Hardy Suspended First 10 Games

[kidhawk]

Here is my problem with it.

I understand the message they wanted to send and I don't disagree with that. I do disagree with ignoring the time on the exemption list. They have to figure out how to penalize financially for the time on the exemption list and then count them as suspended games

What they are doing now will de-incentivice teams from putting players on the exempt list. The league should have given a suspension equal to the number of games they want him out. If that number was 25 then they should have fined him equal to the salary of the 15 games last year plus suspend him for 10 games this year. If the actual number of suspension would have been 10 they should have only fined him and given him credit for time served

The issue now is when a future player gets in trouble. The team knows that the player will get a suspension later regardless of what they do now. So they are better off keeping the guy on the field. The option is paying him and not getting his service and in addition he gets a suspension later

I think this is where the misconception lies. Teams cannot put players on the exempt list. This is a power that lies solely with the Commissioner. It was designed to cover special circumstances, so teams wouldn't have to make a roster decision or possibly keep a player on the roster on not be able to play him.

Basically, all the exempt list does, is allow the player to not be taking up a space on the roster, so the team can carry a full roster of eligible players, and in the meantime, the player can take care of the issue at hand.

They'd never get it past the NFLPA to not pay them. The whole reason they are put on this list is because they have yet to have their investigation completed by the league.

 

[kidhawk]

The NFL is insane if they think his suspension with pay for 2014 counts for nothing, that suspension played a role in costing him tens of millions in guaranteed money in a long term deal.

No, the league did NOT cost him millions of dollars in guaranteed money Greg Hardy cost Greg Hardy millions of dollars. Of course he was paid a handsome sum of money to not play the game while he worked out his legal issues, so he has no room to complain.

 

[hawknation2015]

Also, why wait until now to reach a decision if they were just going to suspend him sans legal finding anyway? They could have had all this info last year, why not suspend him with no pay in 2014 for the final ten games? With as slow as the american justice system moves, it just makes more sense to evaluate cases without legal findings anyway. Or Roger could have him pay back 10 games worth of last year's salary and actually make it an unpaid suspension.

Zero tolerance is the silliest of things, to me. Not every DV incident is created equal. Why should the punishment be identical?

It isn't justice if it doesn't happen reasonably quickly. Nothing about this feels reasonably quick.

The new policy says that the NFL "will avoid any interference and may await the outcome of law enforcement proceedings before completing the NFL investigation." The charges were not dismissed against Hardy until after the season was completed. Had his conviction not been overturned due to the victim's disappearance in February, Hardy likely would have faced banishment from the NFL.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/pu ... 444539.pdf

Apparently, the DA did not release the photos of the victim's injuries to the NFL until this month . . . that also held up the process.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... rdy-trial/

 

[Sports Hernia]

I can't say I love this. Hardy gets what is effectively a 25 game suspension for charges that were DROPPED. I struggle to see this as anything other than it being even more Goodell ass covering. If he really cared, and if his investigation found something to justify this move, then why not just ban Hardy entirely?

This feels a lot less like justice and a lot more like a PR move. It sets a worrisome precedent as well.

Not surprisingly, Hardy is already appealing this. It will probably do him about as much good as AP's appeals did, of course.

I'm pretty sure he got suspended WITH pay last year. The NFL doesn't consider that a punishment.

Is Goodell covering his ass? Of course he is. ....but in this case I agree with Rog as much as it pains me to say that.

Justice is handled in the courts and IMO they failed badly. If this was you or I that did the things that Hardy did, we would have done prison time, but he had the money to make the victim "go away".

Is she a gold digger? More than likely, but that doesn't mean she deserves to get beat up.

If I were Goodell I would push for a zero tolerance policy when it comes to DV.
One strike and call it a NFL career.

Just my opinion of course.

The NFL is insane if they think his suspension with pay for 2014 counts for nothing, that suspension played a role in costing him tens of millions in guaranteed money in a long term deal. Also, why wait until now to reach a decision if they were just going to suspend him sans legal finding anyway? They could have had all this info last year, why not suspend him with no pay in 2014 for the final ten games? With as slow as the american justice system moves, it just makes more sense to evaluate cases without legal findings anyway. Or Roger could have him pay back 10 games worth of last year's salary and actually make it an unpaid suspension.

Zero tolerance is the silliest of things, to me. Not every DV incident is created equal. Why should the punishment be identical?

It isn't justice if it doesn't happen reasonably quickly. Nothing about this feels reasonably quick.

I see what you are saying and normally agree with your view on zero tolerance, but in the case of NFL players committing DV how do you police it if you want it stopped?

Dez Bryant assaulted his own mother and got zero punishment, Hardy gets 10 games, what is the proper punishment in your eyes? There is no doubt the commish and the NFL has screwed the pooch over this issue in the past.

 

[mikeak]

I think this is where the misconception lies. Teams cannot put players on the exempt list. This is a power that lies solely with the Commissioner. It was designed to cover special circumstances, so teams wouldn't have to make a roster decision or possibly keep a player on the roster on not be able to play him. .

The commissioner has that say but the teams were most definately involved in the decision

Even more to my point. Any team going forward will say it is up to the NFL and wash their hands. I would just go out there and say it is not our list Commish handles it

My argument still stands. A suspension should count games sat out while on the exempt list BUT they would need to cover the financial penalty as I fully understand that the player was paid while on the exempt list

 

[kidhawk]

I'm not going to feel one bit sorry for any punishment handed down by the league to players who abuse their wives/girlfriends. I do believe that there needs to be an investigation and evidence to determine the facts and not just a he said / she said, but when the facts prove the case, then I will never have a problem with them adding a suspension on after the exempt list. I won't be bothered if they get banned either. This game is a privilege for them to play, and if they squander it away I'm not going to feel sorry for them....just as I don't feel sorry for other guys who have squandered the game away due to whatever bad decisions they've decided to make.

 

[Sports Hernia]

I'm not going to feel one bit sorry for any punishment handed down by the league to players who abuse their wives/girlfriends. I do believe that there needs to be an investigation and evidence to determine the facts and not just a he said / she said, but when the facts prove the case, then I will never have a problem with them adding a suspension on after the exempt list. I won't be bothered if they get banned either. This game is a privilege for them to play, and if they squander it away I'm not going to feel sorry for them....just as I don't feel sorry for other guys who have squandered the game away due to whatever bad decisions they've decided to make.

This is my stance. Brandon Browner was suspended indefinitely at one time for pot use, and yet some are upset because Hardy gets a 10 game suspension.

It's time for the NFL and the NFL players association to get together and come up with a solution where they get their priorities in order. A pot use suspension should never be longer than a DV suspension.

 

[kearly]

For me this isn't about Hardy, it's about the system Goodell is using.

Imagine if Marshawn Lynch is arrested tomorrow and accused of a serious but somewhat spurious allegation. Then the next thing you know, Goodell forces Seattle to put Marshawn Lynch on the exempt list until the legal system resolves, which effectively bans Lynch all season. The next year, Lynch is acquitted. Goodell re-instates Lynch, without even so much as a "oops, sorry."

I imagine not too many Hawks fans would be thrilled about that kind of system if it was Lynch getting railroaded for no reason or in the case of guilt, being hit with double jeopardy like Hardy has. Sometimes it will work out, other times it will be a disaster.

 

[hawknation2015]

For me this isn't about Hardy, it's about the system Goodell is using.

Imagine if Marshawn Lynch is arrested tomorrow and accused of a serious but somewhat spurious allegation. Then the next thing you know, Goodell forces Seattle to put Marshawn Lynch on the exempt list until the legal system resolves, which effectively bans Lynch all season. The next year, Lynch is acquitted. Goodell re-instates Lynch, without even so much as a "oops, sorry."

I imagine not too many Hawks fans would be thrilled about that kind of system. Sometimes it will work out, other times it will be a disaster.

It all depends on the facts of the particular case. The facts of Hardy's abuse of his girlfriend were so damning that Carolina was eventually forced to put him on the exempt list . . . after initially attempting to play him. In your example, if the allegations against Lynch were spurious, then it is doubtful the Seahawks would agree to deactivate him.

 

[RolandDeschain]

This feels a lot less like justice and a lot more like a PR move.

League rules allow the NFL to do exactly that. They can punish at will for making the shield look bad regardless of what you're convicted of.

It's how universities still manage to get rid of tenured professors when something bad happens...Commonly referred to as a moral turpitude clause.

What's the problem, exactly? Players know they risk everything if they don't stay clean while they're in the NFL.

 

[Sports Hernia]

For me this isn't about Hardy, it's about the system Goodell is using.

Imagine if Marshawn Lynch is arrested tomorrow and accused of a serious but somewhat spurious allegation. Then the next thing you know, Goodell forces Seattle to put Marshawn Lynch on the exempt list until the legal system resolves, which effectively bans Lynch all season. The next year, Lynch is acquitted. Goodell re-instates Lynch, without even so much as a "oops, sorry."

I imagine not too many Hawks fans would be thrilled about that kind of system. Sometimes it will work out, other times it will be a disaster.

I agree. I think Rog has too much power and is too chummy with certain old guard owners.
There needs to be a better "checks and balances".

....but I think the Hardy case he got right for the most part. I would have been harsher though if I were in his shoes.

 

[kearly]

It all depends on the facts of the particular case. The facts of Hardy's abuse of his girlfriend were so damning that Carolina was eventually forced to put him on the exempt list . . . after initially attempting to play him. In your example, if the allegations against Lynch were spurious, then it is doubtful the Seahawks would agree to deactivate him.

I don't think Carolina was given much of an option by the NFL. The Vikings wanted to play AP, but the NFL intervened. If Goodell thinks a player is damaging the image of the league by playing, he will have him on that exempt list. In these two cases, I kind of understand what Goodell was doing. His hand was forced, and I don't hold that against him. I do think he should probably factor those games into the punishment in some way.

Moreover, I'm very uncomfortable with suspending players before the facts are all in. It's entirely possible that a case could look really bad initially, only to be proven innocent later. Cases such as the Duke Lacrosse team or the UVA frat house accused of gang rape. A substantial percentage of domestic violence is often falsely reported as well.

Now, in the case of Ray Rice and AP there was a smoking gun. But the case with Hardy with a bit more "he said, she said." Which makes me uncomfortable with the precedent, even though I think Hardy is probably guilty.

 

[hawknation2015]

It all depends on the facts of the particular case. The facts of Hardy's abuse of his girlfriend were so damning that Carolina was eventually forced to put him on the exempt list . . . after initially attempting to play him. In your example, if the allegations against Lynch were spurious, then it is doubtful the Seahawks would agree to deactivate him.

I don't think Carolina was given much of an option by the NFL. The Vikings wanted to play AP, but the NFL intervened.

It's entirely possible that a case could look really bad initially, only to be proven innocent later. Cases such as the Duke Lacrosse team or the UVA frat house accused of gang rape.

That's always a risk. In the Duke case, it only took a few weeks to determine that none of the players' DNA matched. No one was ever formally accused in the UVA case because the supposed rapist did not actually exist. Studies show that false accusations occur in only 8% of rape accusations.

Every business has to do their own cost-benefit analysis when determining whether to put an accused employee on paid administrative leave pending the adjudication of a serious allegation. The NFL has determined that paying a player and preventing him from playing, while you determine the facts of a serious allegation, is better for public relations than playing a player while he is being prosecuted for a serious allegation.

 

[mikeak]

I'm not going to feel one bit sorry for any punishment handed down by the league to players who abuse their wives/girlfriends. I do believe that there needs to be an investigation and evidence to determine the facts and not just a he said / she said, but when the facts prove the case, then I will never have a problem with them adding a suspension on after the exempt list. I won't be bothered if they get banned either. This game is a privilege for them to play, and if they squander it away I'm not going to feel sorry for them....just as I don't feel sorry for other guys who have squandered the game away due to whatever bad decisions they've decided to make.

1) I didn't say I felt sorry for him

2) It is about transparency and doing the right thing. If Godell had given him a 25 game suspension executed with 15 game fine for time served and 10 games future then I would have ZERO issue with it.

My issue is putting someone on exemption list for unknown period of time - what if this took 1-2 years in legal process??? Then adding to that. They need to account for time spent not playing that is all I am saying.

 

[kidhawk]

I'm not going to feel one bit sorry for any punishment handed down by the league to players who abuse their wives/girlfriends. I do believe that there needs to be an investigation and evidence to determine the facts and not just a he said / she said, but when the facts prove the case, then I will never have a problem with them adding a suspension on after the exempt list. I won't be bothered if they get banned either. This game is a privilege for them to play, and if they squander it away I'm not going to feel sorry for them....just as I don't feel sorry for other guys who have squandered the game away due to whatever bad decisions they've decided to make.

1) I didn't say I felt sorry for him

2) It is about transparency and doing the right thing. If Godell had given him a 25 game suspension executed with 15 game fine for time served and 10 games future then I would have ZERO issue with it.

My issue is putting someone on exemption list for unknown period of time - what if this took 1-2 years in legal process??? Then adding to that. They need to account for time spent not playing that is all I am saying.

How is it Goodell's fault that Hardy had to take so long to get through the legal troubles he made for himself?

Goodell has zero control over that process. The fact that he put him on the exempt list, allows the man to basically take a year off of work paid while he's working on his legal troubles.

Tell me, if you hit your wife and got arrested, would your boss give you a year off with pay to resolve your issues? It's pretty unlikely.

If anything Hardy should feel grateful for the time he was given to take care of this issue while still collecting a rather sizeable paycheck. In fact, I believe his paycheck for last year was over $13 million. Considerably more than he's going to lose by having this 10 game suspension.

 

[rideaducati]

I can't say I love this. Hardy gets what is effectively a 25 game suspension for charges that were DROPPED. I struggle to see this as anything other than it being even more Goodell ass covering. If he really cared, and if his investigation found something to justify this move, then why not just ban Hardy entirely?

This feels a lot less like justice and a lot more like a PR move. It sets a worrisome precedent as well.

Not surprisingly, Hardy is already appealing this. It will probably do him about as much good as AP's appeals did, of course.

Goodell is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Goodell suspends a player that gets off in court, he has no grounds to do so. Goodell suspends a player found guilty in court, he's being too harsh because the player has already paid the price of his wrongdoing. Goodell doesn't suspend a player that got away with something through the courts and people go nuts because Goodell shouldn't allow such injustices to go without punishment. What ever Goodell does, it's HIS fault.

It's time to actually punish some of these guys, even though they slip through the justice system unscathed.

I like it that SOMEONE is FINALLY holding these players accountable for their actions. The justice system has certainly shown that they sure as hell won't be the ones to do it.