NFL is nuts

[nikkistevej]

I have mixed feelings about this. I do believe the Ravens were within their rights to terminate RR for breach of contract but I don't get the NFL indefinite ban. Didn't they just announce a new policy that first time offenders would get a 6-game suspension and a subsequent offender would be banned? If that is the policy, why aren't they actually following it? It seems as though the NFL/Goodell is just reacting to public outcry after seeing the video.

Goodell is covering his @ss because he messed up big time in the first suspension he levied and he knows it.

I am a huge NFL fan (obviously) but I am also firmly against domestic violence but I don't know that he should have had his job taken away etc...How does that help? You are isolating them both and publicly shaming them and that, to me, is a recipe for disaster. LONG suspension? Yes. mandatory counseling and monitoring etc...yes. This is the first "known" incident, and people can learn and grow. If it happens again, and they have the rules in place for it, you're out.

I agree with both, I feel like he could have been suspended even for a year from the NFL, and then he can try to get back in. I mean make him do lots of counseling, heck, her too. I do think it's worse because it's on tape, I mean most domestic violence cases within the NFL and "normal people" are not taped, they are the woman(or man) calling the police and saying their significant other hit them, and they have bruises, etc. So technically they could be lying, BUT there was no denying that punch. As I said on the thread earlier, I am a huge Ravens fan, myself, DH and DD all have Ray Rice jerseys and always said he was our favorite(so did most of Baltimore), we loved him , but now can't deal with what he did to his wife, however if he got counseling(rehabilitated, etc, maybe he could play again for another team.

 

[Heidict]

The fact that people are comparing the pathetic "hit" that she gave him to the left hook her gave her is disgusting. They are no where near close and to say that he had a right to hit her back says a lot about the people that are excusing it.

 

[LBIJim]

I agree with both, I feel like he could have been suspended even for a year from the NFL, and then he can try to get back in. I mean make him do lots of counseling, heck, her too. I do think it's worse because it's on tape, I mean most domestic violence cases within the NFL and "normal people" are not taped, they are the woman(or man) calling the police and saying their significant other hit them, and they have bruises, etc. So technically they could be lying, BUT there was no denying that punch. As I said on the thread earlier, I am a huge Ravens fan, myself, DH and DD all have Ray Rice jerseys and always said he was our favorite(so did most of Baltimore), we loved him , but now can't deal with what he did to his wife, however if he got counseling(rehabilitated, etc, maybe he could play again for another team.

Didn't Goodell say the suspension was "indefinite'" not "permanent"? Yes, Goodell originally messed up big time and knows it. I suppose the indefinite suspension is until he figures out how to proceed. Ray Rice may very well be cleared to play again in the future. Maybe by mid-season, maybe next season, maybe never. The question is if any team would want to be associated with him.

As for Goodell and the Ravens not seeing the whole video until it surfaced the other day, I believe that. But I further believe that they preferred NOT to see it and hoped no one else would see it either. Just wanted the whole thing swept under the rug before it became too much of an embarassment for the NFL.

 

[nikkistevej]

Didn't Goodell say the suspension was "indefinite'" not "permanent"? Yes, Goodell originally messed up big time and knows it. I suppose the indefinite suspension is until he figures out how to proceed. Ray Rice may very well be cleared to play again in the future. Maybe by mid-season, maybe next season, maybe never. The question is if any team would want to be associated with him.

As for Goodell and the Ravens not seeing the whole video until it surfaced the other day, I believe that. But I further believe that they preferred NOT to see it and hoped no one else would see it either. Just wanted the whole thing swept under the rug before it became too much of an embarassment for the NFL.

He did say "indefinite", but who knows what will happen like you said mid season, next season possibly. That's what I am wondering, what team will have him? I don't think that the Ravens would, they might though. I mean they have other players that have done plenty of stuff too.
I also feel like Goodell should have punished the crime more appropriately the first time definitely.

 

[luvsJack]

The fact that people are comparing the pathetic "hit" that she gave him to the left hook her gave her is disgusting. They are no where near close and to say that he had a right to hit her back says a lot about the people that are excusing it.

I don't think anyone said he had the right to hit her back or that it was ok. Just that everyone is assuming him hitting her the one time means he is abusive. It may have been one fight that got out of hand or it could be a pattern of him abusing her or it could be the one time he got enough of her abuse.

 

[jrmasm]

I don't think anyone said he had the right to hit her back or that it was ok. Just that everyone is assuming him hitting her the one time means he is abusive. It may have been one fight that got out of hand or it could be a pattern of him abusing her or it could be the one time he got enough of her abuse.

Oh yeah, it's ok if he only her that one time.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Okay so ban these SOB's as well

I don't know about the others, but Ray McDonald's punishment has to wait after the judicial system has finished its process.

 

[luvsJack]

Oh yeah, it's ok if he only her that one time.

Oh good grief. That is not what I meant. Just that one time does not make a pattern.

There is a world of difference in saying "it may have been a one time incident" and saying "its ok because it was only one time."

 

[Heidict]

I don't think anyone said he had the right to hit her back or that it was ok. Just that everyone is assuming him hitting her the one time means he is abusive. It may have been one fight that got out of hand or it could be a pattern of him abusing her or it could be the one time he got enough of her abuse.

I was referring to this

And with my flame suit on...not this incident in particular but if I were to attack someone, man or woman, I would fully expect to be hit back in retialiation. I don't believe that a man should NEVER hit a woman. (I don't think anyone should hit anyone and that doesn't apply to one genger more than the other if someone is hitting them.) Never is pretty concrete and there are exceptions.

and a couple people agreed. It is NEVER okay for a man to hit a woman, or for a woman to hit a man for that matter.

 

[jrmasm]

Oh good grief. That is not what I meant. Just that one time does not make a pattern.

There is a world of difference in saying "it may have been a one time incident" and saying "its ok because it was only one time."

So what if it does or does not make a pattern? He hit her hard enough to knock her out. That is abuse! He is an abuser.

And don't kid youself that this is an isolated incident. No one goes from zero to knocking their fiance out without escalation.

 

[Heidict]

Seriously? Now Congress is getting involved? Writing a letter to the Commissioner. Don't they have more important things to worry about?

 

[luvsJack]

So what if it does or does not make a pattern? He hit her hard enough to knock her out. That is abuse! He is an abuser.

And don't kid youself that this is an isolated incident. No one goes from zero to knocking their fiance out without escalation.

They can. In a drunken state and pushed past the point of anger, a person can strike out. That's why there are so many bar room fights and sometimes its people that wouldn't think of hitting someone while sober.

Is that the case with this guy? I have no idea. And he was wrong either way.

His being wrong doesn't automatically make her a victim though.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I don't think anyone said he had the right to hit her back or that it was ok. Just that everyone is assuming him hitting her the one time means he is abusive. It may have been one fight that got out of hand or it could be a pattern of him abusing her or it could be the one time he got enough of her abuse.

Hitting her that time means he is an abuser.

 

[wvjules]

Hitting her that time means he is an abuser.

So you are saying they are both abusers?

 

[kkandaj]

Hitting her that time means he is an abuser.

So what if it does or does not make a pattern? He hit her hard enough to knock her out. That is abuse! He is an abuser.

And don't kid youself that this is an isolated incident. No one goes from zero to knocking their fiance out without escalation.

Don't hold your breath trying to persuade anyone. I had this same type of conversation on another thread yesterday and was told there is always a "black, white, grey" area and to look at it from ALL angles.

 

[tinatark]

Does anyone else question TMZ's motives for their role in all of this? This happened in February - has worked through the court system - and NOW it's front and center?

Do they have an issue with the NFL? Just want more attention - yearning for prestige as a company of real journalists? Now TMZ is being quoted on/by major news sources. I think their value just went up.

 

[Colleen27]

Does anyone else question TMZ's motives for their role in all of this? This happened in February - has worked through the court system - and NOW it's front and center?

Do they have an issue with the NFL? Just want more attention - yearning for prestige as a company of real journalists? Now TMZ is being quoted on/by major news sources. I think their value just went up.

What's to question? They're a media outlet, they're in it for the ratings. They got a hold of a video even more sensational than what they originally released while the controversy about the NFL's domestic violent policy was still fresh. Of course they would run with it!

 

[Colleen27]

I was referring to this


and a couple people agreed. It is NEVER okay for a man to hit a woman, or for a woman to hit a man for that matter.

Oh, I think there are occasions where it is okay. An unarmed 100lb woman striking a 215lb athlete isn't one of them, though. If she'd been coming at him with a knife or a bat, sure. Sometimes turning and walking away just won't work and stopping a threat to your well being is an immediate concern that might override calm thinking. But absolutely nothing about this case suggests anything of that sort.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Does anyone else question TMZ's motives for their role in all of this? This happened in February - has worked through the court system - and NOW it's front and center?

Do they have an issue with the NFL? Just want more attention - yearning for prestige as a company of real journalists? Now TMZ is being quoted on/by major news sources. I think their value just went up.

Same question can be asked of any outlet or individual that has video of something that could be scandalous but it is released long after the incident.

Ratings boost.

 

[low-key]

I want to know why didnt the court system, the nfl and the Ravens look into this, why were they all trying to cover for this guy, I could see why the Ravens might but the other two are confusing