see it and already liked about their inability to see it. There are no goalposts here.

[UK1679666180]

The issues I have with the NFL:

 

2 game suspension after they knew Rice had knocked her out.

Using prior instances of Rice and charities factoring in the current event as far as a smaller suspension.

After public outcry, changing it to a 6 game suspension.

Lying about not viewing the tape.

Trying to cover it up. They knew what happened and got caught.

Having his battered wife interviewed w/the abuser right next to her.

Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald still playing.

Instigating a public response of the fiancé apologizing for the actions of a violent criminal.

Edited September 11, 2014 by UK

[WrigleyField 22]

The issues I have with the NFL:

 

2 game suspension after they knew Rice had knocked her out.

Using prior instances of Rice and charities factoring in the current event as far as a smaller suspension.

After public outcry, changing it to a 6 game suspension.

Lying about not viewing the tape.

Trying to cover it up. They knew what happened and got caught.

Having his battered interviewed wthe abuser right next to her.

I wasn't aware of the second point. Point three I don't understand. Your upset they responded to public opinion ?(well not so much for Rice but future instances)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ryne Ween]

Actually. Based on the original video (the one where rice coldly dragged an obviously unconscious woman out of an elevator, combined with the fact there was never a denial or attempt at mitigating what happened by Rice; the video of the inside of the elevator is actually not nearly as bad as it could have been.

 

She slaps at him, he hits her, she lunges toward him and he knocks her out. This is obviously very very bad. But based on what we knew prior to the video, id say this video is almost better than what you'd expect to see. It could have been far more gruesome. So the nfl hiding behind only seeing the video now, and I think we are all naive to think that goodell's office won't e able to claim plausible deniability on viewing the tape, is extra [expletive]. They knew unequivocally he knocked her out in the elevator. I still don't understand why not seeing the tape absolves goodell from anything.

 

Goodell had long set himself up as the judge jury and executioner of the off-field conduct of nfl players. It's probably his most most public role. Tape or no tape he failed at his most public role, a role which he defined for himself. The NBA has billy hunter for this and not david stern. If the nfl had such a guy, then he could shield goodell but they don't. So I think tape or no tape the owners should fire goodell.

 

Goodell is probably too smart to publicly deny seeing the tape if there was any way to prove that he saw the tape. So it's kinda [expletive] that the goalposts are now "did he see the tape", and once he proves he didn't he "wins".

 

It's not about whether or not Goodel saw it. It's whether or not any NFL employee saw it plus the fact that they absolutely had the opportunity to see it and already liked about their inability to see it. There are no goalposts here.

 

 

Let's just assume for a second that they are able to prove without any doubt that they didn't see it and that they made a genuine attempt to see it. We both agree that's very unlikely, but suspend your disbelief. In that scenario, Goodell is absolved of nearly all the criticism currently waged against him. That's what I mean by the goal posts moving.

[WrigleyField 22]

Actually. Based on the original video (the one where rice coldly dragged an obviously unconscious woman out of an elevator, combined with the fact there was never a denial or attempt at mitigating what happened by Rice; the video of the inside of the elevator is actually not nearly as bad as it could have been.

 

She slaps at him, he hits her, she lunges toward him and he knocks her out. This is obviously very very bad. But based on what we knew prior to the video, id say this video is almost better than what you'd expect to see. It could have been far more gruesome. So the nfl hiding behind only seeing the video now, and I think we are all naive to think that goodell's office won't e able to claim plausible deniability on viewing the tape, is extra [expletive]. They knew unequivocally he knocked her out in the elevator. I still don't understand why not seeing the tape absolves goodell from anything.

 

Goodell had long set himself up as the judge jury and executioner of the off-field conduct of nfl players. It's probably his most most public role. Tape or no tape he failed at his most public role, a role which he defined for himself. The NBA has billy hunter for this and not david stern. If the nfl had such a guy, then he could shield goodell but they don't. So I think tape or no tape the owners should fire goodell.

 

Goodell is probably too smart to publicly deny seeing the tape if there was any way to prove that he saw the tape. So it's kinda [expletive] that the goalposts are now "did he see the tape", and once he proves he didn't he "wins".

 

It's not about whether or not Goodel saw it. It's whether or not any NFL employee saw it plus the fact that they absolutely had the opportunity to see it and already liked about their inability to see it. There are no goalposts here.

So the video does matter?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WrigleyField 22]

Actually. Based on the original video (the one where rice coldly dragged an obviously unconscious woman out of an elevator, combined with the fact there was never a denial or attempt at mitigating what happened by Rice; the video of the inside of the elevator is actually not nearly as bad as it could have been.

 

She slaps at him, he hits her, she lunges toward him and he knocks her out. This is obviously very very bad. But based on what we knew prior to the video, id say this video is almost better than what you'd expect to see. It could have been far more gruesome. So the nfl hiding behind only seeing the video now, and I think we are all naive to think that goodell's office won't e able to claim plausible deniability on viewing the tape, is extra [expletive]. They knew unequivocally he knocked her out in the elevator. I still don't understand why not seeing the tape absolves goodell from anything.

 

Goodell had long set himself up as the judge jury and executioner of the off-field conduct of nfl players. It's probably his most most public role. Tape or no tape he failed at his most public role, a role which he defined for himself. The NBA has billy hunter for this and not david stern. If the nfl had such a guy, then he could shield goodell but they don't. So I think tape or no tape the owners should fire goodell.

 

Goodell is probably too smart to publicly deny seeing the tape if there was any way to prove that he saw the tape. So it's kinda [expletive] that the goalposts are now "did he see the tape", and once he proves he didn't he "wins".

 

It's not about whether or not Goodel saw it. It's whether or not any NFL employee saw it plus the fact that they absolutely had the opportunity to see it and already liked about their inability to see it. There are no goalposts here.

 

 

Let's just assume for a second that they are able to prove without any doubt that they didn't see it and that they made a genuine attempt to see it. We both agree that's very unlikely, but suspend your disbelief. In that scenario, Goodell is absolved of nearly all the criticism currently waged against him. That's what I mean by the goal posts moving.

No he isn't, he still went too light on the initial punishment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jersey cubs fan]

Having his battered interviewed wthe abuser right next to her.

 

That was disgusting. But I think that was more Baltimore specific, especially the tone deaf tweets they sent out at the time.

[UK1679666180]

The issues I have with the NFL:

 

2 game suspension after they knew Rice had knocked her out.

Using prior instances of Rice and charities factoring in the current event as far as a smaller suspension.

After public outcry, changing it to a 6 game suspension.

Lying about not viewing the tape.

Trying to cover it up. They knew what happened and got caught.

Having his battered interviewed wthe abuser right next to her.

I wasn't aware of the second point. Point three I don't understand. Your upset they responded to public opinion ?(well not so much for Rice but future instances)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

When it takes public outcry rather than common sense/morals to create a tougher punishment. When you suspend players 4 games for weed and only two games for knocking out a woman and dragging her around, it shouldn't take people bitching about it to change that. It's a flawed and disgusting logic. They wanted to take a tough stance on illegal drugs and wanted to take a sweep it under rug approach to domestic violence.

[WrigleyField 22]

The issues I have with the NFL:

 

2 game suspension after they knew Rice had knocked her out.

Using prior instances of Rice and charities factoring in the current event as far as a smaller suspension.

After public outcry, changing it to a 6 game suspension.

Lying about not viewing the tape.

Trying to cover it up. They knew what happened and got caught.

Having his battered interviewed wthe abuser right next to her.

I wasn't aware of the second point. Point three I don't understand. Your upset they responded to public opinion ?(well not so much for Rice but future instances)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

When it takes public outcry rather than common sense/morals to create a tougher punishment. When you suspend players 4 games for weed and only two games for knocking out a woman and dragging her around, it shouldn't take people bitching about it to change that.

Of course the previous conditions were bad, but I can't really list trying to improve that in my negatives column. I mean it's not like this is the first ever domestic abuse case with an NFL player. It seems like your just repeating issue one, which I'd agree with.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UK1679666180]

Having his battered interviewed wthe abuser right next to her.

 

That was disgusting. But I think that was more Baltimore specific, especially the tone deaf tweets they sent out at the time.

 

They met at the NFL Hdqrts, Balt. might have coordinated it but Goodell should've stopped it based on the stupidity of it. They didn't want this to what it has become and knew she wasn't going to say anything too damning with him next to her.

[sneakypower]

Clay Travis is just the [expletive] worst:

posts like these mystify me

 

"i hate this guy, i won't specify why, so reward him with clicks!"

[Ryne Ween]

I think that somebody powerful in the media needs to turn the lens to the owners and not just Baltimore's owners. Goodell is not as powerful as jerry jones or Paul Allen or Dan Rooney or Robert Kraft. Goodell only exists by the good graces of the owners and they could have instructed goodell to drop the hammer on rice or hardy or anybody else. They obviously didn't. They are the people most invested in denying the science of head injuries not goodell. He's is just their creature and when he's used up they will get another just like him.

[UK1679666180]

The issues I have with the NFL:

 

2 game suspension after they knew Rice had knocked her out.

Using prior instances of Rice and charities factoring in the current event as far as a smaller suspension.

After public outcry, changing it to a 6 game suspension.

Lying about not viewing the tape.

Trying to cover it up. They knew what happened and got caught.

Having his battered interviewed wthe abuser right next to her.

I wasn't aware of the second point. Point three I don't understand. Your upset they responded to public opinion ?(well not so much for Rice but future instances)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

When it takes public outcry rather than common sense/morals to create a tougher punishment. When you suspend players 4 games for weed and only two games for knocking out a woman and dragging her around, it shouldn't take people bitching about it to change that.

Of course the previous conditions were bad, but I can't really list trying to improve that in my negatives column. I mean it's not like this is the first ever domestic abuse case with an NFL player. It seems like your just repeating issue one, which I'd agree with.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It shows they care about their image rather than the victims of domestic violence.

[Formerly Snayke]

Clay Travis is just the [expletive] worst:

posts like these mystify me

 

"i hate this guy, i won't specify why, so reward him with clicks!"

 

Sometimes venting is worth the additional 40 cents Clay Travis might make off a column.

[UK1679666180]

I think that somebody powerful in the media needs to turn the lens to the owners and not just Baltimore's owners. Goodell is not as powerful as jerry jones or Paul Allen or Dan Rooney or Robert Kraft. Goodell only exists by the good graces of the owners and they could have instructed goodell to drop the hammer on rice or hardy or anybody else. They obviously didn't. They are the people most invested in denying the science of head injuries not goodell. He's is just their creature and when he's used up they will get another just like him.

 

And do what after you look at the owners?

 

They're paying him 30+ mil a year to handle issues like this. They shouldn't have to instruct him to suspend him further that's his job, they're not babysitters for Goodell. They pay him all that money to keep their hands clean from this.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't get what all the mini-Kyles are after with halfway contrarian pseudo devil's advocate posts about the problem with the collective reaction to this issue.

 

Let Kyle pay the Kyle tax, Homer pays the Homer tax.

[Ryne Ween]

I think that somebody powerful in the media needs to turn the lens to the owners and not just Baltimore's owners. Goodell is not as powerful as jerry jones or Paul Allen or Dan Rooney or Robert Kraft. Goodell only exists by the good graces of the owners and they could have instructed goodell to drop the hammer on rice or hardy or anybody else. They obviously didn't. They are the people most invested in denying the science of head injuries not goodell. He's is just their creature and when he's used up they will get another just like him.

 

And do what after you look at the owners?

 

They're paying him 30+ mil a year to handle issues like this. They shouldn't have to instruct him to suspend him further that's his job, they're not babysitters for Goodell. They pay him all that money to keep their hands clean from this.

 

Um ok. So if I ever own a massive hugely profitable business exempt from us antitrust law that also benefits greatly from state and local land and tax deals and questionable accounting principals; as long as I pay an unlikeable guy a lot of money I'm exempt from criticism.