- Messages
- 16,807
- Reaction score
- 5,197
Current players don't give a crap about future players. It is and always has been about the current players and what benefits them.
NFL tells NFLPA have players interview or else
- Thread starter GBP4EVER
- Start date
Current players don't give a crap about future players. It is and always has been about the current players and what benefits them.
- Messages
- 6,932
- Reaction score
- 5,731
LOL - You're right! They do start to yap. I have a hunch that's kind of what's happened here. There's a lot of information out there that was probably gathered by the league and they intend to ask these players if the statements are true, or false.
If people didn't yap, you'd rarely solve a crime. You need information and from that information, you gather evidence. But, along the way, before you do too much investigation, you need to talk to those implicated, to give them a chance to clear their name, before you dig into every aspect of their life.
Put yourself in this position. A guy walks into a police station and says he heard through the grapevine that you've become a drug dealer. He doesn't know who it was who said it. He overheard a comment made by someone in a bar. He thought he should tell the police about it.
Before you launch a full scale investigation, you need to talk to the person who was accused of the crime. You don't start an investigation that taints their reputation. The moment you begin the investigation, word spreads like wildfire that you're being "investigated" for a crime you committed. Notice, I said committed? People think that way. Guilty until innocent. But, if you're a Packer fan, you think the opposite for your guys. It's a natural human reaction. I want to believe they're innocent, and want to say they shouldn't step forward. But, in reality, I know that not doing so brands them as potentially guilty.
Do I think the League has too much power? No. Do I think the Commish does? Yes. I think there should be an impartial panel of three or five jurists who make judgment as to what should and should not be pursued. Then, I think that same panel should decide the penalty. The problem is, neither side will agree, unless they "appoint" the members. They both want it loaded in their favor.
If people didn't yap, you'd rarely solve a crime. You need information and from that information, you gather evidence. But, along the way, before you do too much investigation, you need to talk to those implicated, to give them a chance to clear their name, before you dig into every aspect of their life.
Put yourself in this position. A guy walks into a police station and says he heard through the grapevine that you've become a drug dealer. He doesn't know who it was who said it. He overheard a comment made by someone in a bar. He thought he should tell the police about it.
Before you launch a full scale investigation, you need to talk to the person who was accused of the crime. You don't start an investigation that taints their reputation. The moment you begin the investigation, word spreads like wildfire that you're being "investigated" for a crime you committed. Notice, I said committed? People think that way. Guilty until innocent. But, if you're a Packer fan, you think the opposite for your guys. It's a natural human reaction. I want to believe they're innocent, and want to say they shouldn't step forward. But, in reality, I know that not doing so brands them as potentially guilty.
Do I think the League has too much power? No. Do I think the Commish does? Yes. I think there should be an impartial panel of three or five jurists who make judgment as to what should and should not be pursued. Then, I think that same panel should decide the penalty. The problem is, neither side will agree, unless they "appoint" the members. They both want it loaded in their favor.
- Messages
- 5,821
- Reaction score
- 9,410
Its a solid point when talking about the players agreeing to this. In 2011 when the CBA was done they didn't really have reason to suspect the league office would continue to push the boundaries. My guess is Roger always wanted to be this way and public outrage over Ray Rice initial punishment galvanized in NFLs mind that they could and should go much harder after players on discipline. Then Brady comes along and I'm sure some owners were happy to see the Pats squirm after all the spygate stuff so they were all for it when Roger went to the mattresses over it. Courts affirm in Brady and Peterson cases the leagues right to basically do whatever they want to players for whatever reason under the broad "conduct detrimental" clause of the CBA, and instead of acknowledging the victory and staying the course, Goodell is wielding that power like a club to beat up any intransigent players who don't immedietely submit to authority.
IMO maybe the courts determined that what the league is doing is legal, but this path they're on is more 'conduct detrimental' than anything any player has done.
- Messages
- 1,175
- Reaction score
- 567
Damn, That's a big word and I had to look it up.
- Messages
- 6,932
- Reaction score
- 5,731
No matter what you do there will be people on both sides of this issue. The question is, where do you draw the line on what constitutes violations of rules, and what code of conduct is and isn't acceptable within the league.
For openers, the players are employees. As employees of an extremely large business venture, they come to work in that environment on a voluntary basis. They are awarded quite handsomely for doing so. Regardless of what players seem to believe, the league itself comes ahead of the players when it comes to issues that detrimentally affect the image of the employers.
The NFLPA is not a union that cooperates with management. They are a union that takes definitive stands against decisions made by management because they believe that's their job. Of course they are right. It's already part of the problem on both sides. Neither side will give an inch in fear of looking weak.
The players have the right to have a union representative/attorney present at their interviews, and they are not obliged to answer any questions that they feel will point to them having violated the rules intentionally, or unintentionally. They may consult with this representative immediately, after the question is asked, to determine whether or not it's wise for them to answer the question for any reason whatsoever.
Now that the players have decided they will allow the interviews, we should see this issue put to bed quickly. If any of them are suspended, it's because of what they did, not because they were interviewed.
I've never believed in that old BS adage that; "It's not committing a crime that matters. It's getting caught committing a crime that counts." We should try to live above that level.
For openers, the players are employees. As employees of an extremely large business venture, they come to work in that environment on a voluntary basis. They are awarded quite handsomely for doing so. Regardless of what players seem to believe, the league itself comes ahead of the players when it comes to issues that detrimentally affect the image of the employers.
The NFLPA is not a union that cooperates with management. They are a union that takes definitive stands against decisions made by management because they believe that's their job. Of course they are right. It's already part of the problem on both sides. Neither side will give an inch in fear of looking weak.
The players have the right to have a union representative/attorney present at their interviews, and they are not obliged to answer any questions that they feel will point to them having violated the rules intentionally, or unintentionally. They may consult with this representative immediately, after the question is asked, to determine whether or not it's wise for them to answer the question for any reason whatsoever.
Now that the players have decided they will allow the interviews, we should see this issue put to bed quickly. If any of them are suspended, it's because of what they did, not because they were interviewed.
I've never believed in that old BS adage that; "It's not committing a crime that matters. It's getting caught committing a crime that counts." We should try to live above that level.
- Messages
- 1,123
- Reaction score
- 789
There is no reason to believe the interviews would be reported accurately. Roger has a history of making it up to fit his image.
Harrison has the right idea.
Interesting read.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...r-a-televised-interview-actually-makes-sense/
Harrison has the right idea.
Interesting read.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...r-a-televised-interview-actually-makes-sense/
Maybe it's the old adage: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
- Messages
- 16,807
- Reaction score
- 5,197
Players are not better a lot of the time they act like they did nothing wrong and it's just the league out to get them.
- Messages
- 1,175
- Reaction score
- 567
I agree wholeheartedly. I have no problem taping it but broadcasting it live is a huge mistake. Air it if the outcome doesn't fit the interview.